On Tue, 15 Jan 200, Lysander said about:
Re: Ecological Economics - Sustainability requires...
> On Jan 15, 2:42 pm, play...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Doug Bashford) wrote:
> > in sci.environment, on 11 Jan 2008, Lysander said about:
> > Re: Ecological Economics - Sustainability requires...
> >
> > > On Jan 10, 10:54 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
> >
> > > > This material wealth, consisting of renewable, replenishable and
> > > > non-renewable forms of natural capital, is being rapidly
> > > > depleted.
> >
> > > If you want to pretend to post about economics at least learn what
> > > capital means.
> >
> > Thankfully I'm not pretending to post about Economics.
> > I'm posting about Ecological Economics. ...as in the college
> > major, etc.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble but civil engineers use the same terms as
> electrical engineers. You can call this economics but it is not. It is
> not ecological economics because it is not economics. Your post has
> major misunderstandings of economic principles.
>
>
> >
> > Further, I'm talking about natural capital.
> >
> > Natural capital
> > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> > Natural capital, as described in the book Natural Capitalism, is
> > a metaphor
>
> Scientist do not use metaphors. Economist do not use metaphors. This
> has nothing to do with economics despite what someone called it. It
> sounds more like philosophy or <shudder> sociology.
>
>
>
> > In a traditional economic analysis of the factors of production,
> > natural capital would usually be classified as "land" distinct
> > from "capital" in its original sense.
>
> Land is rarely if ever used in modern economic analysis. It is no
> longer a factor of production. You can double the acreage a plant sits
> on and it will make no difference if you use the same amount of labor
> and capital. Land as an input only makes sense in farming.
>
> Land is very distinct from capital.
Thanks for the clarification.
....That you are a buffoon using Mommy's computer.
LAND: One of four basic categories of resources, or factors of
production (the other three are labor, capital, and
entrepreneur****p). This category includes the natural resources
used to produce goods and services, including the land itself;
the minerals and nutrients in the ground; the water, wildlife,
and vegetation on the surface; and the air above.
<ker-PLOINK>
>
> > The historical
> > distinction between "land" and "capital" was that land is
> > naturally occurring and its supply is assumed to be fixed,
>
> This is a misunderstanding of supply. The quantity of land is fixed.
> The quantity supplied on the market, offered for sale, is not fixed
> and responds to price changes.
>
> > whereas capital as originally defined referred only to man-made
> > goods.
> > It has been argued that it's useful to view many natural
> > systems as capital because they can be improved or degraded by
> > the actions of man over time (see Tragedy of the commons), so
> > that to view them as if their productive capacity is fixed by
> > nature alone is misleading.
>
> This is not really a good argument for calling something capital. It
> would be a better argument to say this is why they need to be model.
> For instance, by your definition fish are natural capital. An
> economist would never see this as capital. They are the output. You
> can modify Ramsey-Cass-Koopman to make a model of optimal extraction
> of fish, a common first graduate exercise. In this case, the natural
> productivity of fish is affected by man but fish are far from capital.
> They are not durable inputs that once used in production retain their
> characteristics and can be used again to produce something else.
>
>
> > Moreover, they yield benefits
> > naturally which are harvested by humans, those being nature's
> > services, 17 of which were closely analyzed by Robert Costanza.
>
> Which is actually arguing these systems are a production process that
> can be modeled not capital.
>
>
> > Some economists and politicians, including Martin, believe
> > natural capital measures play a key role in money supply and
> > inflation measurements in a modern economy. They point to
> > uneconomic growth and a lack of any direct connection between
> > measuring well-being and such indicators as GDP.
> >
>
> I would need some citations on this. What measures of well being are
> you using? Essentially arguing the weather or the number of fish in
> the ocean affects the money supply and inflation is bonkers. The
> banking system creates and destroys money and determines inflation.
> The Fed influences the banking system heavily. It is very hard to
> fathom that "natural capital" affects the money supply. Is it raining
> money somewhere?
>
>
> > > Most models of economic growth model increasing population
> > > actually decreasing the per capita growth rate due to dimini****ng
> > > returns and limited resources.
> >
> > That would be wise. Of course GDP prolly goes up, right?
>
> Goes up with what? Do you understand what a growth model is? Growth
> models explain what factors influence GDP growth, that means there are
> implications for how growth rates drop as well as how they rise.
>
>
>
> > > Although you are right, the optimal
> > > rate of extraction of a renewable resource is the growth rate of the
> > > resource.
> >
> > Perhaps, if a static resource size and extraction rate were
> > decided as optimum.
> >
>
> Extraction at the growth rate means the size remains static.
> Extraction below growth rates mean it rises. Extraction above growth
> rates mean it falls. This enviromental "economics" does not not teach
> much about economic models.
>
> > > A simple modification of the Ramsey-Cass-Koopman model of
> > > economic growth that shows this can be solved by any first year
> > > graduate student that is passing macroeconomics.
