Global Warming Debate: Both Viewpoints Irrelevant

GreyICE said:
Your argument is entirely wrong, and still you backpedal.
Click to expand...

No, GreyICE. Price and efficiency are not the same thing. Price is not even a proxy for efficiency. It is entirely wrong to conflate them. Yet you aren't even backpedalling on this error, you're charging forward.

The rise in price represents a very similar situation - a sudden change in the cost/benefit analysis of shipping long distance.
Click to expand...

On spending, perhaps, but not on consumption. And we're talking about efficiency and consumption, not price and spending.

The result was not a net decrease in shipping proportional to the cost/benefit change.
Click to expand...

Even on the price/spending front, you get it wrong. Elasticity, GreyICE. Look it up. Nothing I ever said indicates differences in elasticity don't exist.

An increasing efficiency in fuel usage would result in less fuel used, overall. You seem intent on denying this. This makes no sense.
Click to expand...

And yet, that's exactly what history indicates: increasing fuel efficiency for transportation, as well as an increase in both the amount of transportation provided AND the amount of fuel consumed to provide that transportation.

I guess it's a little bit like expecting a company to increase its profits by dropping its prices. That evidently must make no sense to you either. Yet it too happens.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, GreyICE. Price and efficiency are not the same thing. Price is not even a proxy for efficiency. It is entirely wrong to conflate them. Yet you aren't even backpedalling on this error, you're charging forward.



On spending, perhaps, but not on consumption. And we're talking about efficiency and consumption, not price and spending.



Even on the price/spending front, you get it wrong. Elasticity, GreyICE. Look it up. Nothing I ever said indicates differences in elasticity don't exist.



And yet, that's exactly what history indicates: increasing fuel efficiency for transportation, as well as an increase in both the amount of transportation provided AND the amount of fuel consumed to provide that transportation.

I guess it's a little bit like expecting a company to increase its profits by dropping its prices. That evidently must make no sense to you either. Yet it too happens.
Click to expand...

Your inability to honestly reply to my posts is getting old. I clearly understand what I am talking about. Just as clearly, you do not.

You are positing perfectly linear 1:1 elasticity in price of a factor versus consumption of the end product. And then you're claiming that my critique of this 'theory' is a misunderstanding of elasticity. This graduates to the blatantly laughable.

Your 'historical data' is laughably questionable. Increases in fuel efficiency do not increase the amount of fuel consumed. That's the sheerest nonsense, and frankly, you know this. You claim to understand economics. Use it.
 
GreyICE said:
Your inability to honestly reply to my posts is getting old.
Click to expand...

Your inability to distinguish between two very different things is getting old. Oh, and your whining.

I clearly understand what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

You were not talking about efficiency. You were talking about price. Do you "clearly understand" the difference? Not so much, evidently.

You are positing perfectly linear 1:1 elasticity in price of a factor versus consumption of the end product.
Click to expand...

No I wasn't. First off, I wasn't talking about price at all. And secondly, NOTHING I said indicated that I was talking about 1:1 elasticity as a function of anything. In fact, for total consumption to rise in response to increased efficiency, you would obviously need an overall elasticity (as a function of efficiency) different than 1:1, so this is nonsense from start to finish.

And then you're claiming that my critique of this 'theory' is a misunderstanding of elasticity.
Click to expand...

No. Your previous critique was a strawman, an attempt to claim that I never considered any elasticity other than 1:1. Whether or not you understand elasticity (and your above statement suggests you don't), the problem was with what you falsely claimed about my own position. So I guess that makes this sentence of yours a meta-strawman.

Your 'historical data' is laughably questionable. Increases in fuel efficiency do not increase the amount of fuel consumed.
Click to expand...

And yet, we have historically had both efficiency and consumption increasing pretty much continuously. Hmmm....
 
BenBurch said:
Because they are certain the the sudden intense demand for parachutes will be met by market forces...
Click to expand...

You must admit that the market will provide just as effectively as sudden government regulations at this point. ;)
 
Ziggurat said:
You must admit that the market will provide just as effectively as sudden government regulations at this point. ;)
Click to expand...

Surprising answer for a guy who just spent two pages arguing that the market outcome for an increase in efficiency is generally an increase in use.
 
