|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Of course, rather than waiting until inevitable shortages manifest symptoms which will cause people to suffer, we could simply begin implementation of an alternative energy economy now. Unfortunately, that would be Socialist! We must wait until there are rampant shortages and people are suffering to do anything about it, that's what Liberty is about. |
You got it backwards: without the socialists, the investment would have occurred long ago. |
Yeah, this data-free counterfactual is a favorite of Libertarians. |
Just how is one supposed to provide facts for what would have been? |
Precisely why anyone insisting that it would be true in that counterfactual situation shouldn't be trusted. They're making statements of fact about complex situations that we have zero data about.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Got any facts to show it is not true? |
I think it's safe to say that the burden of proof rests on the individuals making counterfacual assertions. These arm-chair society builders aren't out there changing the world with their supreme economic wisdom, so you'll forgive me for being suspicious of their extremist claims. Let's see them use their economic wisdom to enrich themselves, before we accept that it can enrich us all.
Economics is about results. Let's see some. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| I don't think it's true that a free market economy couldn't plan ahead. On the contrary, the research I've seen suggests that in freer markets people have a lower time preference, meaning they weigh future well-being more heavily in their choices. |
That may be true of individuals and some business and non-profit entities, but it certainly isn't true of corporate entities, which are often hamstrung in long-term planning by the pursuit of profit in the near-term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Got any facts to show it is not true? |
I think it's safe to say that the burden of proof rests on the individuals making counterfacual assertions. |
The burden rests on the one claiming it is "counterfactual" to cite those facts supposedly being countered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| On the flip side, classical economics would predict that as it gets more expensive we will use less of it, and look for alternatives. This is happening now, but the economy is still tremendously vulnerable to oil shortages. |
Of course, rather than waiting until inevitable shortages manifest symptoms which will cause people to suffer, we could simply begin implementation of an alternative energy economy now. |
The Stimulus has begun to develop alt-energy.
But other than that what has the public sector in the US done? The Feds under Bush actually hampered the States from setting their own more rigorous guidelines for pollution (Obama reversed this policy). At the same time, a bipartisan Midwestern coalition pushed subsidies for corn-based biofuels, which is a complete Custerfluck. This was the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Oh, the act also outlawed incandescent bulbs starting in 2012. And there's a modest increase in CAFE standards from 27.5mpg now to 35mpg in 2020 (although this is significant for light trucks, which have been put on the same standard).
Quite weak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Got any facts to show it is not true? |
I think it's safe to say that the burden of proof rests on the individuals making counterfacual assertions. |
The burden rests on the one claiming it is "counterfactual" to cite those facts supposedly being countered. |
A counterfactual claim is a claim made about what would be the case if things were different than they are. The extremist Libertarian paradise on these boards is counterfactual because it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it couldn't exist, simply that it doesn't. Saying how things would be in a situation which isn't the case is a counterfactual claim. Or are you saying it does exist? If so, where?
Come on man, I know you're a true believer of ontheway's ideology, but you know what a counterfactual is.
Last edited by Fox on Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| On the flip side, classical economics would predict that as it gets more expensive we will use less of it, and look for alternatives. This is happening now, but the economy is still tremendously vulnerable to oil shortages. |
Of course, rather than waiting until inevitable shortages manifest symptoms which will cause people to suffer, we could simply begin implementation of an alternative energy economy now. |
The Stimulus has begun to develop alt-energy.
But other than that what has the public sector in the US done? |
Very little unfortunately, which is a source of dissatisfaction for me. This is a matter of great importance ecologically, economically, and regarding national security. Our government's response has been totally inadequate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| A counterfactual claim is a claim made about what would be the case if things were different than they are. The extremist Libertarian paradise on these boards is counterfactual because it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it couldn't exist, simply that it doesn't. |
coun�ter�fac�tu�al
adj. Running contrary to the facts
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterfactual
Note that "Running contrary to the facts" =/= "something that does not exist."
