NationStates Jolt Archive

The Financial Times just started a series of that title on its website. The proposition is the following:
The credit crunch has destroyed faith in the free market ideology that has dominated Western economic thinking for a generation. But what can – and should – replace it? Over the coming weeks we will conduct a wide-ranging debate on this dominant political issue of the day.
Furthermore, a little bit of a debate is popping up on businessspectator.com:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-end-of-economic-growth-$pd20090312-Q36TV?OpenDocument
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Capitalism-will-renew-itself-$pd20090313-Q3RDD?OpenDocument&src=sph

So there's lots of talking, repeating really, hoping that now the context will make the arguments sound better, of the end of capitalism as we know it. The alternatives vary as much as the people proposing them.

But where do you stand? Is this crisis something as fundamental as some of these authors claim? Is there any merit in trying to link together the fear of global climate change with the fear of the financial crisis? And is it possible (in the real world in the next 10-20 years) to build an alternative to capitalism without simply resorting to more taxes (which wouldn't really be a change of values of the kind argued for here (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f6e2d5c-0e76-11de-b099-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ae1104cc-f82e-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) for example).

Furthermore, is this the rise of new, "radical" political opinions and movements as we saw during the Great Depression, or much more harmless than that?

i think that the financial sector is in a panic because their money is gone and they have no idea how to make a legitmate buck (one that is not part of a bubble)

i think that they will have to go back to making money one dollar at a time by wise investing and customer service.

like they used to.

I find it funny how people can have their faith in free market destroyed, when they don't even practice free market. How can you expect something to work when you corrupt and pervert it with regulations and controls? I mean sure, keep checks on industry to protect the environment, because we all need the earth, but stay the hell out otherwise. Look at the auto industries! They should just go bankrupt, and the owners can restart companies with workers who aren't unionized, allowing them to pay lower wages(but wages none the less, or would you rather not work at all?) and PRODUCE goods for PROFIT.

No. People will bitch and whine at whats happened, but the neo-liberal model has yet to lose its hegemony. People still trot out neo-liberal ideology as if it were common sense and not to be debated. People aren't yet ready for radical solutions to the boom and bust nature of neoliberal capitalism, such as a global social democratic state properly capable of regulating the actions of finance and industry in an equitable manner and permitting slow but sustainable economic growth for all. That probably won't happen until climate change destroys current institutions and opens a space for the discussion of radical alternatives.

I find it funny how people can have their faith in free market destroyed, when they don't even practice free market. How can you expect something to work when you corrupt and pervert it with regulations and controls? I mean sure, keep checks on industry to protect the environment, because we all need the earth, but stay the hell out otherwise. Look at the auto industries! They should just go bankrupt, and the owners can restart companies with workers who aren't unionized, allowing them to pay lower wages(but wages none the less, or would you rather not work at all?) and PRODUCE goods for PROFIT.

Aww how cute another "completely free market" believer.

All those darn unions wreck everything. Detroit's problems couldn't be the fact they built cars others didn't want. Built gas pigs that people didn't want?

A free market needs regulation to exist.

Why is it that they built cars others didn't want? And how is it that regulations could fix this? Are you going to demand that people have the intelligence and competence to create something that people actually want? If they don't see profit as incentive enough to do that, then they deserve to go under.

And yes, unions wreck everything. They ensure that those of ability, who actually work, get paid no more than those of incompetence. Competitive wages should be everywhere, and it should be for every individual to determine how much their labour is worth and trade it with those who need them.

I believe in laissez-faire because I will not be a slave to anyone else. I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask one to live for mine. I will never do anything that does not benefit me, nor will I demand the products or efforts of others if I do not deserve them, and I base that on what I can provide them in return, not upon my need. I hold profit as the greatest moral objective, and greed as the greatest of virtues.

Why is it that they built cars others didn't want?

They didn't like having to retool the factory.

And how is it that regulations could fix this?

Regulations are what keep the car companies from building death traps. Then again the ford pinto exploding might have been an attempt to make an ejection seat for when it crashed.

Are you going to demand that people have the intelligence and competence to create something that people actually want? If they don't see profit as incentive enough to do that, then they deserve to go under.

That is why we are loosing. We gave up the act of creation for the act of making money. Anybody can make money. Not everybody can create.

And yes, unions wreck everything. They ensure that those of ability, who actually work, get paid no more than those of incompetence.[/quotes]

And yet we see the corp execs drive a company into the ground and retire with several million. For example, the home depot CEO "retired" with $210 million and the company went into a spiral under his watch.

[quote] Competitive wages should be everywhere, and it should be for every individual to determine how much their labour is worth and trade it with those who need them.

You have to measure the standard of living as well. It's easy to say China labor is cheap but fail to look at CoL.

I believe in laissez-faire because I will not be a slave to anyone else. I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask one to live for mine.
Wow. Read Atlas Shrugged did we?

I will never do anything that does not benefit me, nor will I demand the products or efforts of others if I do not deserve them,

So you live off the grid, grow your own food, cut your own timber, use home remadies?

and I base that on what I can provide them in return, not upon my need. I hold profit as the greatest moral objective, and greed as the greatest of virtues.

So did Madoff......

Why is it that they built cars others didn't want? And how is it that regulations could fix this? Are you going to demand that people have the intelligence and competence to create something that people actually want? If they don't see profit as incentive enough to do that, then they deserve to go under.

And yes, unions wreck everything. They ensure that those of ability, who actually work, get paid no more than those of incompetence. Competitive wages should be everywhere, and it should be for every individual to determine how much their labour is worth and trade it with those who need them.

I believe in laissez-faire because I will not be a slave to anyone else. I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask one to live for mine. I will never do anything that does not benefit me, nor will I demand the products or efforts of others if I do not deserve them, and I base that on what I can provide them in return, not upon my need. I hold profit as the greatest moral objective, and greed as the greatest of virtues.

If we, as individual workers, decide to associate in order to more effectively lobby for wages, why do you feel compelled to stop us? After all, we are only acting as free agents, in order to achieve the best possible economic results for our labour. Seems to me like something you should be in favour of, not opposed to.

Your last paragraph is ignored as the trash it is. If that is truly your 'moral' code, then there can be no common ground between you and I.

The government tries to modernize things, but certain businesses get in the way. If we had Gore (instead of an oilman) for the past eight years, for example, cars would be much closer to using renewable energy.

And as for laissez-faire, Harding & Coolidge tried it -- market bubble, bubble pop, and BOOM, great depression. Dubya also tried it -- market bubble, bubble pop, and BOOM, current recession/depression.

People aren't yet ready for radical solutions to the boom and bust nature of neoliberal capitalism...
I direct your attention towards the following: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/This_Time_Is_Different.pdf

Boom and bust cycles have been occuring for longer than capitalism has been around, let alone the "neoliberal" version. A social democratic state wouldn't be able to prevent it either - case in point is any number of left-wing governments in Latin America which had financial crises occur there despite lots of regulations (and in some cases because of them). There is only one sure-fire way to prevent the sorts of bubbles that end up in big busts, and that's by preventing people from spending their money on what they want. If no one is allowed to invest in anything that might feasibly increase in value, then we'll be fine. But it also means a completely planned economy, ie Soviet socialism, not social democracy.

And as for laissez-faire, Harding & Coolidge tried it -- market bubble, bubble pop, and BOOM, great depression. Dubya also tried it -- market bubble, bubble pop, and BOOM, current recession/depression.

Woah, whoa, whoa, wait up a minute. First off, don't try comparing the Shrub to Coolidge or Harding. They were both, at the least, 'okay' presidents. Bush was a total nitwit, who was in the deep pockets of the Oil companies. Even if you disagree with Coolidge, he was a least honest, even if you think he was misguided.

Second off, Capitalism, Communism, EVERY system on Earthh is inherently boom-bust, as long as the Earth's weather varies and mankind still inhabits it.

Third off, Laissez-faire was NOT the reason for the Great Depression, at least in my opinion. The Great Depression is still being discussed, and probably will remain so until the end of time. I believe that the Great Depression was caused by the widespread destruction and feel-good attitude following WWI. Our involvement caused the feel-good attitude that contributed the bubble, whereas the widespread destruction in WWI caused Europe to essentially have it's infrasructure and economy ruined, whereas we remained untouched. This, of course, led people to continuously invest in American ventures exporting to europe long after Europe was back on it's feet. But, hey, we're entitled to our own opinions.

Dubya also tried it -- market bubble, bubble pop, and BOOM, current recession/depression.

Except his version of Laissez-faire didn't actually fit the definition of the term in anyway.

neo-liberal

I see my quest to rid the forums of that non-word (yes it's so meaningless it doesn't even deserve the status as a word), has failed.

I direct your attention towards the following: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/This_Time_Is_Different.pdf

Boom and bust cycles have been occuring for longer than capitalism has been around, let alone the "neoliberal" version. A social democratic state wouldn't be able to prevent it either - case in point is any number of left-wing governments in Latin America which had financial crises occur there despite lots of regulations (and in some cases because of them). There is only one sure-fire way to prevent the sorts of bubbles that end up in big busts, and that's by preventing people from spending their money on what they want. If no one is allowed to invest in anything that might feasibly increase in value, then we'll be fine. But it also means a completely planned economy, ie Soviet socialism, not social democracy.

*Sigh* Fair point. I need to fail less at economics. Should have argued that the social democratic state form is more capable in minimizing the social impacts of recessions, given the welfare state system rather than expecting private companies to fill the gap. Especially since I'm doing a module on British economic history in the twentieth century in which there were several crises during the postwar consensus period in which the state switched to a more social democratic approach.

