Last weekend reflections got spammed, so I’m opening another, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. Side discussions to sandpits, please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
I completely agree. Democracy for the ends, markets for some of the means.
No-one has a good idea on exactly what our transportation systems should look like once we’ve agreed to cut our use of fossil fuels by 95 percent or more., though. And that problem seems quite similar to ones for which we’ve used markets before.
Megan @40
1. You write: “As an experiment, what would you imagine to be the immediate impacts, locally, of petrol at $2 a litre or of rationing to say 30 litres a week?”
There are a very large number of possible answers to your hypothetical. (Do not rely on introductory econ textbooks show an aggregate demand curve with quantity on one axis and $ values on the other. They only work if there is only 1 individual ‘locally’, 1 commodity, a fixed budget constraint and the preferences of this individual can be represented by this demand curve. An interpretation of this diagram for a ‘local economy’ (more than 1 individual, many commodities, a financial sector, ….) requires a long list of conditions, which at best hold only for a ‘small’ or marginal change in the monetary price of one commodity.)
2. You write: “EROEI is precisely about how much you can have and how much it will cost you to have it.”
No, EROEI is defined over physical quantities.
3. You write: “Of course we can/could/should have moved away from this reliance long ago – but we didn’t. And we’re here, now.”
No comment required.
4. You write: “I am honestly bamboozled that anyone can think “energy” in the current way we use it is detached from “economics” in the current way we accept it.”
I am not aware there is anyone who thinks ‘energy’ (or rather petroleum) is ‘detached’ from Economics. (Maybe you think sub-disciplines of Economics such as Accounting, Finance, Macroeconomics, Marketing, Business……..)
Greg vP @45.
I’ve got a message for ‘freedom fighting engineers’.
Suppose a literary person wants to excercise his or her ‘freedom of choice’ and decides building bridges is what he or she wants to do. Would you, as a self-identified engineer be prepared to buy a bridge built by a poet who failed all math and science subjects at high school?
I am neither an engineer nor a poet but I wouldn’t agree to pay a cent for the poet’s efforts. And I would’t dare walking on a bridge built by the said poet. So, here we have another requirement for ‘it works’.
@Ernestine Gross
I was particularly looking at Tim’s comment that EROEI is of no significance, but also generally that in my view it is the key to what future production of oil (in a lower EROEI world) actually means.
In my hypothetical, using JQ’s numbers, one immediate effect would be on average $15 less per week for everyone. Of course the less wealthy and those who necessarily drive more than average will feel a greater impact (both because the $$ figure would be higher and it would be a bigger percentage of the weekly budget).
Because EROEI is the big factor in whether a barrel of oil can profitably be produced at a certain oil price I think it is important.
High priced oil will greatly affect food prices. Considered as human fuel food has an EROEI of about 0.1 according to Paztek, Pimental et al. That is it takes 87,200 kJ of energy to grow, process and deliver the 8,720 kJ said to be needed daily by most adults. Maybe as in WW2 we’ll all get a lot thinner. Note one reason to conserve gas and not export so much LNG is future need for urea fertiliser.
This is also where climate change and peak oil will inflict a double whammy by making storebought food more expensive. We still don’t know yet if the WA wheatbelt will produce a good yield by year’s end. For this year at least beef should be cheaper among other reasons due to the need to destock dry country in western Queensland. I suspect world food prices will increase from 2014 eroding family budgets for outings and discretionary spending. Egypt shows what might happen.
I think Egypt (along with Syria, Libya etc.) is starting to show us the future. Many minor oil exporters like Egypt have just about reached the point where domestic consumption is taking most or all of their oil and little is left for export. Since oil is often their only significant export this leaves no source of foreign earnings. Subsidised food and other commodities depended on there foreign earnings. Without said earnings subsidised food and indeed any affordable food become that much harder to come by.
The unrest seems to me to be largely related to rising food prices and shortages of food and other essential items. It’s always tempting to come up with other more complicated political explanations for unrest but when people start going hungry in droves then unrest is pretty much guaranteed. Of course, we note how such countries scale back their military to feed their people! < — That's sarcasm of course.
It's one thing to posit that Australia or the USA can transition to renewables given their current positions and resources. It's another thing to posit that a country like Egypt can do it. Sure they have a lot of wind and sunlight but I suspect their problem will be fresh water and food.
Rog’s link from another thread is worth quoting as it demonstrates just how nutty the Republicans have become:
Today it isn’t uncommon to read on conservative websites claims that acid rain, ozone depletion etc were greenie myths.
@Sancho
Sancho – I heard about that research from the IPA guy who was on on The Drum TV show one day -it may have been 12 + months ago. They seem to be directly or indirectly responsible for some innovative stuff eg; Chris Berg and ‘Free Speech From Socrates to Andrew Bolt’ !