> >
> > It's hardly rocket science. We want water always in the bucket.
> > Water comes into the bucket. Water leaves the bucket.
> > Is the bucket filling, losing or steady? ? Duh.
> >
>
> A very nonscientific response. I can see this "college major" must be
> a subset of the philosophy department. Maybe even the English
> department.
>
> > > > This ensures each successive generation, indefinitely into
> > > > the future, will have no less natural capital to meet their
> > > > material needs than each preceding generation (intergenerational
> > > > equity).
> >
> > > Balanced growth achieves this. Almost any growth, with the
exception
> > > of Romer, has a balanced growth path that incentives will cause to
> > > happen.
> >
> > Yes, and pigs fly.
> >
>
> I can see you have a well rounded education. Humanities major trying
> to argue economics?
>
> > > >Policy-wise, sustainability requires humanity to live
> > > > within an ecological/material 'budget constraint' limited to the
> > > > sustainable flow of each type of critical natural capital.
> >
> > > No policy is needed. We have that budget constraint with or without
> > > government.
> >
> > Hogwash. How is (say,) the current overharvesting of ALL our
> > natural (commercial) fisheries within a constraint limited
> > to the sustainable extraction flow?
> >
>
> Overharvesting by whose standards? Note above. Extraction above growth
> rates causes stocks to decline. Prices rise and the cost of fi****ng
> rises as well. Fisherman start to go out of business due to it being
> more costly to get a profitable catch. People buy fewer fish. The rate
> of extraction drops and the fish population levels off or perhaps even
> grows again. This is simple adjustment to the balanced growth path in
> the Ramsey model. I would solve it for you but I doubt you would
> understand the math.
>
> > It seems like attempting to talk with you is futile.
> > An error of ignorance is forgivable, but of that kind isn't.
> > I have no idea which world you live in.
> >
>
> The real world where we use data to form theories and make
> predictions. Not the poet's world where we base psuedo-science on
> metaphors and give ourselves a pat on the back for an idea that others
> believe is wise.
>
>
>
> > > A typical engineer's response. I would suggest you google, Paul
Romer
> > > and entropy. Economist are well aware of the arguments and engineers
> > > have no understand of what economic growth is much less what drives
> > > it. It is driven by new ideas and using what we have in different
ways
> > > not using more resources.
> >
> > Yer so full of ****. Name one real economy that grew
> > without growth in physical consumption.
> >
>
> Do you understand what growth in consumption is? It does not mean more
> things. There are quality measurements as well as quantity
> measurements. It is entirely possible with a 0 population growth rate
> to obtain economic growth and use fewer resources. The reason is
> simple a light bulb that takes less resources and last 10 times a long
> as a lightbulb today is ideally counted as 10 lightbulbs.
>
> > Cant do it? We are so surprised! And here's a why:
> > Suffice to say, they arise out of inconsistencies between the
> > abstract world of neoclassical economic theory and the
> > thermodynamic and biophysical realities and laws of nature.
> >
>
> No one use neoclassical economic theory in this discussion. Again
> google Romer.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Romer
> ""Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange
> them in ways that are more valuable. A useful metaphor for production
> in an economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable final
> products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together according to a
> recipe. The cooking one can do is limited by the supply of
> ingredients, and most cooking in the economy produces undesirable side
> effects. If economic growth could be achieved only by doing more and
> more of the same kind of cooking, we would eventually run out of raw
> materials and suffer from unacceptable levels of pollution and
> nuisance. History teaches us, however, that economic growth springs
> from better recipes, not just from more cooking. New recipes generally
> produce fewer unpleasant side effects and generate more economic value
> per unit of raw material.
>
> Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite
> resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or
> ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the
> potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to
> grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. Possibilities do not add
> up. They multiply."[2]"
>
>
> > > Technology reduces resource cost.
> >
> > With no point of dimini****ng returns?
>
> This is a debate. Right now it is unsettled simply because quality
> measures are not good. Quality is largely captured by prices increases
> so is filtered out when we adjust for inflation. Bils and Kleinow have
> pointed out if quality is measured properly we may find accelerating
> growth rates.
>
> > You imply enough technology means perpetual motion?
> > ...and creating something out of nothing?
> >
>
> No rearranging what we have in different ways. For instance each CD
> has about 10 billion combinations that can be written on them. Each
> one can be a different song, piece of information, or picture. By
> rearranging what is written on the CD you can get 10 billion different
> things. Although their may not be enough atoms in the universe to make
> 10 billion CDs we can do a lot of different things with 1 CD. It isn't
> about finding new resources it is about learning how to use resources
> better. This is what economics is about not finding new resources or
> yelling we are screwed because resources are limited. Rather about
> learning how to better allocate what we have.
>
> Your argument is essentially we had to make new atoms to make
> pencilin. Nonsense, it just took a chemist who found out to arrange
> the useless elements we had into something useful.