Since 1948, there have been thirteen major surveys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#Notable_scholar_surveys) of historians on how good the various US presidents are. ALL of them list Harding in the bottom 25% (and yes, the three recent enough to incldue Dubya have him higher than harding), and six of them list Coolidge in the bottom 25%. It's true, Coolidge did some good things, but letting the bubble get out of hand is inexcusable.

It's true, Coolidge did some good things, but letting the bubble get out of hand is inexcusable.
Do you know what "the bubble" was? And do you blame Clinton for the dot.com bust?

Since 1948, there have been thirteen major surveys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#Notable_scholar_surveys) of historians on how good the various US presidents are. ALL of them list Harding in the bottom 25% (and yes, the three recent enough to incldue Dubya have him higher than harding), and six of them list Coolidge in the bottom 25%. It's true, Coolidge did some good things, but letting the bubble get out of hand is inexcusable.

Letting the bubble get out of hand? By the time the torch was passed to him, the only way that he could have stopped the bust would be by a deal with Satan himself!

Or is that what you're suggesting he should have done?:p

With all seriousness, Coolidge did what he could, and probably did better than most of our presidents could've done even if they knew what was going to happen. Leaders always get blamed for bad situations during their rule, or right after it. (in this case presidency would be a better word I suppose) Coolidge came right before the deppression, so, somewhat understandably, he was blamed for it. But let's face it, the man did not try to make waves. He just did his best to keep the country together without making any serious changes. Perhaps not the best he could've done, but certainly not the worst thing he could've done.

I hold profit as the greatest moral objective, and greed as the greatest of virtues.

I hold justice as the greatest moral objective, and compassion as the greatest of virtues.

No offense, but I think you're my natural enemy.

Do you know what "the bubble" was?

Of course.

And do you blame Clinton for the dot.com bust?
Not really -- and if you check (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble) you'll see that neither the clinton page nor the dot-com bubble page even mention the other one.

Letting the bubble get out of hand? By the time the torch was passed to him, the only way that he could have stopped the bust would be by a deal with Satan himself!

Or is that what you're suggesting he should have done?:p

With all seriousness, Coolidge did what he could, and probably did better than most of our presidents could've done even if they knew what was going to happen. Leaders always get blamed for bad situations during their rule, or right after it. (in this case presidency would be a better word I suppose) Coolidge came right before the deppression, so, somewhat understandably, he was blamed for it. But let's face it, the man did not try to make waves. He just did his best to keep the country together without making any serious changes. Perhaps not the best he could've done, but certainly not the worst thing he could've done.

He had six years, you know. Don't you think at least SOMEONE said "Hey, what happens if the bubble gets too big?"

Not really -- and if you check (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble) you'll see that neither the clinton page nor the dot-com bubble page even mention the other one.

...

So you're saying, if it isn't on Wikipedia, it obviously has no basis in reality? Face it, as much as I would love it if it was true, Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge, nor of all viewpoints. The dot com bubble-bust/burst/whatever you want to call it happened during and after Clinton's presidency. Blaming The Great Depression on Coolidge, or even Harding is exactly the same as blaming Clinton for the Dot com bubble.

I hold profit as the greatest moral objective
Profit before satisfaction, before happiness?

Not really -- and if you check (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble) you'll see that neither the clinton page nor the dot-com bubble page even mention the other one.
Is the way we judge responsibility or fault now cross-referencing wiki? The point is that the collapse in 1929 was somewhat similar to the dot.com bust because it had to do with shares being overvalued to silly degrees. In 1929 there were some more exotic investment schemes and pyramid design corporate holdings involved, but overall, I don't think Coolidge could have devalued the share market any more than Clinton could.

It's important to distinguish between "the bubble" and the structure of the banking system.

He had six years, you know. Don't you think at least SOMEONE said "Hey, what happens if the bubble gets too big?"

See: My comments about the feel good additude at the time. Think about it, in a time so propserous, with America finally emerging as an intergral part (although certainly not a dominating force) of the World's Economy for the first time, the entire culture was taking invisible happy pills. Those gloom and doom prophets, right as much as they might have been, were vastly outnumbered. Also, if memory serves correctly, Economics wasn't viewed in the same way it was today, not even as a "social science". But I might be wrong there.

Capitalism has been around for five hundred years or so. It's not going anywhere.

Its nature is to go through cycles of growth and shrinkage; or, to put it more picturesquely, boom and bust. When in its "bust" phase the usual answer is to regulate it more, to protect the wealth of the people, so that those people can start businesses, so that the economy can grow again, so that regulation can be loosened.... et cetera.

In short, the recession will take care of itself. Eventually. That or global warming will finally catch up to us and we'll have to find a new technocracy-ish model, either way.

The Financial Times just started a series of that title on its website. The proposition is the following:

Furthermore, a little bit of a debate is popping up on businessspectator.com:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-end-of-economic-growth-$pd20090312-Q36TV?OpenDocument
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Capitalism-will-renew-itself-$pd20090313-Q3RDD?OpenDocument&src=sph

So there's lots of talking, repeating really, hoping that now the context will make the arguments sound better, of the end of capitalism as we know it. The alternatives vary as much as the people proposing them.

But where do you stand? Is this crisis something as fundamental as some of these authors claim? Is there any merit in trying to link together the fear of global climate change with the fear of the financial crisis? And is it possible (in the real world in the next 10-20 years) to build an alternative to capitalism without simply resorting to more taxes (which wouldn't really be a change of values of the kind argued for here (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f6e2d5c-0e76-11de-b099-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ae1104cc-f82e-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) for example).

Furthermore, is this the rise of new, "radical" political opinions and movements as we saw during the Great Depression, or much more harmless than that?

The ultimate future of capitalism? Or just... the future in some sort of close perspective?

Eventually - capitalism will be irrelevent.

In the near term, capitalism will have to adapt (as it has before) or die. If there'd been no alphabet agencies, the US would have been a communism after WW2.

Also, if memory serves correctly, Economics wasn't viewed in the same way it was today, not even as a "social science". But I might be wrong there.
Before the Depression, macroeconomics didn't exist in any meaningful way. Case in point: when the banks started to fail, the Fed actually increased interest rates, the logic being that this would attract more people to put money into deposits.

That this may actually make borrowing more expensive and risky investments relatively less attractive, causing business investment to collapse was basically unknown at the time.

I hold justice as the greatest moral objective, and compassion as the greatest of virtues.

No offense, but I think you're my natural enemy.

Well, you're wrong, because A = A. Now go familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher, comedian, and women's suffrage advocate Mao Zedong.

All those darn unions wreck everything. Detroit's problems couldn't be the fact they built cars others didn't want. Built gas pigs that people didn't want?


Actually, private sector unions aren't really bad. It's public sector unions that I can't stand. They create such high levels of inefficiency and cost to the taxpayers that it actually kind of hurts.

Probably play the cyclical regulation-deregulation game for another half century.

The Financial Times just started a series of that title on its website. The proposition is the following:

Furthermore, a little bit of a debate is popping up on businessspectator.com:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-end-of-economic-growth-$pd20090312-Q36TV?OpenDocument
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Capitalism-will-renew-itself-$pd20090313-Q3RDD?OpenDocument&src=sph

So there's lots of talking, repeating really, hoping that now the context will make the arguments sound better, of the end of capitalism as we know it. The alternatives vary as much as the people proposing them.

But where do you stand? Is this crisis something as fundamental as some of these authors claim? Is there any merit in trying to link together the fear of global climate change with the fear of the financial crisis? And is it possible (in the real world in the next 10-20 years) to build an alternative to capitalism without simply resorting to more taxes (which wouldn't really be a change of values of the kind argued for here (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f6e2d5c-0e76-11de-b099-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=ae1104cc-f82e-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1) for example).

Furthermore, is this the rise of new, "radical" political opinions and movements as we saw during the Great Depression, or much more harmless than that?


No chance in hell of capitalism going away. Not while people still have personal interest and profit motive. Not saying its a bad thing, trust me it isn't, but you pinkos aren't going to get your way for a good long time ;)

Well, you're wrong, because A = A. Now go familiarize yourself with the writings of eminent Russian-American philosopher, comedian, and women's suffrage advocate Mao Zedong.

True, but if X^2 = -1 then X = i or -i, so would you kindly go get stepped on by a Big Daddy?

True, but if X^2 = -1 then X = i or -i, so would you kindly go get stepped on by a Big Daddy?

Lies. These "imaginary numbers" you refer to are merely a tool created by anti-egoist mathematicians in a vain attempt to get me to surrender my property for the public good, a possession more valuable to me than my life. And what is "i"? Only a lower-case "I"; a perversion of the most important word in the English language. Anthem here]

Lies. These "imaginary numbers" you refer to are merely a tool created by anti-egoist mathematicians in a vain attempt to get me to surrender my property for the public good, a possession more valuable to me than my life. And what is "i"? Only a lower-case "I"; a perversion of the most important word in the English language. Anthem here]

Damn, this isn't just skirmishing, is it?

OK, OK. Fine.

An Anthem is a song that represents a specific country. By clinging to your pseudo-religious text of the aforementioned name (hereby referred to as "Hitler") you have sworn allegience to a country. Since your Hitler is not specific, the country must be generically named (let's call it "Horse Rectum"). So you're swearing allegience to Horse Rectum, which invariably has tax laws, and is probably socialist as well. Quid pro fucking quo.

