Jim Devine wrote:
real energy prices (the consumer price index for energy divided by the
over-all CPI for urban consumers) did see a big spike from 1999 to 2000
(first 11 months), one akin to those of 1973-1974, 1978-1979, and
1979-1980
in terms of size.
For those interested in seeing what
Mark Jones wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
real energy prices (the consumer price index for energy divided by the
over-all CPI for urban consumers) did see a big spike from 1999 to 2000
(first 11 months), one akin to those of 1973-1974, 1978-1979, and
1979-1980
in terms of size.
For those
Doug Henwood wrote:
how do you
respond to the statistical point, Mark - that oil prices don't
explain that much about growth rates?
Hooker doesn't succeed in arguing that. How could he? Oil prices are
arbitrary in any case, since there are huge concealed subsidies to the oil
patch and a huge
Jim Devine wrote:
why is there this slowdown that the Fed
can't help by reducing rates?
Because it's more of a 19th century slowdown than a post-WW II
one, with a
financial hangover from the burst Nasdaq/tech bubble, and a real sector
one from overinvestment in gadgets. It's probably
At 09:47 PM 6/21/01 +0100, you wrote:
it's possible that if Greenspan keeps lowering rates, the U.S.
economy will
suddenly spurt forward. In that case, he'll have to raise them again to
avoid inflation, which has always been his main concern. Isn't this one
reason why Uncle Miltie
It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current
energy crunch, which seems to have shut pen-l down for awhile: he could
allow electricity retail prices to rise, while allowing California
consumers to write off electricity costs on their state income taxes this
year.
problem is a lot of folks pay little or no income
tax but still pay utility bills.
mbs
It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current
energy crunch, which seems to have shut pen-l down for awhile: he could
allow electricity retail prices to rise, while allowing
then, make it a refundable tax credit, or lower the state sales tax further.
At 11:55 AM 1/23/01 -0500, you wrote:
problem is a lot of folks pay little or no income
tax but still pay utility bills.
mbs
It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current
energy crunch,
Just quickly: Jim, are you proposing to funnel public money to the utilities
by them charging customers higher prices and then the customers get re-imbursed
out of the state treasury? Utilities get more money, customers come out even,
but taxpayers pay?
Not very appealing to me. For
The tax write off answer is better than no solution at all, but there are two
problems:
1. It doesn't address the basic issues -- deregulation has caused shortages
and rampant energy price inflation.
2. It assumes that consumer will have enough money to pay quickly escalating
costs and then
I think the energy crisis has been exacerbated by a few things: 1) those large
companies which have refused to sink any more capital into new plants until
they could get "super" profits in a de-regulated market. 2) the shortage of
natural gas. 3) our insatiable appetite for electricity. (Can
I read the LA Times article that Jim forwarded. I almost want to
laugh at these neo-classical economists who have made money advising that
deregulation is a good idea now crying that nobody listens to them.
People did listen to them and that's why we are in this mess. And
their ideas for getting
Of Eugene
CoyleSent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:05 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:6804] Re: Re: energy
expertsI read the LA Times article that Jim
forwarded. I almost want to laugh at these neo-classical economists who
have made money advising that deregulation is a good idea now
From: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/ETIP.nsf/www/Home
Underinvestment: The Energy Technology and RD Policy Challenge
Margolis, Robert M., and Daniel M. Kammen. "Underinvestment: The Energy
Technology and RD Policy Challenge." Science 285 (30 July 1999): 689-692.
This journal is
David Shemano wrote that in California,
The ability to build a power plant is heavily regulated. The ability to
set retail prices remains heavily regulated. The ability for power
providers to negotiate contracts to purchase powers from wholesalers is
heavily regulated. The very market
just for you came off of Declan McCullagh's Politics and Technology List,
http://reason.com/ml/ml010401.html
TED]]On Behalf Of kelley
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:6658] Re: Energy deregulation
just for you came off of Declan McCullagh's Politics and Technology
List,
http://reason.com/ml/ml010401.html
I think David Shemano's newspapers articles deserve a more serious response
than the ones they've been getting from PEN-L listers. Specifically, it
would be nice if Gene or Jim or someone of similar knowledge of
California's energy deregulation could comment on a couple of issues raised
by the
Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:6587] Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As usual, I bow to Gene's knowledge on all these matters. I'm trying to
glean an understanding of what's going on from his posts.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED
-L:6587] Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As usual, I bow to Gene's knowledge on all these matters. I'm trying to
glean an understanding of what's going on from his posts.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
I'll interleave my reponses:
"Jeffrey L. Beatty" wrote:
I think David Shemano's newspapers articles deserve a more serious response
than the ones they've been getting from PEN-L listers. Specifically, it
would be nice if Gene or Jim or someone of similar knowledge of
California's energy
e Coyle
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:6578] Re: Energy deregulation
Neither of these are conservative "analyses" of the California energy
crisis. Each is an off-the-top-of-the-head rant that could be written by
any
right-leaning neophyte.
I think David Shemano's newspapers articles deserve a more serious response
than the ones they've been getting from PEN-L listers. Specifically, it
would be nice if Gene or Jim or someone of similar knowledge of
California's energy deregulation could comment on a couple of issues raised
by the
Neither of these are conservative "analyses" of the California energy
crisis. Each is an off-the-top-of-the-head rant that could be written by any
right-leaning neophyte.
For a REALLY conservative analysis see the work of Univ. of Chicago
economist Lester Telser. I quite agree with his
id Shemano
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:6578] Re: Energy deregulation
Neither of these are conservative "analyses" of the California
Scary post, Gene!
And a hard winter in Europe and North America may compress much of the story
into very little time, eh? I imagine richer Californians are on to roof
solar cells in a big way. Is there a plan in California by which a
households' excess power is directed back into the grid,
Rob, there IS a plan in California to sell excess power back into the grid.
It is in the law, and is called "Net metering." The law has been
changed a couple of times but I think it is now set up so that you could
actually get cash at the end of the year if you supplied a net amount.
This is for
Gene Coyle wrote:
This I fear is going to seem doubly or triply provincial. First it is
California centered, second energy centered, and third USA centered.
But here goes.
I wish I could do that self-effacing bit. Gene, what happens to energy
prices if there is a considerable slowdown in the
Michael wrote:
How soon will high energy prices lead to a strident
call to remove what environmental protections are left?
From today's LA Times:
-
Pollution Rules Tighten Squeeze on Power Supply
California's already severe electricity squeeze could tighten further this
summer if
Rod Hay wrote:
Okay, Mark, please explain why no other energy technology is feasible.
This kind of thing is debated on Jay Hanson's list, where ex-vice presidents
of PV companies argue that PV's are the future and people answer them like
this:
From: Mark Boberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed
HE: . . . We intellectuals have to join the organizations of these
committed workers and help them write a consistent programme
how to avoid ecological catastrophe by a world wide
proletarian revolution, and establish a minority
dictatorship which will carry out this programme with
Stalinist
: "Hans Ehrbar" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:57 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20939] On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:45 -0500, Carrol Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So unless you really do agree with Hans Ehrbar o
o la la.. Jay Hanson's energy list serv? never been to, but it must be
interesting. Jay is a phenomenal guy personality wise. Three basic ideas
he subscribes to in every occasion I have been to: 1) genetic roots of
authoritarianism 2)inherent destructiveness of human nature 3)
inevitability of
PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20946] RE: On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy
HE: . . . We intellectuals have to join the organizations of these
committed workers and help them write a consistent programme
how to avoid ecological catastrophe
But I do keep receiving messages!
This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What
is wrong?
Boris
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47
Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 05:09PM
Charles It is not a matter of faith. It is a simple calculation. Amount
of energy available minus amount used by humans in the course of their
history. The result if a very large positive number. We are not going to
run out of energy.
_
CB: Mark
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:45 -0500, Carrol Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So unless you really do agree with Hans Ehrbar on the need
for an elitist putsch to stop global warming, you had
better give some thought to how that mass support can be
(beginning now) marshalled
It is not my view
Several quick comments . . .
MJ:
. . . The argument that energy supply is 'infinite' derives from the
neo-classical economics concept of substitutability. . . .
