World Economics for Geniuses and Dummies

[Foxfyre]

HYPOTHESIS: (Yes I used that term intentionally)

Anthropogenic global warming is supposed to be causing unprecedented climate change. Before they scientists came up with AGW, now referred to as 'climate change', the hypothesis was that we were running out of petroleum and natural gas and it was essential to begin the move to other forms of energy immediately.

I personally think the hypothesis is likely nowhere close to being proven at this time, but for the time being, let's go with that as if it really is so-called 'settled science.' (Science by its very nature is never completely 'settled' but oh well.)

The problem is the products that utilize other forms of energy still mostly require a good deal of petroleum to manufacture and as components of the product itself as well as operate, maintain, repair those products.

And how about the impact of mining on the environment to produce the ore that produces the metals used in those other forms of energy? Massive amounts of real estate are required for mining lithium, cobalt, magnesium, iron, copper etc. used in electric batteries alone and massive batteries are required for all EVs not to mention all those mines require machines etc. that use a lot of petroleum+. And are those resources not also finite? Is there unlimited supply of anything on Earth?

When the people have been ready for it and receptive to it, a free market technology has always come through for us to produce alternate means of doing almost everything from cleaning to cooking to transportation to communications. There is no reason to believe that a free market technology will not come through again to replace what we are doing now.

Government has initiated few programs that did not provide benefit to some or satisfied some, but in the end almost always produces unintended negative consequences. And government rarely ends anything long after it has become obsolete. A free market either changes with the needs and wants of its customers or it goes out of business and does something else

QUESTION: Considering the realities in the big picture in all of this, doesn't it make a lot more sense that all those trillions of dollars spent globally to presumably fight 'climate change' could be more effectively utilized to help people adapt to inevitable climate change, recycle, repurpose, reuse everything so we don't need so much of Earth's resources?

Would not all of humankind benefit more if that was the general philosophy?

 

[mamooth]

When the people have been ready for it and receptive to it, a free market technology has always come through for us to produce alternate means of doing almost everything from cleaning to cooking to transportation to communications.

No, the free market sucks at long term planning.

For example, the free market would not have made vehicles more fuel efficient or safer. Government had to force the kicking and screaming automakers to do that.

When a grid takes decades to upgrade, waiting for the free market to do it would mean grid failure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, the free market sucks at long term planning.

For example, the free market would not have made vehicles more fuel efficient or safer. Government had to force the kicking and screaming automakers to do that.

When a grid takes decades to upgrade, waiting for the free market to do it would mean grid failure.

No, the free market sucks at long term planning.

The only thing that sucks more is liberal planning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, the free market sucks at long term planning.

For example, the free market would not have made vehicles more fuel efficient or safer. Government had to force the kicking and screaming automakers to do that.

When a grid takes decades to upgrade, waiting for the free market to do it would mean grid failure.

For example, the free market would not have made vehicles more fuel efficient or safer.

Liar.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, the free market sucks at long term planning.

For example, the free market would not have made vehicles more fuel efficient or safer. Government had to force the kicking and screaming automakers to do that.

When a grid takes decades to upgrade, waiting for the free market to do it would mean grid failure.

We don't know whether the free market would have made vehicles more fuel efficient or safer. They might have done a better job than government. They might have done it without having to downsize automobiles so much that more cars are necessary to transport people. Seven people in a standard family sized car was commonplace. (We used to put eight of us in a car to go to the drive in movies.) But regulations for existing industry is a much different animal than ordering what an industry must be.

The free market is far less tunnel visioned than any government.

 

[mamooth]

They might have done it without having to downsize automobiles

"Downsize automobiles"?

Have you seen what's on the road?

And have you compared the gas mileage?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, the free market sucks at long term planning.

The only thing that sucks more is liberal planning.

More importantly nobody sucks more at long term planning than the government when it comes to forecasting or guessing what conditions will exist. Most especially when the people change so frequently.

There is a vast difference between a city government laying out a development plan for expansion of residential properties and businesses and a government dictating what those properties must be. There is a vast difference between a hope, a goal, a vision and the mechanics of making such happen. More than 300,000 people were involved in putting a man on the moon and most were in private industry tasked with coming up with something that worked that would do what was needed to be done. NASA coordinated it yes. But it never would have happened without the free market.

Car manufacturers are always thinking about the cars of the future, but until the technology and the market demand catch up with the vision, they aren't investing large amounts of money to make that happen.

And the tunnel vision of government, not even counting the lack of expertise of those in government, making it virtually impossible or at least horribly inefficient and expensive to even put a can of tuna on our grocery shelves should inform us that we do not want government managing the market or the products that we buy. Walter E Williams explains that well in his short essay "Economic Miracle" here:

Economic Miracle

The idea that even the brightest person or group of bright people, much less the U.S. Congress, can wisely manage an economy has to be the height of arrogance and conceit. Why? It is impossible for anyone to possess the knowledge that would be necessary for such an undertaking. At the risk of...

walterewilliams.com