To refer to something that does not exist, a better term might be "nonexistent," perhaps "imaginary," or maybe even "impossible" if that is what you believe. After all, we are both expressing opinions in this case in which I can certainly tolerate a difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Come on man, that's pure disingenuity. From www.dictionary.com, the defintion right above the one you quoted:
| Quote: |
coun⋅ter⋅fac⋅tu⋅al /ˌkaʊntərˈf�ktʃuəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [koun-ter-fak-choo-uhl] Show IPA
Use counterfactual in a Sentence
See web results for counterfactual
See images of counterfactual
�noun Logic. a conditional statement the first clause of which expresses something contrary to fact, as �If I had known.� |
Ontheway's societial suggestions are of this form. If we would do <things we aren't doing now>, then everything would be wonderful. Because his suggestions run counter to the facts of what we are doing, it is a counterfactual claim.
Let's look at the difference between your definition and mine. Yours is an adjective, while mine is a noun. Now, let's look at the sentence in question:
| Quote: |
| Yeah, this data-free counterfactual is a favorite of Libertarians. |
Counterfactual in this sentence is clearly a noun. There's no way your proposed definition could be applicable, and you had to scroll past the applicable one to find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Except that in your quote above to which I last responded, you used "counterfactual" as an adjective not once, but twice.
There is no need to belabor this. We had a misunderstanding and we have a disagreement. Everything's cool. Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| I don't think it's true that a free market economy couldn't plan ahead. On the contrary, the research I've seen suggests that in freer markets people have a lower time preference, meaning they weigh future well-being more heavily in their choices. |
That may be true of individuals and some business and non-profit entities, but it certainly isn't true of corporate entities, which are often hamstrung in long-term planning by the pursuit of profit in the near-term. |
There's something to be said for that sort of structural argument. However if you accept that freer markets lower the time preferences of individuals, then consider that the corporate entities and the consuming public are then composed of these more farsighted and responsible people. I think it's plausible that companies would behave differently in such a context, because destructive companies wouldn't thrive for long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| I don't think it's true that a free market economy couldn't plan ahead. On the contrary, the research I've seen suggests that in freer markets people have a lower time preference, meaning they weigh future well-being more heavily in their choices. |
That may be true of individuals and some business and non-profit entities, but it certainly isn't true of corporate entities, which are often hamstrung in long-term planning by the pursuit of profit in the near-term. |
Koveras, I believe that a future-time preference is largely innate. It is correlated strongly with high intelligence and half of the population is below median iq. I am a libertarian, but I see the natural distribution of intelligence as the strongest weakness of my worldview.
Kuros, yes. Large firms have not been served well by the institutionalization of equities. Pension funds etc need the short term gains. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7500669/Oil-reserves-exaggerated-by-one-third.html
| Quote: |
Oil reserves 'exaggerated by one third'
The scientist and researchers from Oxford University argue that official figures are inflated because member countries of the oil cartel, OPEC, over-reported reserves in the 1980s when competing for global market share.
Their new research argues that estimates of conventional reserves should be downgraded from 1,150bn to 1,350bn barrels to between 850bn and 900bn barrels and claims that demand may outstrip supply as early as 2014. The researchers claim it is an open secret that OPEC is likely to have inflated its reserves, but that the International Energy Agency (IEA), BP, the Energy Information Administration and World Oil do not take this into account in their statistics. |
This is a very big deal. American, Canadian and Australian (among others) cities are built for a cheap-oil world. We have little ability to adjust in time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread was referenced some where else, so I thought I would revive it.
It is probably true that peak oil could become a major problem. We will need to find a replacement for oil at some stage regardless. The length of time it takes the market to provide a solution will be the determining factor in whether we come out relatively unscathed or severely impacted. The outcome lies some where along that continuum. It isn't a given that the world economy will be completely destroyed by peak oil.
As for a govt response? You can probably guess my answer, but forty years of govt trying to replace oil, hasn't made me at all confident that they are in any danger of solving it in the next forty years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
This thread was referenced some where else, so I thought I would revive it.
It is probably true that peak oil could become a major problem. We will need to find a replacement for oil at some stage regardless. The length of time it takes the market to provide a solution will be the determining factor in whether we come out relatively unscathed or severely impacted. The outcome lies some where along that continuum. It isn't a given that the world economy will be completely destroyed by peak oil.
As for a govt response? You can probably guess my answer, but forty years of govt trying to replace oil, hasn't made me at all confident that they are in any danger of solving it in the next forty years. |
Here's good discussion of oil demand and production. Peak may have been hit in production and demand will continue to increase.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6765
I agree with Futurepundit that solar is likely to play a strong role:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007362.html
Solar power is my bet for a solution to the energy question. The technology is rapidly advancing:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/cat_energy_solar.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