EROEI —- Im sure Deniers think/hope nano-technology (or some science ironically) will save the day.
Ike , . As you know this has been happening in many small ways in the West, but for it to happen on a big enough scale to shift our course I think a lot of people are going to have to die off (from natural attrition hopefully ) first . Those who may have transitioned easier because they actually remember times of scarcity are mostly gone already . They know they were not necessarily less happy then . The young offer hope but not so much the baby boomers in my opinion . The Boomers still have their hands on the controls .
@Mel
Yes, just as it isn’t uncommon to read on conservative websites and in the conservative media that free markets created democracy, freedom and human rights. When in fact a series of developments preceding capitalism (from ancient Greece until the 20th C in Western history) created Western democracy, citizen freedoms and human rights.
But hey, you can always be right when you re-write history and ignore all scientific and evidentiary facts can’t you? However, being “right” in that way, via lies, illusions and delusions always comes before a very big fall. It might work for a while but sooner or later reality catches up with you and floors you with a flurry of unstoppable disasters. It’s like King Canute saying he can stop the tide coming in. He could still be right (in his own mind) when the water is only up to his ankles. But once it’s over his head it is clear that reality has triumphed over his fantasy.
I know JQ deplores generational analayis but here is my two bob’s worth. I belong to the boomers generation and I blame the boomers generation. We are to blame. We messed up big time. Boomers are lazy, selfish, greedy, short-sighted, easily fooled and have forgotten all their history and all the smart and difficult things their forebears did to fight against countervailing forces and create democracy, social democracy and relatively egalitarian mixed economies with public and private enterprise in partnership. The boomers generation has blown it. The boomers generation is very reprehensible and culpable IMO. That is my emotional take.
Intellectually, one must say its either that (the boomers are at fault) or else one must blame inexorable historical forces for which no-one is at fault. So choose your position (free will or historicism). Either we made the mess so we are to blame or inexorable historical forces made it so nobody is really to blame.
Generational “analysis” is embarrassing n#nsense and I immediately lose respect for anyone who uses it. There is infinitely greater diversity within than between generations and much stronger bonds such as ethnicity, religion and class.
To assign a range of characteristics to a homeless Ab#riginal in Alice Springs, a single mum in a housing commission flat in Melbourne and the jet setting son of a billionaire simply because they were all born in the same 20 year timespan is the sort of st#pidity that should get one struck off the electoral roll.
test
Generational “analysis” is embarrassing n#nsense and I immediately lose respect for anyone who uses it.
I’m new to the concept, but that looks a bit like ‘generational analysis’.
Sigh.
Generational analysis means dividing history into arbitrary time blocks, giving them a name (Gen X, Gen Y etc …) and then asserting that everyone irrespective of gender, race, religion, class, political orientation etc shares certain characteristics.
Every generation gets old and age is associated with conservatism as shown by the age distribution of voting patterns, social attitudes etc.
How is this not obvious? On second thoughts, don’t answer that question as I’m not really interested 😉
@Ikonoclast
“We” are not a homogenous lot that can be dealt with the way DSGE models pretend it can be done (the trick with equalisation of MRS doesn’t work when markets are incomplete, which they are – all of this has been discussed by JQ).
Even in pop-culture terminology, “we” includes ‘boomers’, ‘Gen X’, ‘Gen Y’, ‘Gen ? at the same time.
Its a messy world. Who would really like to have a tidy but boring one?
Cheer up, Ikon. You aren’t to blame for ‘everything’, or indeed anything.
We’re getting into the weeds here. By saying I had an ‘engineering’ bias, I meant that my first reaction to a new issue is to try to come up with a specific solution. I went on to say that I now understand that to be mistaken.
Practical freedom is not absolute individual freedom. Singling out this innumerate would-be bridge-builder for special treatment is a net loss of practical freedom, because everyone else would have to spend time checking bridges they might want to use. Maintaining and enhancing practical freedom requires impartial treatment, and restraints on individuals’ actions for the good of everyone.
It turns out that freedom, thought about in this way, works: it’s a useful criterion for deciding methods, how to go about things in order to achieve a mutually desired result while preserving a society we want to live in.
The set of institutions that Australia has is one of the best ways so far developed for working these things out and implementing them.
Anyway. In the case you describe, existing regulations prevent harm. In the climate-change case, we need something done, but the methods and institutions we most often use should work well, both for working out exactly what, and for doing it.
@Greg vP
No, I didn’t say or try to imply you have an engineering bias. I used information you provided to construct an example which obviously begged for a clarification of ‘freedom’. It seems to have worked.
