“He suggests that alternative approaches, such as rationing based on need rather than wealth”
And we all know that there would be absolutely no way for the wealthy to circumvent the rationing.
And there is a clear, objective standard of “need”, for sure. ChatGPT is certain to tell us just what that is.
Rationing is code for “starve the politically powerless”. No “economist” who suggests rationing as a cure for market failure has ANY credibility in my view.
Is Economics a legitimate discipline, worthy of academic study, research and status as a “science? For most of my life I thought so. Now I think not.
Economics as a discipline has been since its inception the propaganda arm of central planners, of big government, of diddling with the money, of social engineering and wealth transfer. We must start with the proper role and size of government. When we are done and the argument is properly settled, economists will be begging for a job.
Economics is psychology which, at best, is pseudoscience. A government should be only just big enough to adequately perform the administrative functions that a society has explicitly delegated.
The problem with all these guys is once they got their fancy educations, they gotta write and say things ever after, which means constantly coming up with things to write and say. How many economists can wriggle on the point of a pin?
Each and every one of those "new thinkers" gives me the creeps. Anytime I hear anyone talking about how the old ways are antiquated and inadequate and that we need to focus on new paradigms, I feel like I am being sold socialism in a new wrapper
First, there’s a certain percentage of humanity that IS inherently selfish. Throughout history, we have depended on those who are not naturally selfish to keep things balanced. But recent economic history shows us that besides the selfish and self-serving in business being promoted, we now see that even so-called philanthropists are promoted according to their self-serving behavior. Hence the inability of the majority of the masses to know what true philanthropy is.
Second, the “energy crisis” and the “climate crisis” are not only unproven but disproven, and were created for purposes of concentrating power in the hands of a few. Since the 1960’s, the concept of personal incentive and growth has been gradually discouraged in the US to prevent upward movement and “undeserved” privilege in the ranks of the common people. But advances are always tied to energy. Human, mechanical, biological-I’m thinking pyramids, railroads, and lately poisons. Energy cannot be used up. The forms change, but there will never be a lack. IMO
In developing nations (many of which are ancient civilizations) the assistance from the western powers is tied to obedience, and they are only allowed to produce what the west wants them to produce; producing what their people actually need (rebellion) brings punishment.
Which brings us to the problem Farley pointed out-the improper allocation of resources. When they’re told “Produce this and sell it to me!” their economy depends on the whims of the west, and the needs of their own people becomes secondary. If they were producing what their people need as they have traditionally, they wouldn’t have to look for allocations from outside their own communities. And the ecological ceiling has been blown through-the pollution, damage, and loss is a result of the west’s insatiable appetite for wealth and control.
The new paradigm would be-Mind your own business. Nation by nation. The rich are rich enough and they need to leave the rest of us alone.
The percentage who are inherently selfish tend to be the ones in power and therefore driving the economic theory to keep them there.
I agree that both crises are being used for the purposes of concentrating power but I'm still 50/50 on whether the cost to extract energy is getting more expensive.
The only topic that made sense to me in this article was the concept of centering energy in economic theory. Failure to understand that energy enables all other economic activity encourages poor policy decisions that starve the economy of abundant energy, thereby impoverishing the masses.
Much better is a GeoLibertarian anti-rent-seeking economy with a citizens dividend (so all citizens can fund median shelter or basic shelter and other needs)
NE - "Why are economic forecasts often so wrong" Many are inculcated with false doctrine, and don't know money from mud. Proof? With over 400 Phd's on staff, the Fed have never accurately predicted a downturn. Using a price mechanism to ration Fed credit is a fools errand. There's a reason they call economics - The Dismal Science.
“The stupidity of this idea is unfathomable but yet it raised $26m. What they propose isn't even scientifically possible. The support from WEF and WHO is yet another indication of how they intend to destroy our human rights and freedoms. Wake the fcuk up everyone who is asleep and thinks this is conspiracy theory.
The evil behind it should no longer be tolerated. How is BG still free and not arrested and jailed for all his crimes against humanity and insider dealing”
.
Gates-backed startup raises $26 million for climate vaccines
Company develops climate vaccines for livestock as drugmakers eye climate vaccines for humans
“He suggests that alternative approaches, such as rationing based on need rather than wealth”
And we all know that there would be absolutely no way for the wealthy to circumvent the rationing.
And there is a clear, objective standard of “need”, for sure. ChatGPT is certain to tell us just what that is.
Rationing is code for “starve the politically powerless”. No “economist” who suggests rationing as a cure for market failure has ANY credibility in my view.
The key problem with what they suggest is rationing. As you say, this will be manipulated, as we've seen time and time again throughout history
Not just that but by rationing they also destroy the very price signals that could guide resources to the points of greatest scarcity.
Is Economics a legitimate discipline, worthy of academic study, research and status as a “science? For most of my life I thought so. Now I think not.
Economics as a discipline has been since its inception the propaganda arm of central planners, of big government, of diddling with the money, of social engineering and wealth transfer. We must start with the proper role and size of government. When we are done and the argument is properly settled, economists will be begging for a job.
