Re: finite world/resource depletion

[Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad@xxxxxxx>]

John B. O'Donnell wrote:

> Because money is fungible any accounting of government "trust fund"
> spending is nothing more or less than obfuscation.

One thing I've learned about conservatives the past few years is how
much fun they have playing with fungibility.  "Humanitarian aid" for the
Contras was NEVER mentioned within 10 light-years of "fungibility".
Ditto for military contractors using their income to lobby for more
business.  But, when it came to PBS stations using non-federal money
(and damn little of that) to run banners telling their viewers to call
Congress & express their views on funding for public broadcasting --
well "fungibility" wasn't even the word they used -- it was "Using
taxpayer's money"...

Thus, my reply:

Talk about fungibility is nothing more or less than obfuscation.

> The simple reality is
> that fuel taxes reduce effective demand for this use of petroleum,
> nothing more, nothing less.

There's VERY little elasticity in demand for fuel.  If people gotta go,
they gotta go.  But, of course, as a pure ideologue, why let the facts
get in the way?  It would be so...  impure!

> > But then there's the cost of military patrols and preparedness
> > in the Middle East -- something that's NEVER connected in these
> > kinds of accounting.
>
> On this point I think we agree even if not for the same reasons.
> Fighting wars to maintain access to oil is not my idea of a good
> application of military force to protect our freedom.

We spend a whole lot more just scaring the shit out of people and
keeping brutal dictatoships in power than we spend fighting wars.

> >  And there are various kinds of corporate subsidies.  There
> > have been enormous subsidies to nuclear as well, as there
> > continue to be.
>
> Would this be a suggestion that nuclear power substitution for fossil
> fuels contributes to the greenhouse gasses that supposedly cause global
> warming?

No.  It's a suggestion that nuclear power, like fossil fuels, receives
massive support due to political/economic power.

> Or, is it just another example that this is just a ruse to
> discourage economic growth?

Every time we've been able to escape the grasp of an obsolescent fuel
technology, the result has been a substantial INCREASE in economic
growth.  If Alan Greenspan would get out of the way, there's no reason
to expect a transition to clean renewable fuels to be any different.

> For an alternative view of global warming see:
> <http://www.carnell.com/global_warming/index.html>

Or just call EXXON!

I've also got some bookmarks for the Flat Earth Society, in case anyone
is interested.

> [Please don't respond to the above questions on PKT.

Good grief, man, if you don't want them responded to on PKT, then DON'T
POST THEM TO PKT!

> As noted by James
> R. Olsen, jr. in an off list e-mail, this is getting a bit off subject.

The relationship of economics to the real world is off-subject?  Gee, I
thought that was only on conventional economics lists.

> Which is also why, in addition to a bad taste of foot in mouth, I'll
> stop the global warming subject here.]

I hear you.  The taste only gets worse as the temperature rises.

> <<SNIP>>
>
> > > Economists do, however, seem to hold as true some beliefs that any
> > > fool can see are tautologically impossible.
> >
> > I might well agree with you, if only I had the faintest idea what
> > you're talking about.
>
> For a start you can try the essay "Supply and Demand, Again" on my web
> page.

I wasn't asking for more confused prose, I was asking for less.

--
Paul Rosenberg
Reason and Democracy
rad@xxxxxxx

"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"