Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jan 2006 17:07:38 -0800
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137804112.321073.70700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >> > As the old adage goes, "Those who believe in infinite growth in a
> >> > finite world are either lunatics or economists."
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. Those who do not believe in it are simply wrong.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, right. Why don't you pull my other finger while you're at it?
> > We live in a finite world. Infinite growth is IMPOSSIBLE.
>
>
> And you figure that repeating it and putting it in all capital letters will
> magically make it true?
>
No magic involved. It's pure LOGIC.
> I mean, damn, there's, what, $5 worth of raw material in the computer you're
> looking at now? There was maybe $5 worth in the first PC too. So,
> basically we have a case of growth with no increase in input.
>
You are rambling out of your depth. Of course there was a depletion of
resources in building my computer. There is only a FINITE amount of
materials this planet has. A tiny fraction of those resources was used
to build my CPU. Which could have been used for something else.
> Since growth doesn't require increasing inputs, finite inputs don't limit
> growth.
>
>
>
>
> >> Here is something for you to think about-
> >>
> >> The raw materials in a $500,000 Ferrari and a $10,000 Geo Metro cost
> >> about
> >> the same.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is something else for you to think about-
> >>
> >> When you buy a soda, you prefer the soda to the money, and you are made
> >> better off.
> >>
> >> When a merchant sells a soda, he prefers the money to the soda and he is
> >> made better off.
> >>
> >> We have growth with no increase in resources.
> >
> > Nonsense. It's just a redistribution of resources.
>
>
> It is growth in welfare. Both parties are better off, but no resources have
> been consumed.
>
Really? So there isn't anything lost in the terms of energy and raw
materials during the refining process? Did you ever take a physics
class? There's no such thing as a 100% efficient system.
> Economics is *not* a zero sum game.
>
>
>
> > In the case of
> > metal, it goes from being in the ground (where it's not being used) to
> > being used to build something. Eventually there comes a tipping point
> > where resources can be depleted.
>
>
> Except that even in your example no resource has been depleted. All that
> happened is that it was moved from one place to another.
>
It WILL run out if demand for said metal exceeds the amount of said
metal on Earth.
>
>
> > Money is an artificial human invention, BTW. It matters not how much
> > money the gub'mint prints up, if a certain metal is depleted, it's
> > gone. Period.
>
>
> But what do you claim to deplete? Moving something from one place to
> another doesn't deplete it. It still exists.
>
And? There's still only a finite amount of it.
>
>
>
>
> > Geology will ALWAYS trump economics.
>
>
> Actually, economics trumps everything.
BWA HA HA!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: phy
- Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: Shawn Wilson
- Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- References:
- [OT] Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: Malachias Invictus
- Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: Chris Hayes
- Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: Shawn Wilson
- Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: Chris Hayes
- Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- From: Shawn Wilson
- [OT] Don't tell Shawn, but...
- Prev by Date: Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- Next by Date: Re: Invisible Objects...
- Previous by thread: Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- Next by thread: Re: Don't tell Shawn, but...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|