Economics is psychology which, at best, is pseudoscience. A government should be only just big enough to adequately perform the administrative functions that a society has explicitly delegated.
The problem with all these guys is once they got their fancy educations, they gotta write and say things ever after, which means constantly coming up with things to write and say. How many economists can wriggle on the point of a pin?
sounds like the beginning of a joke - a bit like economists
Each and every one of those "new thinkers" gives me the creeps. Anytime I hear anyone talking about how the old ways are antiquated and inadequate and that we need to focus on new paradigms, I feel like I am being sold socialism in a new wrapper
It does sounds like that unfortunately. That then puts off others from thinking of how to change things.
So many things here.
First, there’s a certain percentage of humanity that IS inherently selfish. Throughout history, we have depended on those who are not naturally selfish to keep things balanced. But recent economic history shows us that besides the selfish and self-serving in business being promoted, we now see that even so-called philanthropists are promoted according to their self-serving behavior. Hence the inability of the majority of the masses to know what true philanthropy is.
Second, the “energy crisis” and the “climate crisis” are not only unproven but disproven, and were created for purposes of concentrating power in the hands of a few. Since the 1960’s, the concept of personal incentive and growth has been gradually discouraged in the US to prevent upward movement and “undeserved” privilege in the ranks of the common people. But advances are always tied to energy. Human, mechanical, biological-I’m thinking pyramids, railroads, and lately poisons. Energy cannot be used up. The forms change, but there will never be a lack. IMO
In developing nations (many of which are ancient civilizations) the assistance from the western powers is tied to obedience, and they are only allowed to produce what the west wants them to produce; producing what their people actually need (rebellion) brings punishment.
Which brings us to the problem Farley pointed out-the improper allocation of resources. When they’re told “Produce this and sell it to me!” their economy depends on the whims of the west, and the needs of their own people becomes secondary. If they were producing what their people need as they have traditionally, they wouldn’t have to look for allocations from outside their own communities. And the ecological ceiling has been blown through-the pollution, damage, and loss is a result of the west’s insatiable appetite for wealth and control.
The new paradigm would be-Mind your own business. Nation by nation. The rich are rich enough and they need to leave the rest of us alone.
The percentage who are inherently selfish tend to be the ones in power and therefore driving the economic theory to keep them there.
I agree that both crises are being used for the purposes of concentrating power but I'm still 50/50 on whether the cost to extract energy is getting more expensive.
Everything gets more expensive; that’s the way the world works. Raise prices because you can.
Chicken or egg? Price increase or wage increase? Convoluted and hard to tell
I don't mean more expensive due to inflation, I mean because there is less low hanging fruit
Ah. Okay. Back to damage?
The only topic that made sense to me in this article was the concept of centering energy in economic theory. Failure to understand that energy enables all other economic activity encourages poor policy decisions that starve the economy of abundant energy, thereby impoverishing the masses.
Yes, this is the key point for me, as well as trying to ensure everyone has basic necessities
Much better is a GeoLibertarian anti-rent-seeking economy with a citizens dividend (so all citizens can fund median shelter or basic shelter and other needs)
the point is all these ideas need to be explored rather than sticking with the same broken ones.
The problem us we dont have a capitalist system, we have a carefully disguised feudalist system,
“trying to ensure everyone has basic necessities”
No. Just no.
why no? you don't think everyone should have access to basic necessities, food, water, shelter?
Not via any top-down managed, centralized distribution model.
Stop making economics about money. That's like making sports about the score.
Doomberg argues the same on the fundamental importance of energy - not just an input to, but at the core of, any advanced economy. Well worth a read.
I recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1175203.The_Corruption_of_Economics
NE - "Why are economic forecasts often so wrong" Many are inculcated with false doctrine, and don't know money from mud. Proof? With over 400 Phd's on staff, the Fed have never accurately predicted a downturn. Using a price mechanism to ration Fed credit is a fools errand. There's a reason they call economics - The Dismal Science.
Tim Worstall's substack skewers this eco-econodrivel
CLIMATE INJECTIONS BEND OVER YOUVE BEEN S***TED
.
VET ROGER MEACOCK
https://www.facebook.com/roger.meacock1/posts/pfbid0c7USMx73tbY7Bwc3RzrWAfimtNfH2q7VuAouDW61F5PJms3hoTr4YkAVWVaxTnryl
“The stupidity of this idea is unfathomable but yet it raised $26m. What they propose isn't even scientifically possible. The support from WEF and WHO is yet another indication of how they intend to destroy our human rights and freedoms. Wake the fcuk up everyone who is asleep and thinks this is conspiracy theory.
The evil behind it should no longer be tolerated. How is BG still free and not arrested and jailed for all his crimes against humanity and insider dealing”
.
Gates-backed startup raises $26 million for climate vaccines
Company develops climate vaccines for livestock as drugmakers eye climate vaccines for humans
https://frontline.news/post/gates-backed-startup-raises-26-million-for-climate-vaccines-suppressing-cows-gas-emissions