|
I was
thinking about the external benefits accruing from education, art, music
education, esthetics, culture in general--most of which can't be factored into
investment decisions. Impossible to fully calculate, but important to keep
in mind.
arthur
Arthur,
I understand well the value of translation from
one profession to another. What I don't understand is the "(and
benefits)" part of your statement. It seems to me that we
hear nothing but the benefits that are supposed to accrue from our investment
of external energy, costs, etc. for all of our actions.
Isn't that the part of the level playing field in the free market that is
destroyed by the clever use of advertising or
"selling"?
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:34
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] La Guardia's
Rule
Ray said,
I think we
should say that "man's desires to screw things up are unlimited.
"
arthur.
I
would state this differently, the ability to deny the external costs (and
benefits) of actions seems to be unlimited. Reminds me of the
apocryphal statement attributed to Werner Von Braun, "I send the rockets up,
where they come down is someone else's problem"
Yes they are free but economists and other
"developers" just mess up the things that make those free things
free. I can remember the beautiful water from the aquifer, now
I buy bad tasting "spring" water which is safer than what comes out of the
faucet. And the story is that this New York municipal water is
the best in the nation. And then there is skin cancer
and the ozone hole and global warming etc. I think we
should say that "man's desires to screw things up are unlimited.
"
I
realize that there are good economists who are benevolent because some of
them are on this list. What is it about Friedman that
makes him miss the humanity that you and Arthur, the Mikes and Harry in
his trickster phase have? If they poke me I will poke
back but I feel their humanity and their compassion.
That is not what I feel from these soulless number crunchers out there.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 9:09
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] La Guardia's
Rule
> Economists have lots of blind spots. Energy
from the sun is one of them.
> Air and water are others. I do
believe that they were known as "free goods"
> in Economics
101. I don't think they are nearly as free as economists
have
> liked to think.
>
> Ed
>
> Ed
Weick
> 577 Melbourne Ave.
> Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7
>
Canada
> Phone (613) 728 4630
> Fax
(613) 728 9382
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:32 PM
>
Subject: [Futurework] La Guardia's Rule
>
>
> >
David Smith, the Economics Editor of the Sunday Times has just published
a
> > book called "My Own Free Lunch" (Profile Books). It takes
its name from
> the
> > famous rule, "There is no such
thing as a free lunch", invented by the
> > legendary New York
mayor, Fiorella La Guardia but taken to heart by
> > economists
everywhere as being something equivalent to Newton's Laws of
> >
Motion or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
> >
> > To
celebrate the launch of the book, the publishers have agreed to pay
for
> > a free lunch (for two actually) for the person who can
come up with the
> > best exception to the rule.
>
>
> > I've come up with the biggest exception to the rule --
and have once again
> > taken the opportunity of criticising
almost all the economists of the last
> > century and a half
since Ricardo -- in particular all those brilliant,
> > though
woefully misguided, people called neo-classical economists.
>
>
> > <<<<<
> > Dear David
Smith,
> >
> > Ah! Having read your articles every
Sunday for several years (with much
> > enjoyment and profit -- I
got out of shares about four years ago partially
> > due to
something you wrote then), you have now given an opportunity to a
>
> publisher of early choral music to teach a thing or two to an
economist!
> >
> > There is, in reality, one immense
free lunch, which has been available for
> > most of man's past,
is not totally free at present, but will be free once
> > again
in the future.
> >
> > It is the most important feature
of our survival and our economy. It is
> > something without
which our species could not have survived. Malthus came
> > close
to realising its importance, and Ricardo might have done so, but
>
> didn't quite because he became preoccupied with fertility of soil
rather
> > than sunshine. Marx then followed the Ricardian trail
and, since then, has
> > led all the economists (whether Marxist
or non-Marxist) of the last
> century
> > and a half up a
cul-de-sac from which only the odd one or two have peeked
> > out
in a mystified way with worry lines on their faces.
> >
>
> One of the rare exceptions is Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen whom you will
know
> > as a pupil of Schumpeter and who took the energy basis
of economics very
> > seriously. ["The Entropy Law and the
Economic Process", Harvard U.P.
> 1971].
> >
> >
The economists' blind spot is energy. This is the free lunch. True,
it
> > isn't technically free at the present time because our
main source of
> > energy is only available in concentrated
pockets and has been monopolised
> > by naughty people. But
energy is essentially free and has been absolutely
> > free for
most of man's existence. A very brief survey of mankind's past
>
> will suffice to show this:
> >
> > 1.