Also, who could take seriously a philosophy that holds Hitler and Horse rectums as core tenants?

Before the Depression, macroeconomics didn't exist in any meaningful way. Case in point: when the banks started to fail, the Fed actually increased interest rates, the logic being that this would attract more people to put money into deposits.

I haven't read the whole thread. But this made me LOL.

Interest rates will go up before this recession is over too. Either that or hyper-inflation.

And, I believe, the justification in 1931 was to control the flow of specie between countries, rather than encouraging deposits. Really, maybe kind of goes back to the 1926 decision of the UK to go back on the gold standard.

Trying to save the Central Powers banks didn't help how it played out though. Oh how history repeats.

Damn, this isn't just skirmishing, is it?

OK, OK. Fine.

An Anthem is a song that represents a specific country. By clinging to your pseudo-religious text of the aforementioned name (hereby referred to as "Hitler") you have sworn allegience to a country. Since your Hitler is not specific, the country must be generically named (let's call it "Horse Rectum"). So you're swearing allegience to Horse Rectum, which invariably has tax laws, and is probably socialist as well. Quid pro fucking quo.

Also, who could take seriously a philosophy that holds Hitler and Horse rectums as core tenants?

Nonsense, Horse Rectum has a 0% tax rate, as anyone would know. Its population of some 4-6 billion microorganisms live in a utopia of peace, prosperity, and selfishness -- a rather smelly utopia, but I don't suppose they mind, because they have no noses. And when your outdated social-democratic ideology fails, I'll be living it up at Galt's Gulch, and won't give you any charity, because I'm nice.

Also, I think you meant "Quod erat fucking demonstratum". "Quid pro fucking quo" means "This for fucking that", or in idiomatic English, "You will receive this [money] for fucking that [person]", which implies that you're an, ahem, individual of negotiable affection. You know, a prostitute, courtesan, lady of the night.... et cetera. Which is fine, after all, since it's a form of private enterprise, and you're not doing it to benefit anyone but yourself, which is as it should be because altruism is bad. Still, though, some people might consider it disgraceful, probably because they're socialists.

Actually, private sector unions aren't really bad. It's public sector unions that I can't stand. They create such high levels of inefficiency and cost to the taxpayers that it actually kind of hurts.

I agree, I don't intend on joining the teacher's union anytime soon, as for the OP, I have told that to my friends for a while now, even during the years leading up..."It's not gonna last. we need to work towards a more sustainable long term growth pattern or we are screwed badly!"

Nonsense, Horse Rectum has a 0% tax rate, as anyone would know. Its population of some 4-6 billion microorganisms live in a utopia of peace, prosperity, and selfishness -- a rather smelly utopia, but I don't suppose they mind, because they have no noses. And when your outdated social-democratic ideology fails, I'll be living it up at Galt's Gulch, and won't give you any charity, because I'm nice.

Yeah? Well I slept with your mom last night.

She was awful.

Also, I think you meant "Quod erat fucking demonstratum". "Quid pro fucking quo" means "This for fucking that", or in idiomatic English, "You will receive this [money] for fucking that [person]", which implies that you're an, ahem, individual of negotiable affection.

I was actually just offering sound financial advice, way to read way too much into it. 'Course you're a woman, so I should expect that.

You know, a prostitute, courtesan, lady [lord] of the night [and dance].... et cetera. Which is fine, after all, since it's a form of private enterprise, and you're not doing it to benefit anyone but yourself, which is as it should be because altruism is bad. Still, though, some people might consider it disgraceful, probably because they're socialists.

Please. Ayn Rand is just like Hitler, but with smaller breasts and no beard.

Yeah? Well I slept with your mom last night.

She was awful.
Oh yeah? Well, [generic statement questioning your parentage and/or your intelligence and/or your masculinity]!


I was actually just offering sound financial advice, way to read way too much into it. 'Course you're a woman, so I should expect that.

You're just jealous that you keep losing arguments.


Please. Ayn Rand is just like Hitler, but with smaller breasts and no beard.
As any source will reveal, Hitler had no beard. You're obviously pulling your facts out of thin air. The next response I see from you I want to see links to sites backing it up. Otherwise I can legitimately say you're just a troll. That's the rule around here, isn't it?

Oh yeah? Well, [generic statement questioning your parentage and/or your intelligence and/or your masculinity]!

Oh no you did-ehnt!

You're just jealous that you keep losing arguments.

no u

As any source will reveal, Hitler had no beard.

Oh really? I suppose this is more of your "A=A" witchcraft?

You're obviously pulling your facts out of thin air. The next response I see from you I want to see links to sites backing it up. Otherwise I can legitimately say you're just a troll. That's the rule around here, isn't it?

Not on Sabbath days, and I'm incidentally using all 52 of my annual Sabbath days consecutively. Starting now.

Weird coincidence, isn't it? (Do you think we should try to be marginally more on topic?)

Before the Depression, macroeconomics didn't exist in any meaningful way. Case in point: when the banks started to fail, the Fed actually increased interest rates, the logic being that this would attract more people to put money into deposits.
Which historical example did you have in mind for your "case in point"?

That this may actually make borrowing more expensive and risky investments relatively less attractive, causing business investment to collapse was basically unknown at the time.

Before the Depression, macroeconomics didn't exist in any meaningful way. Case in point: when the banks started to fail, the Fed actually increased interest rates, the logic being that this would attract more people to put money into deposits.


actually the fed raised interest rates before the crash. They did so because they realized all the easy credit had inflated the price of stocks. Most of the Bank failures didn't come until 1930 when the tariff increase made it impossible for Germany to pay off its loans(which represented roughly 30% of US banking assets).
case and point 1929 had about 72 banks fail that year. which is below average for the decade (avg yearly bank failures 74).
1930 we see 744 bank failures.

and this actually shows a general drop in the reserve rate in the 1930's(some up and down i do admit but a general drop)
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/ratecharts/ratecharts1.gif

actually the fed raised interest rates before the crash. They did so because they realized all the easy credit had inflated the price of stocks. Most of the Bank failures didn't come until 1930 when the tariff increase made it impossible for Germany to pay off its loans(which represented roughly 30% of US banking assets).
case and point 1929 had about 72 banks fail that year. which is below average for the decade (avg yearly bank failures 74).
1930 we see 744 bank failures.

and this actually shows a general drop in the reserve rate in the 1930's(some up and down i do admit but a general drop)
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/ratecharts/ratecharts1.gif

Then they lowered in 1930, but had to raise in 31. Which led to a bond market collapse in late 31 which strangled the nascent recovery.

The fed can't really set rates. Just smooth out the bumps.

Then they lowered in 1930, but had to raise in 31. Which led to a bond market collapse in late 31 which strangled the nascent recovery.

The fed can't really set rates. Just smooth out the bumps.

the raise however was lower then the 1930 rate. And this had more to do with they lowered it way too much in 1930. that was a 2.25% drop in rates in one shot. And that had more to do with the fed being a new organization and not understanding only do .25% or .5% at once.
and 30 to 31 it was still a net 1% drop in rates.

More generally, of course, in a deflationary cycle, the cost of money has to increase before the liquidation phase ends. Central bank shenanigans notwithstanding.

There is much talk of QE in the US. But I don't think it will actually happen. Or at least not until everyone else has debased their currency thoroughly. I more see an attempt to recapitalize the banks through stealth (meanwhile lowering the standard of living), and until that fails, there won't be any printing.

the raise however was lower then the 1930 rate. And this had more to do with they lowered it way too much in 1930. that was a 2.25% drop in rates in one shot. And that had more to do with the fed being a new organization and not understanding only do .25% or .5% at once.
and 30 to 31 it was still a net 1% drop in rates.

Well yes, but they tightened liquidity into an economic contraction nonetheless. Which was sort of my point. Say, for example, if the fed currently decided that commods were racing and decided to target 1%. It would be a massive drop still from the beginning of 08, but would still be viewed as suicidal or someshit.

the real future is that the day will come, when both makiavellianism AND procustianism, will have become religated to museums of the quaint, forgotten and unimaginable past.

there is no guarantee the human species will survive to see that day, yet equally none that it will not. everything that happens between now and then, will remain transitory and the span, however long it takes, one of transition.

Well yes, but they tightened liquidity into an economic contraction nonetheless. Which was sort of my point. Say, for example, if the fed currently decided that commods were racing and decided to target 1%. It would be a massive drop still from the beginning of 08, but would still be viewed as suicidal or someshit.
Targeting to 1% would not actually change the outcome for worse since that would simply mean banks will be extending an ever so slightly less amount of bad loans they have no hope of ever collecting.

Targeting to 1% would not actually change the outcome for worse since that would simply mean banks will be extending an ever so slightly less amount of bad loans they have no hope of ever collecting.

So many reasons why that's not true. First one, and most obvious, is that it would change the slope of the yield curve, driving bank revenue down.

But there are lots of other reasons also why it would have cascading effects into a contraction.

Nevertheless, it is almost certain at some point the fed will have to do it.

Are you trying to say contraction in this situation is a bad thing?

The last time we had slew of radical, popular new political/economic ideology we got New Deal protectionism, fascism (which did wonders for Germany and Italy, I don't think too many in 1935 were expecting those countries to be destroyed in ten years), and communism. There were tons more but those were the big, memorable three and I don't want to dwell on this post. Fascism is where there is still a private sector but it's in name only since the centralized government dictates corporate policy. Protectionism only worked in the US for a few decades because we bombed the shit out of would-be competitors in a nigh-genocidal slaughterfest. And with communism there is no private sector and noody has any money. Or food or clothing or shelter.