Ziggurat said:
Your inability to distinguish between two very different things is getting old. Oh, and your whining.

You were not talking about efficiency. You were talking about price. Do you "clearly understand" the difference? Not so much, evidently.

No I wasn't. First off, I wasn't talking about price at all. And secondly, NOTHING I said indicated that I was talking about 1:1 elasticity as a function of anything. In fact, for total consumption to rise in response to increased efficiency, you would obviously need an overall elasticity (as a function of efficiency) different than 1:1, so this is nonsense from start to finish.

No. Your previous critique was a strawman, an attempt to claim that I never considered any elasticity other than 1:1. Whether or not you understand elasticity (and your above statement suggests you don't), the problem was with what you falsely claimed about my own position. So I guess that makes this sentence of yours a meta-strawman.

And yet, we have historically had both efficiency and consumption increasing pretty much continuously. Hmmm....
Click to expand...
Here, let me make this as simple as possible: Correlation does not equal causation.

Oh, you are rolling your eyes? Let me explain. Efficiency of fuel consumption is one teeny, tiny variable that goes into the cost of transportation in this country. Labor is really a much bigger factor, and it is on that factor that things rest. You hypothesize that if trains use less fuel there will be straight up more trains - with the correspondingly greater number of workers to load them, operators, maintenance personnel, etc. Horse pucky.

There are a number of shipping operations that are currently not economically viable at this cost. If efficiency improves, driving down cost, some of them will become economically viable. That will increase demand, yes. And that will increase fuel consumption.

But your idea that it will increase fuel consumption past the previous point? That's bananas. There's no great hordes of people waiting to ship things that would ship them if they could. Shipping is typically a small percentage of the price of a product (often 2-5%), so trimming in the 2-5% margins will not suddenly make whole new products viable.

You suggest that efficiency has generally improved (VERY shakily true) and travel has improved too.

picture.php


I now leave you with these two graphs:
picture.php

picture.php

Remember, one of these causes the other.

Or... fuel efficiency is not the primary motivating factor in miles traveled.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why is it surprising? Do you think I don't appreciate a joke when I see one, or can't make one of my own?

Or was it surprising that the joke was lame? No, that can't be it.... :o
Click to expand...

Oh, no I got the joke :P

I lol'd, then I serious'd.

what I meant was, you've just spent a bit of time arguing that if market forces are left to themselves, then a rise in efficiency (poorly? at least broadly defined) will give rise to increased consumption. This seemed at odds with the political position implied in your joke, namely that government is ineffective. If the market can't translate efficiency gains into consumption reductin then it is up to gov't to do this.

But I'm not so sure about your 'market turns efficiency into greater consumption' hypothesis... I was thinking about cars and US gas consumption (oil consumption whatever). I did a halfassed lookaround and found a few charts showing US per capita oil consumption on a generally downwards/stagnating line, apparently in line with increasing fuel efficiency for cars. Again though, this was just a halfassed lookaround, maybe I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
All this means to me is we need to seriously consider building the space elevator pronto. In order to survive, we have to branch out and colonize.

Here is an idea. Let's start worrying about saving another planet.
 
Bill Thompson said:
All this means to me is we need to seriously consider building the space elevator pronto. In order to survive, we have to branch out and colonize.

Here is an idea. Let's start worrying about saving another planet.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Whenever I think that I know all the sides of an issue, you succeed in showing me a new, and totally insane one.
 
GreyICE said:
Thank you. Whenever I think that I know all the sides of an issue, you succeed in showing me a new, and totally insane one.
Click to expand...

Steven Hawking would disagree.

Just because you have not heard of the space elevator does not mean the idea is insane, one possibility could be that you are ignorant.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
Steven Hawking would disagree.

Just because you have not heard of the space elevator does not mean the idea is insane, one possibility could be that you are ignorant.
Click to expand...

Bill, there's a zillion things wrong with colonizing outer space at the moment, the first being we STILL haven't digitalized human intelligence, and suggesting we terraform other planets is the height of absurdity.

A space elevator might be a great idea, but in and of itself, it does not make outer space hospitable to humans, and there's other problems with the idea (it's going to be pretty epic if terrorists ever hit the structure with airplanes... just sayin')
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom