Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Whomever it is that put that set of thoughts together, I think the take-away is that systems start out as clean and elegant and decay over time as clever people figure out how to game them. Which is where we're at now -- a historic high in the number of countries in which the head of state got the job after an election, but not close to a historic high in the personal freedoms to do things and from having things done to them. I don't know if American democracy can be rescued, or if the many non-democratic countries that are called such because they have elections can improve. I know that in some countries the democratic experiment is still fairly healthy, but that's a minority.

I think part of the problem is having to measure democracy in tandem with capitalism. Capitalism can't go on forever. Growth requires infinite resources, which we do not have.

[Da Geezer]

Liney said

I'm going to drink some hemlock, then shoot myself with a Colt .45.

Might I suggest you drink a Colt .45 and shoot yourself with some hemlock.

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence. From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back into bondage.”

There may be some truth in that statement, but there's no evidence Prof. Alexander Tyler ever wrote them.

Naturally, I thank Doc for the thought, and, no matter who said it, I think it is mostly true. The whole idea of citizens in a democracy voting themselves largess was most certainly in the founders' minds when writing the Constitution. That is why we have, in Franklin's phrase, "A constitutional republic, if (we) can keep it". The old man in me sees us losing it, and no one caring.

[Da Geezer]

I think part of the problem is having to measure democracy in tandem with capitalism. Capitalism can't go on forever. Growth requires infinite resources, which we do not have.

Growth requires infinite resources, is simply not true at all, on several levels. First, there is not a direct correlation between growth and resources. Second, those who have most strongly held this belief (like Paul Ehrlich) have been repeatedly shown to be in error. Read again about the Julian Simon bet between Ehrlich and the unknown economist.

But third, and most important, is that the greatest resource any society has is the ingenuity of the human mind. That is close to infinite. Where Ehrlich predicts massive starvation in the US, the human mind comes up with "yellow rice" and other bioengineered foods. Where we worried about running out of oil in the 1970's, enter fracking, and now we are floating in the stuff. And those are just two disruptive technologies. Many smaller ones occur (think Viagra).

The statist/socialist/communist ideology depends on a populace that accepts limitations. That is why "limits on growth" is preached from the rooftops. But short of a nuclear war or a worldwide plague, man's progress has been steady and upward toward prosperity. I don't know what the next disruptive technology will be, but I know that it will happen where men are free to innovate and keep the profit from their innovation.

[hack]

I both agree and disagree, of course. Without question the next great technologies will come from people who are free to innovate and keep the profit. Of course the latter is a matter of degree. Nobody ever retained all their profits, but a level-playing field environment with a just or reasonable tax system is good enough. Picking where to make your investment is always a comparative exercise.

The greatest resource is not the human mind, but the body. Slave labour. Until history shows otherwise, that's what it shows. I don't discount the chance of humanity to think it's way out of the current situation, but facts are facts on that one.

I don't see that there isn't a direct correlation between growth and resources. The massive gains in prosperity of the past 200 years don't just happen to coincide with the oil era. You don't just make stuff up out of nothing, and as we are seeing right now, a services-oriented economy gets you only so far. I think you have and will be able to marshall good arguments to your point as I will to mine, but the bottom line is manufacturing, and that requires raw materials.

Fracking is an interesting question. It's human ingenuity no doubt. But when your invention directly causes harm, what's its real value on this big-picture level we are talking about? It will make money for investors, but with the government agreeing not to hold them accountable for the harm thus far, the cost-benefit analysis overall isn't necessarily good. Lots of moving parts in that equation. Ending coal use in power plants would be a major benefit. Harming people and lives and areas through impacts is a cost. In truth, if you were really and truly using it strategically, you'd keep most of it in the ground, and threaten to start drilling any time prices get too high. Let others extract, and suffer the laws of petropolitics. It is historically the users of the stuff that really benefit, not the producers. If we really want to control the oil-producing parts of the world, being able to flip a switch and tank the price of their only source of income is the way to go. But we are not a command economy and we believe in market forces, so obviously it's not going to happen.

[Da Geezer]

Fracking is an interesting question. It's human ingenuity no doubt. But when your invention directly causes harm, what's its real value on this big-picture level we are talking about?

Fracking does not "directly cause(s) harm". Hack, I suspect you'll find the humor in me referencing a government study, but the US EPA did a study of fracking and found no serious danger, and certainly no direct harm. Claiming that fracking directly harms anyone is like claiming that genetically modified foods are "frankenfood". Just because the claim is made repeatedly, and because European countries make policy based on that claim, does not make the claim true. The same holds for AGW.

I don't see that there isn't a direct correlation between growth and resources. The massive gains in prosperity of the past 200 years don't just happen to coincide with the oil era.

I believe what you are saying that there is a direct correlation between growth and resources. To use your example of oil, as population grew in the NE states, there simply was not enough whale oil available to light homes. When oil in quantity was discovered, at Titusville, kerosene replaced whale oil, and kerosene refining in quantity was "invented". That was the basis of the first Rockefeller fortune; the process, not the science itself. The waste product of kerosene was gasoline. Henry Ford may not have invented the auto, but he certainly invented mass production of autos, which ran on gasoline.

Rockefeller's employees invented the process of refining kerosene (later gasoline) in bulk, and Ford invented the process of making cars for the masses. Both men possessed the entrepreneurial vocation, that is, the ability to order known things into new patterns. That was Einstien's definition of genius, by the way. New ordering of known things. History does not show that slave labor is the most productive use of human ability. The human mind made autos available for $ 600.00, not the workmen who assembled them.

[iam416]

Personally, I'll take modern day US vs ancient Egypt in a contest of building shit and creating wealth. I'll even spot them an extra 5 million Hebrew slaves. Maybe they can a get a big ass pyramid done in something quicker than 20 years. In the meantime, with paid labor and advanced technology, the US can re-build fucking Manhattan.

[lineygoblue]

I'll take modern day technology as well, even when it comes to something as simple as resurfacing a highway, something that I see all the time.

As recent as 20 years ago, if a stretch of say, 10 miles of freeway had to be resurfaced, you'd likely be looking at a 2 year project, depending on the geography.

Nowadays, they can resurface that same highway in a matter of a few weeks. They mill down the old roadway about 3 inches on one day, then the next day the asphalt crew lays down the new surface.

Ain't no ancient Egyptian or Roman that could do that. Even with slave labor.

[hack]

Nobody's saying that cheap labour means you don't need technology -- was anyone under a mistaken impression I said that? What I said was that throughout history the most valueable resource is labour, either free or cheap. Nothing about that statement suggests that it is the only valuable thing, or should not/cannot be used in tandem with other valuable things. These responses here seem designed to counter something other than what I said.

As for Henry Ford, now and again a true visionary emerges, and it's great when that happens, but the great mass of executives are cost cutters or rent seekers. It's still about low-cost labour in this world, which is why manufacturing lives where it lives. I don't know if Rockefeller counts or not. IIRC others were working on that idea too. There were a whole bunch of ideas people out there in PA at the time. Rockefeller seems to me to be just a very driven monopolist. That's certainly what he turned into.

I agree Geezer that in some cases value is created where it didn't exist before. The example you give is happening right now in renewables. But the fact that in some situations great leaps are made does not mean resources are infinite. Surely what you mean is that can use them more efficiently, and in doing so push out the date at which this can't work anymore?

[hack]

In the meantime, with paid labor and advanced technology, the US can re-build fucking Manhattan.

Not at the wages workers in this country make today. That's one of the main reasons why there's an infrastructure problem in this country.

[iam416]

I knew Hack's provocactive and specific use of "slave labor" (as opposed to labor, cheap labor or any other kind of labor) was merely a way to get out his "workers of world unite" view.

It's quite clear what every one responded to. It's explicit. Unless you don't actually mean what you say.

[hack]

The Burj Khalifa is the world's tallest building. It's easy to learn what the workers got paid. Qatar is on a building blitz for World Cup 2022 that makes US infrastructure-construction capacity look silly. Again -- you can check how much the workers are paid. The information is out there if you're interested in doing anything more than making loud noises.

[iam416]

LOL. The irony, of course, is that you're completely uninterested in anything other than your own view -- in this case, unrepentant socialism. When we "discussed" Scalia I learned the way you think and the contortions, lies and fallacies you're willing to set forth to conform anything to that particular worldview. I'm quite happy to let Geezer deal with that nonsense.

In the meantime, it's obvious that technology > slave labor -- as was the stated comparison.

Carry on with your tripe.

[iam416]

An article I liked from this past week: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/1145137...can-liberalism

I always found "The Daily Show" quintessentially hipster progressive in its snark and wafer thin takes. Nice to see a bit of self-awareness on that particular side of things.

[Wild Hoss]

So, now its a Cruz-Kaisch double team on Trump?

You usually have to pay extra for that kind of action...

[iam416]

It really seems like Kasich is working to get Trump nominated.