I don't think this is true of neo-classical econ, namely
there is no doctrine of infinite resources that I recall
from the course in
while
everyone goes away and reads him,Oc?
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:57 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20938] RE: energy entropy + capitalist crisis
Sev
You have Yeltsin here? Cool.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "GBK" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20935] Re: Re: Re: energy crises
But I do keep receiving messages!
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47
Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re: energy crises
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
--
Michael Perelman
Max. There s no doctrine of infinite resources for any specific
resource, but since substitutes always exist there is an implict
doctrine.
Max Sawicky wrote:
I don't think this is true of neo-classical econ, namely
there is no doctrine of infinite resources that I recall
from the course in
Nordhaus knows more math than the freshman.
Eugene Coyle wrote:
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
Gene Coyle
Michael Perelman wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
Brad deLong wrote:
Ummm
Brad, you may end being known as the man who put the 'um' in
'dumb'. Do you suppose Simon's bet with Ehrlich is safe ground for you
to stand on? You too, simply have no idea what the issue is.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Max Sawicky wrote:
I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become
sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into
developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money
to be made, coordination problems aside. To me
that's more likely than green consciousness leading
to
Michael Perelman wrote:
We do not have the infrastructure in place to produce enough solar or
wind yet.
We never will, either. There is no alternative to the petroleum economy and
it is irresponsible fantasising to suggest that there is.
Mark
Rod Hay wrote:
Charles It is not a matter of faith. It is a simple calculation. Amount
of energy available minus amount used by humans in the course of their
history. The result if a very large positive number. We are not going to
run out of energy.
Alternatives to internal combustion
Let's stop this thread. All we get from Jones is invective. Not one
thread of evidence, except some stupid post that shows what every high
school math student knows -- exponential functions get large very
quickly.
Rod
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
M A Jones wrote:
Rod, I'd be happy to debate you but metaphysical assertions about 'infinite
energy' which are easily + demonstrably untrue, are not a basis for debate.
So yes, quit this silly non-debate.
Mark, I agree with this in substance, but much of my caterwauling at you
and Lou
Rod, I don't think that it needs to be stopped, but certainly changed.
Mark, Mr. Minimus here thinks that you need to tone down your rhetoric. I
think that we all know where you stand. At this point, everything is
unprovable -- like global warming. I don't mean that it is wrong. I
largely
ot; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Pen-L" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 11:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20899] re: energy
Let's stop this thread. All we get from Jones is invective. Not one
thread of evidence, except some stupid post that shows what every high
school math student
Okay, Mark, please explain why no other energy technology is feasible.
Rod
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
My old undergraduate economics advisor, William Nordhaus, presented a model
back in the early 1970s (when I knew him) in which the growth of the
economy encouraged high prices of the main resources used as energy
sources, which then induced the search for new supplies, for new energy
sources,
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
At 11:42 AM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
yeah, he assumed that nuclear power was a good thing. This suggests that he
should have taken externalities into account.
Jim
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 04:30PM
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
Mark Jones wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil?
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs
me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is
that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy
problem facing us today, which is global warming, not
high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
because they are not alternatives)
Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what
exactly are you expecting? Of course, if
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
Gene Coyle
Michael Perelman wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
--
Michael
At 02:40 PM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
it fits with freshman NC, though I think Nordhaus was being Schumpeterian
-- and was open to the idea of the gov't helping the market. But then
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the
outragious rate of consumption in rich countries.
For example, according to a
Bill Burgess wrote:
Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable resources
-L:20768] RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking.
What
says
there is is simply deluded.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine
Sent: 27 June 2000 21:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20767] Re: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim
nd
general delirium.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ellen Frank
Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20770] Re: RE: Re: energy crises
I haven't jumped i
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
Sent: 27 June 2000 22:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20771] RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
the
alternatives
Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your
sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to
the contrary,
You're doing a good job.
This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note.
By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do
Bill Burgess wrote:
Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable
Just to be clear, I was not referring to the accumulated natural production
over millions of years (see below), but to the 'proven reserves' that are a
function of current technology and priceand world politics.
If Mark rejects the 'official' estimates of (rising) oil reserves I quoted,
73 matches
Mail list logo