>
>
> > > Romer and
> > > any growth economist I know will argue that population growth will
> > > reach 0 some day. Now of us will argue economic growth will.
> >
> > Bingo! Now that's the wants.
> >
>
> > Here's the reality. Both will reach zero *when* population does.
> > That departs your realm, not science's.
>
> Wrong. Economic growth will not reach 0. In fact, economic growth may
> be greater with 0 population growth. We will continue to figure out
> how to rearrange things to make more quality goods.
>
> >Nor the thermodynamic
> > and biophysical realities and laws of nature.
>
> This is where you are screwing up. You are assuming everything
> consumed is converted into energy. You can't be more wrong. Most
> consumption is transformed into something else that is till usable.
> Are the molecules in steel destroyed simply because your car was
> compacted?
>
> > I'm guessing my
> > talking about such *realities* leaves you somewhat befuddled,
> > sort of; so what? Here's one clue: That journey.
> >
>
> No you are very befuddled as to what economic growth is and how it
> works.
>
>
>
> > > > All money in the world's financial system for the past 3
> > > > centuries (fractional reserve banking) exists as interest-bearing
> > > > debt so the money supply grows exponentially at around 6%
> > > > compounding based on the empirical data. This locks the economy
> > > > into exponential growth so the interest on debt can be paid -
> > > > otherwise the economy collapses.
> >
> > > Nonsense. The money supply does not cause exponential growth.
> >
> > I don't think that claim was made. And yes, any such
> > claim would be nonsense. You really need to pay attention.
> > You are getting so far out, tilting at so many strawmen
> > and windmills, I'm about to give up.
> >
> > > Any
> > > effects of an increasing money supply is tem****ary at best. In the
> > > long run interest rates stabilize and so does investment.
> >
> > Stabalized interest RATES are exponential growth, dummy.
>
> Growth in what? Numbers on a bank ledger? Perhaps not growth in goods
> and services. Stabilizing interest rates stabilizes investment which
> stabilizes growth rates. You are confusing growth in money with growth
> in goods and services.
>
> > That's what the "rates" part means. Non-liniar growth.
> >
>
> non-linear growth in money but so what? What does numbers on bank
> ledgers going up actually mean? Inflation pure and simple not
> increases in production. Money does not drive production in the long
> and how much money is in circulation has no effect on long term
> economic growth. You have 0 understanding of economics.
>
>
> > > > The absurdity of this system is such that if one cent were
> > > > compounded at 6% for 1992 years it would grow to $2.5 x 1048 in
> > > > 1992 years - equivalent in value to 100 000 galaxies, each of 1
> > > > billion stars made of pure gold at $328 US an ounce!
> >
> > > What would $328 buy at this rate of growth? I would suggest not
much.
> > > Money supply affects prices and short run output much more than long
> > > run output. All of this increase in the money supply means
inflation.
> >
> > Stable interest compounded at 6%?
> >
> > You seem to be missing something, huh?
> > Care to try again?
>
> No you are missing the major concept here. What does $1 times .06
> mean? 6 cents. What is 6 cents. Today it is much less than in 1920. In
> 1920 it was a week's rent. Today you can't buy squat with it. Money is
> meaningless. Interest rates are meaningless. Unless it is in the
> proper context. The only affect consumption and production in
> transitory ways. A million dollars in 1920 would have bought half of
> America. Today it is hardly enough to retire on. You are confusing
> money with purchasing power and real output. So what if you have $1
> billion in 2030. What will $1 billion buy? If inflation continues a
> lot less than it does today.
>
>
>
> > > Garbage in. Garbage out. To even start to make this work you need an
> > > equation of motion for population and one from consumption too. This
> > > is a dynamic problem and you are trying to apply static analysis.
> >
> > It's the same formula as Ohm's Law commonly given and used as
> > I=V/R (and a zillion other similar relation****ps). They are
> > close enough for our conversation.
> >
>
> No they are not. You are trying to explain complex phenomema with a
> simple formula designed to solve a simple engineering problem.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law
> > Ohm's law, in the form above, is an extremely useful equation in
> > the field of electrical/electronic engineering because it
> > describes how voltage, current and resisitance are interrelated
> > on a macroscopic level, that is, commonly, as circuit elements in
> > an electrical circuit.
>
>
> Voltage, current, and resistance do not respond dynamically to other
> factors. Resources needed for consumption and population do. We can
> not just assume constant growth rates a priori.
>
> > Physicists who study the electrical properties of matter at
> > the microsopic level use a closely related and more general
> > vector equation, sometimes also referred to as Ohm's law, having
> > variables that are closely related to the I,V and R scalar
> > variables....
> This has nothing to do with the electrical properties of matter. What
> you propose is a model of how humans will use resources and it is much
> too simple. You must like Malthus.
>
>
>
>
|