Personally I'm holding out hope for some sort of pyrocracy-based economic system. You see, I just want to set the world on fire. That's what will start a flame in my heart.

Everything burns and it's so very pretty.

Are you trying to say contraction in this situation is a bad thing?

No. I was more answering your point that it would have little or no effect on defaults. It would.

Obviously a deflationary contraction with the concomitant reduction of the standard of living is the optimal course. (Depending upon how you define standard of living).

Fewer bankers, more cobblers. That's my motto.

i think that the financial sector is in a panic because their money is gone and they have no idea how to make a legitmate buck (one that is not part of a bubble)

i think that they will have to go back to making money one dollar at a time by wise investing and customer service.

like they used to.

Extremely well said. I would add we need to go back to making things instead of just shifting zeros on a page. Too many middle men right now.

i think the new capitalism will look a lot like socialism. Maybe that is a good thing, may be not only time will tell. Few would say reasonably priced health care would be a problem. Some industries are too big and too important to just let fail. I think we do have a vested interest in keeping them going. We all want cheap energy, cheap resources, low taxes, better schools, safer streets, less pollution, more accountability, more stability in the world, and less wars. As you can see something has to give we can't have all of that. We can try but likely something has to give.

I mean sure, keep checks on industry to protect the environment, because we all need the earth, but stay the hell out otherwise. Look at the auto industries! They should just go bankrupt, and the owners can restart companies with workers who aren't unionized, allowing them to pay lower wages(but wages none the less, or would you rather not work at all?) and PRODUCE goods for PROFIT.

So basically you blame the crisis of the US automotive sector on the workers' wages, not on the happy-go-lucky allure of CEOs (let's go bankrupt, we'll get our megabonuses anyway!), or on the lack of proper investments in R&D, or on the CEOs (again) investing the company's profits in highly volatile financial products.

It seems somewhat of a restricted, ideological point of view to me.

Certain things will have to change very soon. We can not continue to enlarge markets that create products or use processes that are ecologically unsustainable. This is basic science. We need a healthy ecology. The more garbage and pollution we put into our ecology, the less healthy it gets, Therefore, we need to limit our garbage and pollution.

That means that we can't have a new iProduct each year. Little gadgets with complicated moving parts made of several materials that are not designed to last or be recycled are not going to last. That particular market will eventually shrink.

Our means of production will also have to change. Eventually, we're going to need factories that don't make any pollution or garbage. At all.

But all this is simply ecological awareness modifying the existing model. The model itself willprobably have to change too. The idea that something can continually increase in size (is that how the economy is supposed to work? The idea that it should have sustained growth?) is simply not realistic. If economic growth is a function of population growth and increased productivity, we have to then keep in mind that our biology will set an upper limit on the former, and the environmental impact of our industry will set a limit on the latter.

i think the new capitalism will look a lot like socialism.

It already is. Capitalism is socialism for the wealthy.

The financial institutions will change the rules of the game a little, but nothing major will change, capitalism will remain. As long as people (and 99.99% of people still do) want to trade the fruits of their labour with at least some kind of profit margin for themselves, then a market will stay. These headlines are just some dramatic stories to help sell the papers, I don't however see anything substantial.

Our means of production will also have to change. Eventually, we're going to need factories that don't make any pollution or garbage. At all.


Do you think that's a reachable goal, any time soon?

Do you think that's a reachable goal, any time soon?

Yes.

Waste equals food. (http://www.mbdc.com/c2c_ee.htm)

We have the technology. We have the models. We are beginning to be aware of the implications of ignoring even minimal amounts of pollution. And we can even make a buck on them.

Do you think that's a reachable goal, any time soon?

It's been reachable for some time.

The main problem in industry, as in commerce, politics, religion, etc - is inertia.

I find it funny how people can have their faith in free market destroyed, when they don't even practice free market. How can you expect something to work when you corrupt and pervert it with regulations and controls? I mean sure, keep checks on industry to protect the environment, because we all need the earth, but stay the hell out otherwise. Look at the auto industries! They should just go bankrupt, and the owners can restart companies with workers who aren't unionized, allowing them to pay lower wages(but wages none the less, or would you rather not work at all?) and PRODUCE goods for PROFIT.
Here is a little article that will somewhat deflate your tiny bubble:

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative (http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670)

Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.
What say you now Mercutio?

That means that we can't have a new iProduct each year. Little gadgets with complicated moving parts made of several materials that are not designed to last or be recycled are not going to last. That particular market will eventually shrink.
Oh.....we can still have the iProducts as long as they end up in the right place?

My son works for a company that actually refurbishes electronic gadgets and resells them.

So bring on the gadgets but dispose of them properly?

Oh.....we can still have the iProducts as long as they end up in the right place?

My son works for a company that actually refurbishes electronic gadgets and resells them.

So bring on the gadgets but dispose of them properly?

It's more complicated than that.

Let's say that you end up designing a piece of iCrap that is somehow engineered to be easily dismantled and recycled or reused. That deals only with the solid waste problem.

It does not deal with several other aspects such as shipping your little gadgets from Taiwan to Moncton. Ideally, we would have the means to locally produce our iCrap.

And then there's the ever increasing energy demands of making an ever increasing number of iCraps. We shouldn't be burning coal to make something as superfluous as iCrap. Pretty soon, you are asking yourself why do we really have iCrap, or any crap?

Pretty soon, you are asking yourself why do we really have iCrap, or any crap?
Because people want it. The idea behind efficiency and sustainability isn't to keep mother nature happy, or even to minimise waste. It is to maximise our happiness, which is a function over time.

You're right when you say that waste and environmental damage (the two being essentially equivalent) are going to impact our happiness negatively compared to what it could be at a future point in time.

But here's the catch: who decides what the optimal time path of happiness is? I think I'm safe to assume that you're relatively more patient than the people who buy iCrap, and would be willing to enjoy a little less happiness now in order to enjoy more in the future. Other people are the other way around. But who is actually right? Why do you think that you are more right than those others?

Because people want it. The idea behind efficiency and sustainability isn't to keep mother nature happy, or even to minimise waste. It is to maximise our happiness, which is a function over time.

You're right when you say that waste and environmental damage (the two being essentially equivalent) are going to impact our happiness negatively compared to what it could be at a future point in time.

But here's the catch: who decides what the optimal time path of happiness is? I think I'm safe to assume that you're relatively more patient than the people who buy iCrap, and would be willing to enjoy a little less happiness now in order to enjoy more in the future. Other people are the other way around. But who is actually right? Why do you think that you are more right than those others?

There will be a change. It's coming. A paradigm shift - where the necessity to own that which doesn't need to be owned, will be an unthinkable anachronism.

Not because someone is more deserving of happiness than another, but because our system is sealed, and that means material acquisitiveness is going to become an increasingly expensive hobby.

If we're smart, we'll break ourselves out of the habit before we 'run out'.

But, we're probably not smart. So our behaviour will change because of the external pressures. Eventually.

Not because someone is more deserving of happiness than another, but because our system is sealed, and that means material acquisitiveness is going to become an increasingly expensive hobby.
I'm not convinced that the system is sealed at all, but that's not the point. If it becomes a more expensive hobby, that doesn't mean it becomes an unthinkable (I don't like that word, too close to crimethink) anachronism. It just means that it's even more of a status symbol than before and, if history is a guide, that's not exactly a disincentive for human beings.

It's more complicated than that.

Let's say that you end up designing a piece of iCrap that is somehow engineered to be easily dismantled and recycled or reused. That deals only with the solid waste problem.

It does not deal with several other aspects such as shipping your little gadgets from Taiwan to Moncton. Ideally, we would have the means to locally produce our iCrap.

And then there's the ever increasing energy demands of making an ever increasing number of iCraps. We shouldn't be burning coal to make something as superfluous as iCrap. Pretty soon, you are asking yourself why do we really have iCrap, or any crap?

Mighty bold prediction.

I'm not convinced that the system is sealed at all, but that's not the point. If it becomes a more expensive hobby, that doesn't mean it becomes an unthinkable (I don't like that word, too close to crimethink) anachronism. It just means that it's even more of a status symbol than before and, if history is a guide, that's not exactly a disincentive for human beings.

The system is effectively sealed - unless we can come up with technologies that will enable us to 'make' resources like oil or uranium, more efficiently than using an alternative.

There's already a trend towards reducing footprints of various kinds - a trend that has been variously successful in various places and in various endeavours. It's possible, we've seen the oil 'footprint' change, now, for example - and technologies (as a whole) are going to start to trend away from oil. Which will make oil a niche market, at some point - a kind of eccentric status symbol, perhaps - why would people invest huge money in an oil powered car, when they could get fusion? (For example).

That's where the trend is going - lower impact, more sustainable. Cell phones are already often reclaimed - I can see a definite trend towards 'reclaimable technology'.

It's interesting that you 'don't like the word 'unthinkable'... because you find it too close to crimething'... you're having a programmed response to what you perceive as a programmed response. It's like Pavlov: The Next Generation.

The system is effectively sealed - unless we can come up with technologies that will enable us to 'make' resources like oil or uranium, more efficiently than using an alternative.
But isn't that what humanity (with capitalism being the tool) does?

It's interesting that you 'don't like the word 'unthinkable'... because you find it too close to crimething'... you're having a programmed response to what you perceive as a programmed response. It's like Pavlov: The Next Generation.
It is, isn't it.

But yeah, I'm worried that talk about ecology, the environment or climate change becomes a modern equivalent of "think of the children" - an unanswerable appeal to traditionalist standards of conversation.