Rejection of generational analysis altogether would seem to deny to some extent all of the following phenomena;
(1). Zeitgeist (the spirit of a particular time or really the accepted mores of a particular time);
(2). The development and evolution of knowledge, intellectual views and social world-views (rendering the generations qualitatively different);
(3.) The impact of environment on development (Different generations have different development experiences in a fast changing world).
(4). The impact of the dominant classes of a particular time.
Thus, to some extent, denial of any validity to generational analysis can also be the denial of any validity to class analysis itself. That denial of generational analysis has become the new political correctness of the self-perceived left(-ish) class (who are really quite right-wing now) is particularly amusing. The generally observed and agreed upon phenomenon of the Overton Window moving steadily right is basically congruent with the passage of the boomers becoming far more right wing than their parents were.
I’ve lived long enough to see the Overton window move an enormous distance to the right. I am one the few apparently who has kept enough historical perspective to remain grounded in a wider frame of reference and not drift to the far right with the bulk of boomers. So I really dont give a fig for pseudo-left (really middle-right) political correctness.
Generational analysis is mindless waffle. In fact it is akin to astrology.
Bill Gates has sweet FA in common with a black guy from Harlem who has spent most of his life behind bars just because both were born between 1946 and 1964, the usual “boomer” dates.
Thankfully I never heard it mentioned even once during my B Soc Sci.
Generational blather is engaged in by those who have magazine memories and one inch thoughts, if I may paraphrase a couple of Van Zandt lyrics.
Mel, did actually attend any lectures of a “B Soc Sci”?
Every generation from the mid 19th century to the present has different properties with an ever widening differential. And you don’t see how that can have relevence to at least seven fields of social science? Are you on cab driving duty tonight?
BilB:
“Every generation from the mid 19th century to the present has different properties with an ever widening differential.”
Evidence please.
Given the terrible economic prediction in the budget, does anyone else agree that Rudd should campaign on another stimulus?
This recent string of economic bad news could undermine the good economic management over the last 6 years, for the upcoming election.
Its all in the history, Mel! Population growth, technology permeation, education access, medical advancement, appreciation of science, methods of comunication,,,, It is all there. You should be telling us about it, as a “B Soc Sci” doer.
Kevin,
I don’t think so, The key change is the diving dollar which will provide the stimulus. The problem is the timing. It will take a fair while for export businesses that have been stalled to reconnect with their international customers and argue for a resumption of business. That all takes time. We have lost a lot of high profile businesses in a broad field of industries.
What would work best are export market development grants for small business even though they are a bit of a gravey train, This is indeed a direct stimulous but of the type that will promote new production and employment much faster and more efficiently than casting cash to the public at large.
@BilB
Perhaps. I’m not sure what the best composition is in this case. But I think the point is that Rudd shouldn’t do nothing. He needs to look like his addressing these problems, especially given the worsening economic conditions.
Yes, I agree that he should do something just not in a “we’ll spend more money” kind of way particularly after announcing a 30 billion dollar budget blow out.
Suddenly the Left seems like a very dumb place. Trouble is, the Right is twice as dumb.
@Kevin Most definitely we need stimulus however we need to get past or over this “govt debt” issue.
At present the dominant argument is along the lines of “$X debt for every man woman child” which I don’t think will go away. Along with the “turn back the boats” mantra we have the picture of an incompetent govt, rather than one which is able to respond to global forces beyond their control.
Perhaps, Mel, you can uplift the Left by writing something really Lefty and ultra smart!
What have you got? Anything? anything at all.
@BilB
Mel is that most precious of all things — neither left nor right — a purveyor of pure insight, devoid of the taint of perspective. (Well, at least in his own mind anyway.)
I havent been around this blog (or computers ) long enought to notice Pr Q’s abhorence of generational analysis but I think both sides are correct (does that make me a weak Leftie?). There is some merit in what Mel says about there being more variation within each category than there is between them, lots of language categories are like that ( apparently racial categories have been empirically proven so). Broardly speaking language is like that ;- messy necissarily .This is a big theme in the philosophy of language now days ,but look at Wittgensteins’ 2nd book (of only 2 written) ‘Philosophical Investigations’ for more (Mel -thats me trying to raise the tone a bit!) . What we need to decide is – does that mean we would be better off not using these categories and using others .If we dont use any we cant speak or think -sometimes a good thing .Either way it is at least a cautionary note .
On Insiders this morn it was said that Rupert Murdoch has now actually said openly that his media empire is campaigining against Labor specifically because he wants to prevent the NBN as it would be a threat to his business interests !
Mel is slap bang in the middle of the Overton Window, which these days is somewhere between centre right and far right.
