Oddly enough, his reasoning is valid. (if you buy his assumptions.)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
David
Sorry, you've got a dumb analysis there. The article writer is exactly right. When I was an energy analyst in Seattle and promoting my exit sign retrofit kit, I did a study, since replicated by others, showing that any energy conservation measure that has a ROI period of less than two years reduces economic growth, wastes more money than it saves, and actually increase pollution because the economic output that goes into creating the money wasted itself produces pollution.chrismb wrote:A primitive argument. Spending money within an economy can motivate that economy and, as one of the first few commenters says, will stimulate further technologies. It is not power per kg that is of significance, for practicality it is miles-on-a-single-tank/charge, thereafer it is efficiency. A dull article.
Can you define 'wastes money'? The argument in the article is that the money could be better used by being directed out of one's own economy. That could be easily covered by a reasonable definition of 'wasting money', if you so constructed such a definition. What do you mean by that?IntLibber wrote:Sorry, you've got a dumb analysis there. The article writer is exactly right. When I was an energy analyst in Seattle and promoting my exit sign retrofit kit, I did a study, since replicated by others, showing that any energy conservation measure that has a ROI period of less than two years reduces economic growth, wastes more money than it saves, and actually increase pollution because the economic output that goes into creating the money wasted itself produces pollution.chrismb wrote:A primitive argument. Spending money within an economy can motivate that economy and, as one of the first few commenters says, will stimulate further technologies. It is not power per kg that is of significance, for practicality it is miles-on-a-single-tank/charge, thereafer it is efficiency. A dull article.
For this reason, electric cars are NOT the panacea, they are merely a feel good toy for self absorbed rich idiots trying to impress know-nothing tree hugger women.
Ok the deep economic concept of 'wasting money' comes from an econometric comparison of the rates of return on investment of various investment options, with an eye to accounting for all system externalities for each investment schema, thus including the carbon and other environmental toxin foot prints into the cost of capital.chrismb wrote:Can you define 'wastes money'? The argument in the article is that the money could be better used by being directed out of one's own economy. That could be easily covered by a reasonable definition of 'wasting money', if you so constructed such a definition. What do you mean by that?IntLibber wrote:Sorry, you've got a dumb analysis there. The article writer is exactly right. When I was an energy analyst in Seattle and promoting my exit sign retrofit kit, I did a study, since replicated by others, showing that any energy conservation measure that has a ROI period of less than two years reduces economic growth, wastes more money than it saves, and actually increase pollution because the economic output that goes into creating the money wasted itself produces pollution.chrismb wrote:A primitive argument. Spending money within an economy can motivate that economy and, as one of the first few commenters says, will stimulate further technologies. It is not power per kg that is of significance, for practicality it is miles-on-a-single-tank/charge, thereafer it is efficiency. A dull article.
For this reason, electric cars are NOT the panacea, they are merely a feel good toy for self absorbed rich idiots trying to impress know-nothing tree hugger women.
Y'see, I think that's just plain wrong. Accountants and politicians might love the idea, but it's a stupid, ignorant idea.Torulf2 wrote:If you invest 1 $ now to save the world 100 years in future you have made a bad investment.
If you invest 1 $ now to save the world 100 years in future you have made a bad investment.
The banks do not simply create that wealth. They are not giving you $10K, they are investing it in you. If you don't have some means of income, they will not lend you the money. So the $10,000 is more properly viewed as a capitalization of your earning potential, as opposed to "thin air."These days, that happens at the bank when you or I go in and say "I wanna buy a new car, lend me 10 grand". At that precise point, assuming your loan is successful, the bank will 'create' 10 grand out of thin air
No, no, no, a thousand times no. Wealth is created by production, not by need.So, the more people there are, the more the economy can expand as they then need more.
Quite the opposite. 99% of the improvement in our condition was achieved by harnessing selfishness.Humans would still be living in caves like animals if that were true.
Generally more harm has been done that way than good. The last two great experiments in human self-improvement at the expense of the individual were Nazism (eugenics)and Communism (economic self-sacrifice). Neither worked out well, to say the least.Fortunately, some individuals make commitments to general, human self-improvement, even if it is a detriment to themselves.