But isn't that what humanity (with capitalism being the tool) does?


To an extent... and we've come up against our limits on it, somewhat.

It looks like we're experiencing something of a punctured equilibrium, and may get another shot of technological adrenaline... but can the hits keep coming?


It is, isn't it.


:)


But yeah, I'm worried that talk about ecology, the environment or climate change becomes a modern equivalent of "think of the children" - an unanswerable appeal to traditionalist standards of conversation.

"Think of the children" was never unanswerable - if you had the right answers. The only time it was unanswerable was when you'd basically started yourself from a platform of 'fuck 'em all' - because then you really WOULD have no answer.

I don't see why talking about how our wasteful paradigm is unanswerable, or an appeal to... whatever. To NOT talk about it, would be to ignore the ever-increasing (lack of?) elephant in the room.

It looks like we're experiencing something of a punctured equilibrium, and may get another shot of technological adrenaline... but can the hits keep coming?
I think the biggest potential is in globalisation. Turns out that financial engineering has its downsides (though as far as reducing the cost of capital to be employed in useful pursuits is concerned, it's still very important) and probably wasn't the way to go, but there are still big efficiency gains to be had in the internationalisation of production and research. There will be costs involved as well (such as shipping stuff around the globe), but the benefits should easily outweigh those.

And who knows what comes next. Controlled, usable fusion is not really more than 50 years away, I don't think.

I don't see why talking about how our wasteful paradigm is unanswerable, or an appeal to... whatever. To NOT talk about it, would be to ignore the ever-increasing (lack of?) elephant in the room.
Yes, but as the acceptance of green ideas into the mainstream is completed, there is the risk of going too far and forgetting that sometimes producing some more economic output at the expense of some environmental degradation is the right thing to do.

I think the biggest potential is in globalisation. Turns out that financial engineering has its downsides (though as far as reducing the cost of capital to be employed in useful pursuits is concerned, it's still very important) and probably wasn't the way to go, but there are still big efficiency gains to be had in the internationalisation of production and research. There will be costs involved as well (such as shipping stuff around the globe), but the benefits should easily outweigh those.

And who knows what comes next. Controlled, usable fusion is not really more than 50 years away, I don't think.


Research is a product well globalised, as is knowledge - but other than that, the less stuff you can move around, the better.


Yes, but as the acceptance of green ideas into the mainstream is completed, there is the risk of going too far and forgetting that sometimes producing some more economic output at the expense of some environmental degradation is the right thing to do.

In what way?

At what point does destroying the planet for economic gain actually trip over into the 'yeah, we SHOULD do that' category?

Research is a product well globalised, as is knowledge - but other than that, the less stuff you can move around, the better.
You'd rather we have two polluting factories in two different locations than just have one and ship the produce around?

At what point does destroying the planet for economic gain actually trip over into the 'yeah, we SHOULD do that' category?
Marginal (Social) Benefit = Marginal (Social) Cost. That's the basic rule, it works for everything else so I see no reason why it shouldn't work here.

Solar power offers a reasonable compromise. There's a desert in Arizona - supposedly, if we covered it with solar panels using just the current technology, we could provide enough electricity for the whole nation.
I'm a little skeptical if that claim is still accurate - I think I read it in Popular Science six years ago. But you get the drift. It doesn't have to be a closed system.

At what point does destroying the planet for economic gain actually trip over into the 'yeah, we SHOULD do that' category?

*Easy classroom answer*

Where the marginal social benefit of pollution is equal to the marginal social cost. The problem is, in the modern world, the marginal costs are not being properly allocated onto polluters, rather they are allocated onto society as a whole.

In my opinion, individuals should have the ability to recoup what they costs they pay, by levying a tax to make the cost to the producer actually reflect the total cost. Force the MC up, beyond the MB, so to say.

Damn you NL, you beat me to it.

Here is a little article that will somewhat deflate your tiny bubble:

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative (http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670)


What say you now Mercutio?

well that's just due to Canada's innate awesomeness. It's not their fault that we are a superior race. :p

Because people want it. The idea behind efficiency and sustainability isn't to keep mother nature happy, or even to minimise waste. It is to maximise our happiness, which is a function over time.

That idea that we can have whatever we want is also going to have to change. Leaving aside the whole issue of manufactured desires (e.g. the whole advertising industry), I don't see why 'making everybody happy' should have a higher priority in our economic paradigm than 'not destroying that which sustains us'.

You're right when you say that waste and environmental damage (the two being essentially equivalent) are going to impact our happiness negatively compared to what it could be at a future point in time.

But here's the catch: who decides what the optimal time path of happiness is? I think I'm safe to assume that you're relatively more patient than the people who buy iCrap, and would be willing to enjoy a little less happiness now in order to enjoy more in the future. Other people are the other way around. But who is actually right? Why do you think that you are more right than those others?

Because my point of view takes into account some basic concepts of ecology that are missing from the current one: humans are living organisms, living organisms require an interdependent ecology to survive, and therefore humans need to keep their own ecology alive and healthy.

...

But yeah, I'm worried that talk about ecology, the environment or climate change becomes a modern equivalent of "think of the children" - an unanswerable appeal to traditionalist standards of conversation.

Did you mean conservation? I don't like that word. You can't conserve the environment. You conserve pickles and cabbages and other stuff in jars of vinegar. It assumes that the environment was a perfect thing before we impacted it. Just trundling along in some sort of Eden bliss, until we came along and changed it.

But the reality is that the environment is always changing. Always has been, and for a long time, we changed with it. This was not an idyllic time either, don't get me wrong. But at least we didn't shit where we eat, and we had what could be considered a synergistic relationship with nature.

But then we changed, as everything is wont to do. And our relationship with the rest of our environment became less synergistic and more parasitic. We started to see nature solely as a bank of resources created for our consumption.

Obviously, this is something far older than capitalism, and I'm not trying to say that capitalism is responsible for this paradigm. More like, we all just happened to be capitalist when we started to realise that this can't really last, so we have to change our tools to suit that, and so we're changing capitalism.

You'd rather we have two polluting factories in two different locations than just have one and ship the produce around?


No. And if that's the only way your argument will work, it fails.

If you pollute equally for production, it's largely irrelevent (overall) whether you produce on one site, or two. Ideally, you'd find a way to build without polluting.


Marginal (Social) Benefit = Marginal (Social) Cost. That's the basic rule, it works for everything else so I see no reason why it shouldn't work here.

Because you haven't shown that the 'marginal benefit' is WORTH the cost.

*Easy classroom answer*

Where the marginal social benefit of pollution is equal to the marginal social cost. The problem is, in the modern world, the marginal costs are not being properly allocated onto polluters, rather they are allocated onto society as a whole.


No, the problem, is that the math ignores any numbers it doesn't care to count.

No, the problem, is that the math ignores any numbers it doesn't care to count.

Did you not read my post?

Because you haven't shown that the 'marginal benefit' is WORTH the cost.

In every economic decision, you achieve an efficient allocation where the marginal benefit is equal to the marginal cost.

In every economic decision, you achieve an efficient allocation where the marginal benefit is equal to the marginal cost.

I think what GnI is trying to say is that in modern practice, capitalism does not take into account all the things that actually should go into marginal cost. It's great to say that you have a mathematical model for generating solutions, but it's useless if your model isn't taking into account all the factors. And while you are correct that we could allocate the cost of pollution onto poluters, that is only one of many factors that is currently ignored by the model you propose.

I think what GnI is trying to say is that in modern practice, capitalism does not take into account all the things that actually should go into marginal cost. It's great to say that you have a mathematical model for generating solutions, but it's useless if your model isn't taking into account all the factors. And while you are correct that we could allocate the cost of pollution onto poluters, that is only one of many factors that is currently ignored by the model you propose.

That's why the appropriate role of the state would be to develop a means to recoup the costs that are levied on society by pollution. While it's difficult to develop a precise number, we can probably develop a cost that works, and tax based off of that, without actually having an overly derogatory effect on the economy in the long term.

That idea that we can have whatever we want is also going to have to change. Leaving aside the whole issue of manufactured desires (e.g. the whole advertising industry), I don't see why 'making everybody happy' should have a higher priority in our economic paradigm than 'not destroying that which sustains us'.
Because the former includes the latter, while the reverse isn't true.

Because my point of view takes into account some basic concepts of ecology that are missing from the current one: humans are living organisms, living organisms require an interdependent ecology to survive, and therefore humans need to keep their own ecology alive and healthy.
All that means is that some things aren't included in the prices that are currently charged in the economy.

Did you mean conservation?
No.

But then we changed, as everything is wont to do. And our relationship with the rest of our environment became less synergistic and more parasitic. We started to see nature solely as a bank of resources created for our consumption.
So in other words your problem isn't with the fact that we're not taking into account the costs associated with environmental destruction properly, but with the fact that we can look at the environment as a set of resources at all?

No. And if that's the only way your argument will work, it fails.

If you pollute equally for production, it's largely irrelevent (overall) whether you produce on one site, or two. Ideally, you'd find a way to build without polluting.
There are lots of reasons for why two smaller factories might produce less than one large one. You have to build two smaller factories, you might be running them for shorter periods of time because the markets they serve are smaller, there are economies of scale and so on. So I think the assumption that we'd pollute equally for a given amount of production fails.

Because you haven't shown that the 'marginal benefit' is WORTH the cost.
Say we cut down a tree to build a house.

The marginal benefit of cutting down the tree might be adding the final pieces to the roof, which the market values at some amount. The marginal social benefit would add any externalities or other market imperfections that aren't captured in the price. Maybe that there's one less homeless person or something.

Let's assume the tree isn't owned by anyone and has no market price. The plan marginal cost would simply be the cost of cutting it down. But the marginal social cost adds to that the non-market value of the tree, eg in terms of carbon reduction, wildlife, erosion protection etc.

When MSB is greater than MSC, then society (as well as everyone within it) would be better off if we cut down the tree. In fact, we should continue cutting down trees as long as this is the case. If MSB is smaller than MSC, the reverse holds. Not only should we not cut down the tree, but we should do the opposite and for example destroy houses to make space for new trees.

Equilibrium, and therefore the scenario in which we have maximised net social benefit and would be happy doing nothing more until something external changes, is when MSB = MSC.

What economists are saying is that market failure means there is a difference between MB and MSB and MC and MSC. Since market agents will maximise their private happiness by setting MB = MC without considering the social impact, the market prices that are the result aren't socially optimal. Hence why people seek to modify the prices, for example through carbon trading schemes that add another marginal cost factor that hopefully sets MC = MSC.

That all makes sense from my point of view. But then there are those who think that even when MSB = MSC, we are destroying something that we have no right to destroy, that the treatment of the environment as a usable resource is wrong in itself. So then the problem isn't with how much we use it, but with how we use it, or indeed with using it at all. I think that view can be a real problem, and the more mainstream attention is focused on green issues, the greater the risk that it takes over the mindset of too many people.

But yeah, I'm worried that talk about ecology, the environment or climate change becomes a modern equivalent of "think of the children" - an unanswerable appeal to traditionalist standards of conversation.

Aren't all government interventions equivalent to the paternalist "think of the children" argument?

So in other words your problem isn't with the fact that we're not taking into account the costs associated with environmental destruction properly, but with the fact that we can look at the environment as a set of resources at all?
That'd be my problem.

No. And if that's the only way your argument will work, it fails.

If you pollute equally for production, it's largely irrelevent (overall) whether you produce on one site, or two. Ideally, you'd find a way to build without polluting.

While, yes, ideally you'll find a way to build without polluting, you have to take into consideration the effects of economies of scale. Just as producing in larger quantities reducing the marginal private cost (to a point), it will also reduce the marginal social costs.

Because you haven't shown that the 'marginal benefit' is WORTH the cost.

It's implicit.

That's why the appropriate role of the state would be to develop a means to recoup the costs that are levied on society by pollution. While it's difficult to develop a precise number, we can probably develop a cost that works, and tax based off of that, without actually having an overly derogatory effect on the economy in the long term.

But that still only deals with a part of the problem.

Because the former includes the latter, while the reverse isn't true.

No. In my example with the iCrap, I pretty clearly pointed out that I meant that we can't have a wave of new products each year that are ecologically unsustainable. In other words, I was talking about 'making everybody happy even though it destroys that which sustains us' should be less important than 'not destroying that which sustains us'. The former definitely does not include the latter in my example of iCrap, which is what we are discussing.

All that means is that some things aren't included in the prices that are currently charged in the economy.

You can't quantify everything. You can't, for example, decide to build an unsafe factory even though your math shows that if you just raise the price slightly, you'll make a better profit. Obviously, this is due to the fact that we value human life as something more than a commodity. And while we can quantify nature in terms of resources and will always need to in one way or the other, we have to also realise that we cannot allow this to be the sole lens with which we view our environment. We must value certain aspects of nature as something more than a commodity, like our interdependence with other living organisms.

No.

Good. i hope you don't mind that I address the concept of conservation anyway.

If you're talking about conversation, I am not really sure what you're on about.

So in other words your problem isn't with the fact that we're not taking into account the costs associated with environmental destruction properly, but with the fact that we can look at the environment as a set of resources at all?

Now you're getting it. Though I sort of expand on it a bit above.

There are lots of reasons for why two smaller factories might produce less than one large one. You have to build two smaller factories, you might be running them for shorter periods of time because the markets they serve are smaller, there are economies of scale and so on. So I think the assumption that we'd pollute equally for a given amount of production fails.

That's another thing that will have to change. The idea that polluting more slowly is somehow anything more than a short-term measure. I'm going to go a step further than most people and suggest that we will have to build an environment wherein the industrial processes and infrastructure actually clean the surrounding environment of pollutants, rather than simply adding to them at a smaller rate.

Say we cut down a tree to build a house.
...
Equilibrium, and therefore the scenario in which we have maximised net social benefit and would be happy doing nothing more until something external changes, is when MSB = MSC.

Thanks. Now I know some economic terms.

What economists are saying is that market failure means there is a difference between MB and MSB and MC and MSC. Since market agents will maximise their private happiness by setting MB = MC without considering the social impact, the market prices that are the result aren't socially optimal. Hence why people seek to modify the prices, for example through carbon trading schemes that add another marginal cost factor that hopefully sets MC = MSC.

But this model assumes that it is possible to quantify every factor that affects the difference between MSC, MC, MS, and MB. Is it?

That all makes sense from my point of view. But then there are those who think that even when MSB = MSC, we are destroying something that we have no right to destroy, that the treatment of the environment as a usable resource is wrong in itself. So then the problem isn't with how much we use it, but with how we use it, or indeed with using it at all. I think that view can be a real problem, and the more mainstream attention is focused on green issues, the greater the risk that it takes over the mindset of too many people.

So, the first time I read this, I focused on how you use the word 'use' to describe the relationship we have with our environment. And I was all itching to point how That Was What Was Wrong With Capitalism. But the truth is that we all use nature, even us dirty hippies. But we should be clear on what are doing when we 'use nature'. We are consuming portions of nature in our continued attempt to survive in nature.

Don't worry about the future of capitalism. after the CEO's and the army get together and over throw the government capitalism is fine. Whats in question is the future of democracy.

But that still only deals with a part of the problem.

How do you propose to deal with the "rest of the problem"?

Don't worry about the future of capitalism. after the CEO's and the army get together and over throw the government capitalism is fine. Whats in question is the future of democracy.

While that tends to be a problem in developing countries, whose economies are in turmoil as a result of the transitions inflicted by industrialization, can you cite a major, developed state where that has occurred?

Militaries in developed states tend to be very heavily subordinated to their political masters, and CEO's tend to be a very disparate, rather than monolithic, group.

How do you propose to deal with the "rest of the problem"?

There many solutions to the varied environmental problems associated with modern manufacturing and distribution methods. And different ways of addressing these problems. But some practices seem to be coming out as consistent. For example, impact assessments (such as life cycle assessments for goods) seem to be a necessary part of the solution.

I like to keep things simple: reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order.

Reducing the scale of our crap manufacture would be the best solution. Part of that is creating an awareness in the consumer that they should not purchase the good or service unless they really need it. Deliberately try to reduce demand. Utopian, I know.

So, we go to the second one: reusable. If we can't or won't teach our children to stop demanding iCrap, can we at least make iCrap decent? Make the things last decades instead of months. Make it so that if it breaks, you can easily take it apart and fix it. Make it well, so we can reuse them and not have to make new ones every few months.

And if we can't even do that, can we at least make it out of recyclable goods so that we can eventually incorporate the raw materials into good technology somewhere down the road?

While that tends to be a problem in developing countries, whose economies are in turmoil as a result of the transitions inflicted by industrialization, can you cite a major, developed state where that has occurred?

Militaries in developed states tend to be very heavily subordinated to their political masters, and CEO's tend to be a very disparate, rather than monolithic, group.

One could argue Germany in the 1930's. Economic turmoil though already industrialized. nationalism brings the military to act, and CEO's promising to fix things could bring them in alliance.
Current US regime puts both the military and the corporate power structures in the opposition party.
If the economy gets worse very doable.

Did you not read my post?

Yes.

In every economic decision, you achieve an efficient allocation where the marginal benefit is equal to the marginal cost.

That's horseshit.

In every economic decision you might achieve what you consider an efficient allocation, based on the variables you choose to consider.

There are lots of reasons for why two smaller factories might produce less than one large one. You have to build two smaller factories, you might be running them for shorter periods of time because the markets they serve are smaller, there are economies of scale and so on. So I think the assumption that we'd pollute equally for a given amount of production fails.


You've never actually worked in a supply/demand environment, have you?

If you've got two localised factories, each carrying half the workload of the first factory, and each supplying half the market of the first - that is - each has half the capacity, and half the production - then the run time will be the same as for the one factory, and the production will be identical.

Unless you are arguing that the two smaller factories are going, instead, to be supplying bigger markets, or working more efficiently - but in that case the ASSUMPTION didn't fail, you just changed the parameters.


Say we cut down a tree to build a house.

The marginal benefit of cutting down the tree might be adding the final pieces to the roof, which the market values at some amount. The marginal social benefit would add any externalities or other market imperfections that aren't captured in the price. Maybe that there's one less homeless person or something.

Let's assume the tree isn't owned by anyone and has no market price. The plan marginal cost would simply be the cost of cutting it down. But the marginal social cost adds to that the non-market value of the tree, eg in terms of carbon reduction, wildlife, erosion protection etc.


And, so long as you can keep justifying what you perceive as benefits, this same argument will accompany the felling of the very last tree.

While, yes, ideally you'll find a way to build without polluting, you have to take into consideration the effects of economies of scale.


No, you don't. It's a baseless assertion that some people will embrace, purely because it serves their purpose.


It's implicit.

No, it isn't.

No, you don't. It's a baseless assertion that some people will embrace, purely because it serves their purpose.

Hardly. In all aspects of economics and policy we're exceptionally concerned with the effects of scale. Can you find any evidence to dispute scale effects?


No, it isn't.

I can play this game too.

Yes, it is.

Yes.

We said the same thing.

That's horseshit.

In every economic decision you might achieve what you consider an efficient allocation, based on the variables you choose to consider.

Malarkey princess.

The only variables to consider are marginal cost and marginal benefit. That's basic.

If, for another unit, you are getting less than you are paying for it, then the allocation is not even remotely efficient. It's a waste.

Similarly, if you could get more per unit than you are paying, then you've not gone as far as you could or should.

One could argue Germany in the 1930's.

Germany, in the 1930's, experienced something quite different from a military coup. In effect, it was a civilian coup, to which the military was occasionally hostile. Hitler had to, in effect, buy the military off by dismantling significant parts of the Nazi party apparatus to get them to cooperate, had the Sturmabteilung not been decapitated, Beck & Company would likely have challenged his rule.


Also, Godwin.

Economic turmoil though already industrialized. nationalism brings the military to act, and CEO's promising to fix things could bring them in alliance.

How? By what mechanism? Who would be sufficiently popular to be able to sponsor such an attempt?


Current US regime puts both the military and the corporate power structures in the opposition party.
If the economy gets worse very doable.

Hardly, the military is not likely to suffer in the current climate, and the command is comparatively low profile, professional and dedicated to their careers, more than any political ideal. CEO's remain intensely unpopular, and any solution preferred from that group would be likely treated with immense hostility.

The Zeitgeist Movement (from this movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...05277695921912 ) in conjunction with the Venus Project proposes a resource-based economy where technology provides almost everything society needs. They propose that the monetary system is what is keeping most of the world in poverty. They propose resources allocated truthfully and according to need as we all as alternative technologies explored for the good of humanity rather than just what is most profitable to the corporations (as the oil crisis shows and refusal to use or find alternative energy shows it is based on greed alone). Through the free science, and technology as well as a good education system that many of the problems in a monetary-based society such as many crimes (Personal Crime, Corporate Crime, and Government Crime) would be nearly eliminated. Sounds utopian but when you think of it statistically a lot of personal and corporate crime comes out of the monetary system, and geopolitics is based on gaining control of strategic resources solely for the purpose of monetary gain.

Germany, in the 1930's, experienced something quite different from a military coup. In effect, it was a civilian coup, to which the military was occasionally hostile. Hitler had to, in effect, buy the military off by dismantling significant parts of the Nazi party apparatus to get them to cooperate, had the Sturmabteilung not been decapitated, Beck & Company would likely have challenged his rule.

the military could make or break Hitler's coup. If they had refused to allow his push into power, he would have been arrested and the government restored. They might not have started out with Hitler, but once they realized they could be his king maker they threw their lot in with them.

Also, Godwin.

its only really a Godwin if it is about the morality. In this case we are looking at possible revolutions in an industrialized nation during depression conditions. though moving beyond that we could look at Franco in Spain.


How? By what mechanism? Who would be sufficiently popular to be able to sponsor such an attempt?

How popular was Hitler 8 years before he came to power? He was at most considered a funny man who tried to take over the country from a beer hall.
and more likely then not wasn't even know by most people.
that is the problem with revolutions if the means and persons were easily predictable then they would be prevented. There are likely as many means to revolution as there have been revolution.


Hardly, the military is not likely to suffer in the current climate, and the command is comparatively low profile, professional and dedicated to their careers, more than any political ideal. CEO's remain intensely unpopular, and any solution preferred from that group would be likely treated with immense hostility.

not all CEO's are unpopular. Steve Jobs for instance ??
its not like it would be a CEO directly ruling they would simply support said claimer to the throne indirectly until they were in power. the higher in rank a military officer gets the more likely he is he is to be political, it is really almost in the nature of the job. Have to talk with senators and congressmen to get funding for various projects.

the military could make or break Hitler's coup. If they had refused to allow his push into power, he would have been arrested and the government restored. They might not have started out with Hitler, but once they realized they could be his king maker they threw their lot in with them.

It's not only the benefit that the military derived from Hitler, though. The longstanding institutional culture of what was, at the start, a thoroughly Prussian institution, likely held the Reichswehr in check from moving against what they viewed as a legitimately elected civilian government.

its only really a Godwin if it is about the morality. In this case we are looking at possible revolutions in an industrialized nation during depression conditions. though moving beyond that we could look at Franco in Spain.

I forgot this-> ;)

It was a lame attempt at a joke, not actually calling a godwin.

How popular was Hitler 8 years before he came to power? He was at most considered a funny man who tried to take over the country from a beer hall.
and more likely then not wasn't even know by most people.
that is the problem with revolutions if the means and persons were easily predictable then they would be prevented. There are likely as many means to revolution as there have been revolution.

Hitler rode the same wave to power as the anti-democratic parties in Germany, though. By liberalism was largely seen to have been a failure by the Germans, while (what Chomsky would call) the good examples of economic health of fascism in Italy and authoritarian socialism in the USSR were seen as viable alternatives.

Further, by 1933, Germans knew Hitler, and they were used to the mechanism of Article 48 in the Weimar Constitution.

not all CEO's are unpopular. Steve Jobs for instance ??

And nearly dead, but that's a whole different story.

its not like it would be a CEO directly ruling they would simply support said claimer to the throne indirectly until they were in power. the higher in rank a military officer gets the more likely he is he is to be political, it is really almost in the nature of the job. Have to talk with senators and congressmen to get funding for various projects.

A general, though, would have to be a very public figure, highly recognized, highly respected and very independent, someone in the vein of MacArthur or Patton. In the US, though, there are no such generals, and the military command is radically subordinated to the civilian leadership.

Further, if CEO's were seen to have so directly seized control of the political and Constitutional systems, then the backlash would likely be extremely severe.

The Zeitgeist Movement (from this movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...05277695921912 ) in conjunction with the Venus Project proposes a resource-based economy where technology provides almost everything society needs. They propose that the monetary system is what is keeping most of the world in poverty. They propose resources allocated truthfully and according to need as we all as alternative technologies explored for the good of humanity rather than just what is most profitable to the corporations (as the oil crisis shows and refusal to use or find alternative energy shows it is based on greed alone). Through the free science, and technology as well as a good education system that many of the problems in a monetary-based society such as many crimes (Personal Crime, Corporate Crime, and Government Crime) would be nearly eliminated. Sounds utopian but when you think of it statistically a lot of personal and corporate crime comes out of the monetary system, and geopolitics is based on gaining control of strategic resources solely for the purpose of monetary gain.

They also don't know one whit about psychology.

But, usually, that's what you'd expect out of insane people.

Hardly. In all aspects of economics and policy we're exceptionally concerned with the effects of scale.


That's pure horseshit.


I can play this game too.

Yes, it is.

You were playing 'that game'. 'It's implicit' was utterly baseless, and a simple refutation.

Malarkey princess.

The only variables to consider are marginal cost and marginal benefit. That's basic.


Exactly. You demonstrated my point, perfectly.

I believe that capitalism is alive, if somewhat fettered and will return to
good health once more.

Exactly. You demonstrated my point, perfectly.

What should we be concerned about then? How do we determine the efficient allocation, when to continue to produce, or when not to produce, otherwise?

That's pure horseshit.


Might as well report for flaming. That's not even remotely constructive.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14604792#post14604792


You were playing 'that game'. 'It's implicit' was utterly baseless, and a simple refutation.

I'll explain what I mean when I say implicit.


http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5457/costcurve.jpg

On the curve, when you move to the left or the right, you are not producing or consuming enough. Whatever units costs are measured in, it doesn't matter. Producing more will cost more than you gain. Producing less will not provide the net good. Does that make sense, or does it not?

What other variables would you propose we use?

In every economic decision you might achieve what you consider an efficient allocation, based on the variables you choose to consider.

This is an absurdly redundant sentence. In every decision that anyone has ever made in the entire history of the universe, a decision is based on the variables they or someone else chooses to consider.

No. In my example with the iCrap, I pretty clearly pointed out that I meant that we can't have a wave of new products each year that are ecologically unsustainable. In other words, I was talking about 'making everybody happy even though it destroys that which sustains us' should be less important than 'not destroying that which sustains us'. The former definitely does not include the latter in my example of iCrap, which is what we are discussing.
Well, the question is: can we make everybody happy even though it destroys which sustains us? When I said that happiness is a function of time before, I meant that we can be X happy in Period 1, Y happy in Period 2 and so on. If we destroy all the trees to maximise happiness in Period 1, chances are we'd be worse off in Period 2. If we were to choose a course of action over time that really maximised happiness across time, chances are we'd be taking care of most of the environment in Period 1.

We must value certain aspects of nature as something more than a commodity, like our interdependence with other living organisms.
But if we can't measure or quantify it at all, then how can we compare it with other things and how can we treat it when we make decisions? If I were to take an extreme case: we are on a desert island and the only food can be accessed by destroying some part of the environment, then how would we know whether we should starve to death or not?

Good. i hope you don't mind that I address the concept of conservation anyway.
Well, you'll see that in may view of looking at things, it's not about conservation, restoration or anything like that, but about the maximisation of utility taking into account that the environment has some, at least roughly quantifiable, value.

That's another thing that will have to change. The idea that polluting more slowly is somehow anything more than a short-term measure. I'm going to go a step further than most people and suggest that we will have to build an environment wherein the industrial processes and infrastructure actually clean the surrounding environment of pollutants, rather than simply adding to them at a smaller rate.
You do realise that firstly we don't have the technology to do this, and that secondly at some point you actually reach the limits of what physics permits us to do. There is always going to be some waste and some pollution. What I'm saying is that often some pollution is better than no production.

But this model assumes that it is possible to quantify every factor that affects the difference between MSC, MC, MS, and MB. Is it?
Yes.

We are consuming portions of nature in our continued attempt to survive in nature.
Exactly. And since economics is the study of making decisions about scarce resources, it's pretty well-positioned to inform us about these things. But it does require us to be able to compare alternatives, which in an environment of many different agents means some sort of quantifiable prices.

You've never actually worked in a supply/demand environment, have you?
Everyone always does.

If you've got two localised factories, each carrying half the workload of the first factory, and each supplying half the market of the first - that is - each has half the capacity, and half the production - then the run time will be the same as for the one factory, and the production will be identical.

Except if the big factory has the "Widget-O-Matic 5000" that produces more than twice as fast but is only worth it above a certain output quantity.

Unless you are arguing that the two smaller factories are going, instead, to be supplying bigger markets, or working more efficiently - but in that case the ASSUMPTION didn't fail, you just changed the parameters.
I don't think I did. Economies of scale are a normal part of any production decision, and to some extent they always exist. That's part of the reason for why we have factories at all, instead of everyone just making a few units of something at home.

Anyways, if you want to call that a change of parameter you can. But I'm going to propose that the production of a lot of products is going to exhibit parameters like that, and so my point is still worth answering: centralised production, even globally centralised production, makes sense if the efficiency gains (which includes environmental factors) are greater than the additional transport costs.

And, so long as you can keep justifying what you perceive as benefits, this same argument will accompany the felling of the very last tree.
Well, if those benefits are actually larger than the costs, yes. But logic as well as economics says that there are good reasons to expect the marginal cost of felling an additional tree become larger as the number of trees left in the world becomes smaller, and that the marginal benefit of felling it becomes smaller as the number already felled increases.

But if we can't measure or quantify it at all, then how can we compare it with other things and how can we treat it when we make decisions?
By using a non-quantitative schema.

By using a non-quantitative schema.
More details?

More details?
I've only been following this debate lightly, but when you started talking about environmental policy (linked with economic policy) you seemed to be assuming a consequentialist, quantitative account:

Because people want it. The idea behind efficiency and sustainability isn't to keep mother nature happy, or even to minimise waste. It is to maximise our happiness, which is a function over time.
I'd dispute that the idea behind efficiency and, in particular, sustainability is one of maximising happiness. Indeed, environmental ethics/policy, gets into all sorts of hot water when we start to assign value to humans, trees, etc. There are alternatives. Virtue-based or deontological environmental ethics/policy, for example.

See here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/#4).

Apologies if this is slightly off-kilter to your point.

I've only been following this debate lightly, but when you started talking about environmental policy (linked with economic policy) you seemed to be assuming a consequentialist, quantitative account:


I'd dispute that the idea behind efficiency and, in particular, sustainability is one of maximising happiness. Indeed, environmental ethics/policy, gets into all sorts of hot water when we start to assign value to humans, trees, etc. There are alternatives. Virtue-based or deontological environmental ethics/policy, for example.

See here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/#4).

Apologies if this is slightly off-kilter to your point.

Not really sure I like the base rationalization:

Deontological ethical theories, in contrast, maintain that whether an action is right or wrong is for the most part independent of whether its consequences are good or bad. From the deontologist perspective, there are several distinct moral rules or duties (e.g., “not to kill or otherwise harm the innocent”, “not to lie”, “to respect the rights of others”, “to keep promises”), the observance/violation of which is intrinsically right/wrong; i.e., right/wrong in itself regardless of consequences. When asked to justify an alleged moral rule, duty or its corresponding right, deontologists may appeal to the intrinsic value of those beings to whom it applies.

It seems to me that this school of thought believes that other beings, including other human beings, intrinsically value things that same way that I do. I'm not sure we can really make that case, without falling back on our own personal emotions and feelings, and thus invalidating the claim that the intrinsic value is derived from those beings to whom it applies.



I'd prefer a more utilitarian ethic.

Well, the question is: can we make everybody happy even though it destroys which sustains us? When I said that happiness is a function of time before, I meant that we can be X happy in Period 1, Y happy in Period 2 and so on. If we destroy all the trees to maximise happiness in Period 1, chances are we'd be worse off in Period 2. If we were to choose a course of action over time that really maximised happiness across time, chances are we'd be taking care of most of the environment in Period 1.


And not producing iCrap in either period.

But if we can't measure or quantify it at all, then how can we compare it with other things and how can we treat it when we make decisions? If I were to take an extreme case: we are on a desert island and the only food can be accessed by destroying some part of the environment, then how would we know whether we should starve to death or not?

It's not impossible to make decisions based on more than just what can be quantified. When you go to the grocery store, do you shop solely based on grams of nutrients per penny, or do you sometimes buy stuff because you like how it tastes?

Well, you'll see that in may view of looking at things, it's not about conservation, restoration or anything like that, but about the maximisation of utility taking into account that the environment has some, at least roughly quantifiable, value.

In my way of looking at things, it's about keeping humanity alive. I don,t know if that's quantifiable.

You do realise that firstly we don't have the technology to do this, and that secondly at some point you actually reach the limits of what physics permits us to do. There is always going to be some waste and some pollution. What I'm saying is that often some pollution is better than no production.

You do realise that we do have the technology to do this? Look at the work of Buckminster Fuller, and how his work has been taken further (thank god) by people like John Todd, Michael Braungart and William McDonough. These are people who are basing their work on physics and chemistry and biology. These scientists seem to be able to use the laws of nature to create systems that do not pollute.

Yes.

I wish I had your faith, but I think reality is more complicated than that.

Exactly. And since economics is the study of making decisions about scarce resources, it's pretty well-positioned to inform us about these things. But it does require us to be able to compare alternatives, which in an environment of many different agents means some sort of quantifiable prices.

...but let us not limit our understanding by only looking at the quantifiable. If we do that, we end up making Ford Pintos.

And not producing iCrap in either period.
Except when iCrap makes someone happy. That was my point, though I suppose given the discussion below it's rather lost in this particular case.

It's not impossible to make decisions based on more than just what can be quantified. When you go to the grocery store, do you shop solely based on grams of nutrients per penny, or do you sometimes buy stuff because you like how it tastes?
I quantify that decision though when I buy the thing. I pay a price, and that price is a representation of a minimum amount of happiness I get from the thing.

In my way of looking at things, it's about keeping humanity alive. I don,t know if that's quantifiable.
I think it certainly is. What's the total present value of all the future product of the entire human civilisation? What's the compensation we'd be willing to forgo all of future existence for?

I can attach a number to it, it's just that it would tend towards infinity is all. But that just implies we shouldn't self-destruct. It doesn't tell us anything about felling an additional tree, assuming that this one particular act doesn't directly lead to complete doom.

You do realise that we do have the technology to do this? Look at the work of Buckminster Fuller, and how his work has been taken further (thank god) by people like John Todd, Michael Braungart and William McDonough. These are people who are basing their work on physics and chemistry and biology. These scientists seem to be able to use the laws of nature to create systems that do not pollute.
Systems that sustain humanity's needs? If the answer is "No", then we can either take the view that this means we have to wait for them to be perfected, at which point they will also become extremely profitable - or we have to change our needs entirely. If we do the latter, you're back to square one, namely providing a good argument for why we should take a big cut to our material wellbeing right now. Answer 1 is to avoid destruction, but I'd argue that there is no good evidence for why waiting until these technologies are economically feasible would lead to doom. Answer 2 is because of some moral imperative, and we're back to Chumblywumbly and his funny ethics.

...but let us not limit our understanding by only looking at the quantifiable. If we do that, we end up making Ford Pintos.
That depends on what you believe "quantifying something" really means.

Except when iCrap makes someone happy. That was my point, though I suppose given the discussion below it's rather lost in this particular case.

Pretending we can quantify happiness, I would then say that iCrap has a net negative impact on our happiness, as the costs to our happiness in terms of the huge resource and energy load to make what is essentially the garbage of next year far outweigh the fleeting happiness of being able to show our friends what's on our playlist. You can move the costs on to the next generation, but then you're being a shitty parent.

I quantify that decision though when I buy the thing. I pay a price, and that price is a representation of a minimum amount of happiness I get from the thing.

I think it certainly is. What's the total present value of all the future product of the entire human civilisation? What's the compensation we'd be willing to forgo all of future existence for?

I can attach a number to it, it's just that it would tend towards infinity is all. But that just implies we shouldn't self-destruct. It doesn't tell us anything about felling an additional tree, assuming that this one particular act doesn't directly lead to complete doom.

What is the qualitative difference between the Mona Lisa and a perfect forgery? Or a Picasso sketch done with ink on paper, and a photocopy of it? None. Yet we value them differently.

A happy child and a sad one? Again, none. (Unless we assume that we can quantify happiness...) Yet we value them differently.

I would suggest that there is no number we can attach to the worth of our continued survival. No price that we would judge sufficient to just lay down and die as a species. Our instincts can't do even the simplest math.

Systems that sustain humanity's needs? If the answer is "No"......

The answer is yes.

That depends on what you believe "quantifying something" really means.

To quantify something, in my mind, means to define it in terms of discrete amounts that can then be counted as units.