I’m a sixties leftie and proud of it gaffer!
@sunshine
“On Insiders this morn it was said that Rupert Murdoch has now actually said openly that his media empire is campaigining against Labor specifically because he wants to prevent the NBN as it would be a threat to his business interests !” – sunshine.
Yeah it’s very clear now that fossil fuel capital, Automobile capital, Main Stream Media capital, Financial capital and of course Military Industrial Capital are the Reactionary camp which want to prevent further progress and lock the current power system in indefinitely. Capital involved in the internet, sustainable and renewable techs and some other fields is relatively progressive capital. At least let us got on the side of progressive capital as a first step.
I don’t think Col-Pot has been sent to attack Rudd (or, more accurately, to work against his prospects). Quite the opposite.
The very fact that Sheehan says something is usually prima facie evidence of the contrary.
Here’s a quote from our Beloved Leader, PrQ, that nails it with respect to the generational caper:
Can we please leave talk about “boomers” and “Gen X” to the glossy magazines and the lifestyle section of the daily newspapers where they belong.
And Fran, I am a lefty but I’m not a team player. My own side disgusts me almost as much as the other side.
Mel, while I’m glad to have some support on the generation issue, I’d appreciate it if you could dial down the confrontation. Some positive policy proposals, say, on reducing emissions in the transport sector would be great.
Just a general comment about transport within city areas, especially the CBD. I stay in the CBD of Adelaide at the moment, and one thing that has impressed me is the pick up of bicycles as a mode of transport. The apartment buildings are now tending to put in specific parking areas for bikes, and the city council (and car-park buildings) have put in quite a few bike racks.
When I first lived in Adelaide (a long time ago), the bike racks were around the CBD and in suburban shopping areas. Over time, for reasons unknown to me, the councils slowly removed them. It is great to see a resurgence in bikes as a means of city transport. Being a flat area in a Mediterranean climate, the CBD is perfect for cycling as a means of transport. As city population densities increase, the motor vehicle becomes an impediment; very costly to run and maintain, storing them takes up a lot of space, and parking fees are a bitch.
The CBD has a good free city loop bus service, and trams. Walking around is easy, too.
Quite a few drivers get (illegitimately) annoyed and frustrated by the presence of cyclists on their roads, but the laugh of it is that bikes are often quicker for getting around the CBD than a car, simply because of traffic. Perhaps it is the cyclist who has reason to be annoyed at those pesky cars getting in the way and slowing them down 🙂
BTW, I’m using Dear Leader now.
@Mel
Then really, ‘the left’ is not your own side. You overlook the reality that part of the definition of being ‘left’ is being a ‘team player’. That doesn’t entail joining some sort of cultural-intellectual borg-mind, but it does entail having a clear view of the classes of people who have priority in your concern in any social and political conflict that one by and large shares with the rest of your team.
For the left, those classes are people who survive by doing social labour, or who are supported by those who do, or who are marginalised because they are denied participation in social labour or population tranches who are culturally ‘at risk’ from the inclination of elites to use their deviance from the perceived cultural norm to misdirect the remainder of the populace to support unwarranted privilege.
If the defence and augmentation of the interests of these groups lies at the heart of your politics, then you can claim to be on the left, but if this paradigm disgusts you nearly as much as those who constructively spurn such politics, then whatever you are, you are no left|st or reliable ally of the working humanity.
Sorry about the confrontational tone, PrQ.
It has been so coooold and windy here in north-central Victoria the past few days that I’m getting cabin fever. Must force self out the door ….
Need more evidence for the proposition that Murdoch has sent Col out here to “pretend” that he doesn’t want Rudd to win?
Just look at the front page of Monday’s Sydney ‘Daily Terrrgraph” and compare it with the pre and post Obama 2010 NY Post front pages.
You are being corralled into two tribal camps – with Murdoch the cowboy doing the rounding up.
First he does the ludicrous faux hate to separate and polarise the two “sides”, then he celebrates the peoples’ “choice”. This is BS!
Ooops, obviously “2012” re Obama election. Just seemed so long ago!
at a guess, wikileaks is not made up of socially gifted people.
if these computer geeks ever had the chance to say so, I wonder if any of them had the sensitivity to suggest to Manning that he was getting himself into a hell of a lot of trouble by leaking that mass of information to them and should reconsider what risks he was taking.
@Jim Rose
I guess the Army Recruiting Office is not made up of socially gifted people. If those army jarheads ever had the chance to say so, I wonder if any of them had the sensitivity to suggest to Manning (and every other recruit) that he was getting himself into a hell of a lot of trouble by signing up with the US Army and should reconsider what risks he was taking.
?????
hermes ??????
hermes ?? ??
hermes ??????
???