Hunter-Gatherer times (from circa 100-150,000 ya): the only energy
>
> available (apart from a little from burning wood at campfires) was
that of
> > the food he gathered or hunted. This was freely
available, and needed only
> > a portion of the energy obtained
from it in order to obtain more of it. In
> > other words, man
made a profit from the balance of energy was freely
> >
available. This enabled him to use muscular energy for his only
industry
> > (making tools and flint axe- and
arrow-heads).
> >
> > 2. Agricultural times (from circa
10,000 ya): free solar radiation
> received
> > on most
temperate and equatorial land surfaces with decent soil and
> >
rainfall could support selected plant life, supplying proteins, sugars
and
> > starches for personal energy, and wood for advanced metal
smelting.
> > (Malthus came close to understanding the essential
role of energy because
> > he was concerned with the necessary
amount of energy [food] that a
> labourer
> > must have in
order to survive and procreate. Ricardo brilliantly developed
> >
the concept of profit due to the landowner and the squeezing of profits
to
> > all subsidiary entrepreneurs and labourers but he was
dominated by the
> > variable fertility of different grades of
land, and didn't give importance
> > to the other necessary
ingredient -- the receipt of solar energy.)
> >
>
> 3. Industrial times (from circa 2,000 ya): use of free coal
outcrops and
> > oil seepages, followed circa 250 years ago by
full-scale development of
> > deep coal mines and then from 150
years ago by oil drilling. These
> > concentrated sources are
only legally "non-free" by being legally owned by
> > a small
number of individuals able to exercise monopoly power. (Marx
> >
followed Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages in assuming that profit being
surplus
> > energy, or increased energy productivity, it was was
measured in money by
> > the portion of the wages that the
employer should have paid, but didn't.
> > Just as Ricado
overlooked the energy of the sun, Marx overlooked the
> > immense
amounts of energy [coal, steam power, water mills] being supplied
>
> increasingly efficiently to the factories.)
> >
> >
4. Hydrogen economy (circa 2030 onwards): when fossil fuels start
to
> become
> > steeply expensive because of China's and
India's demands and man is more
> > concerned with pollution, and
perhaps CO2 in the atmosphere, a totally
> > non-polluting and
massive new fuel technology will need to be created --
> > far
beyond anything in scope than nuclear power. This will be derived
from
> > free energy from the sun once again. The amount of solar
energy received
> > every year by the earth is at least 5,000
times the amount of energy in
> the
> > total fossil fuel
reserves plus radioactive energy sources.
> >
> > Solar
energy will, of course, have to be intermediated either by
> >
silicon-electronic cells or genomically (hydrogen produced from water
by
> > man-made bacteria. The hydrogen economy is now being
researched by Craig
> > Venter of Human Genome Project fame and
now the head of the Institute for
> > Biological Energy
Alternatives, Maryland, and undoubtedly also by the
> > Chinese
who are already pulling ahead in some areas of research to do with
>
> the genome.
> >
> > The new hydrogen-based economy
will supply energy at such low costs as to
> > be considered free
even at the point of use. Genomic methods will need
> very
>
> little by way of high-tech equipment -- once the formidable
genetic
> > problems have been solved. (See a recent New
Scientist article for further
> > discussion about this.)
>
>
> > The hydrogen economy will encourage local production of
both useful
> energy,
> > electricity and of sophisticated
goods. It will diversify the polarised
> > structure of the
present global economy and population densities. It will,
> >
however, require large amounts of land-use (wherever fresh water
is
> > available) and will compete with land used for agriculture
at present. It
> > is therefore desirable that world population
should decline quite steeply
> > from now about 2030 onwards.
Thankfully, this is highly likely from
> > present-day fertility
trends in over 60 countries of the world.
> >
> > I look
forward to a free lunch but I will give notice that if I were to
be
> > succcessful I would choose The Royal Crescent Hotel, Bath
as the venue --
> > being a place that is so expensive that I've
never dared enter it
> > previously. However, I will do so gladly
on this occasion if I am rewarded
> > with this Novel Prize for
Economics.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
>
> Keith Hudson
> > >>>>>
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
> > ------------
> >
> > Keith Hudson,
General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
> > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> >
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
________________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> >
Futurework mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing
list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
|
