Throughout his life, he took palpable pride in his ability to organize cooperative endeavors and public-spirited projects.
The reason why Josiah Franklin didn't send Benjamin to Harvard was that he thought Benjamin was not suited for the clergy. Benjamin was skeptical, puckish, curious, irreverent. Franklin excelled in writing but failed math, a scholastic deficit he never fully remedied and that, combined with his lack of academic training in the field, would eventually condemn him to be merely the most ingenious scientist of his era rather than transcending into the pantheon of truly profound theorists such as Newton.
One aspect of Franklin's genius was the variety of his interests, from science to government to diplomacy to journalism, all of them approached from a very practical rather than theoretical angle.
Two books that influenced Franklin a lot:
1). John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress
Thesis: progress, the concept that individuals, and humanity in general, move forward and improve based on a steady increase of knowledge and the wisdom that comes from conquering adversity.
2). Plutarch's Lives
Thesis: individuals endeavor can change the course of history for the better
History is a tale, not of immutable forces but of human endeavors.
Benjamin was influenced by Mather's idea that call on members of the community to form voluntary associations can benefit the society.
After some debates with his friends, Benjamin began to tailor for himself a persona that was less contentious and confrontational. He concluded that being disputatious was a very bad habit because contradicting people produced disgusts and perhaps enmities. He preferred Socrate's method of query. (gentle indirection rather than confrontation in making his arguments)
One of Benjamin's maxim: So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.
His most notable trait was a personal magnetism: he attracted people who wanted to help him.
Franklin easily made casual friends, intellectual companions, useful patrons, flirty admirers, and circles of genial acquaintances, but he was less good at nurturing lasting bonds that involved deep personal commitments or emotional relationships, even within his own family.
Franklin never developed into a rigorous, first-rank philosopher, he was more comfortable exploring practical thoughts and real-life situations than metaphysical abstractions or deductive proofs.
Plan for future conduct:
1. It is necessary for me to be extremely frugal for some time, till I have paid what I owe.
2. To endeavor to speak truth in every instance; to give nobody expectation that are not likely to be answered, but aim at sincerity in every word and action--the most amiable excellence in a rational being.
3. To apply myself industriously to whatever business I take in hand, and not divert my mind from my business by any foolish project of suddenly growing rich; for industry and patience are the surest means of plenty.
4. I resolve to speak ill of no man whatever.
One of the fundamental sentiments of the Enlightenment was that there is a sociable affinity, based on the natural instinct of benevolence, among fellow humans, and Franklin was an exemplar of this outlook.
Four questions:
(1) do you ever disrespect for any current member?
(2) do u love mankind in general regardless of religion or profession?
(3) do u feel people should ever be punished because of their opinions or mode of worship?
(4) do u love and pursue truth for its own sake?
Franklin concluded that it is useful to believe that a faith in god should inform out daily actions, but he was devoid of sectarian dogma, burning spirituality, deep soul-searching, or a personal relationship to Christ. The fundamental tenet of Benjamin's morality is " the most acceptable service to God is doing good to man".
11/08/2012
11/06/2012
None of us can carefully inspect the evidence for most of the beliefs that we hold and out of convenience we simply adopt the most easily available ideas.
An important cause of the belief that things are going poorly, and that the future outlook is gloomy, is the type of comparisons that a person makes.
Apparently it is built into our mental systems that no matter how good things become, our aspiration level ratchets up so that our anxiety level declines hardly at all, and we focus on ever-smaller actual dangers.
One of the problems in understanding modern life are the implicit comparisons to the past (often a nonexistent past) that people often make.
An important cause of the belief that things are going poorly, and that the future outlook is gloomy, is the type of comparisons that a person makes.
Apparently it is built into our mental systems that no matter how good things become, our aspiration level ratchets up so that our anxiety level declines hardly at all, and we focus on ever-smaller actual dangers.
One of the problems in understanding modern life are the implicit comparisons to the past (often a nonexistent past) that people often make.
Populationa growth and economic performance
The increase in productivity that result from the larger scale of industry, and from the additional knowledge contributed by additional people, are very important in analyzing the population and economic development. Developed countries with faster rates of population growth initially fall behind in per capita income, but only very slightly. Later they do better than those with lower rates of population growth, usually in 30 to 80 yrs. Though an increment of population initially has a small negative effect upon economic welfare, after a few decades the effect becomes positive, and large.
Immigrants pay much more in taxes than the cost of the welfare services and schooling that they use. In fact, the average immigrant family uses less welfare services and pays more taxes than the average native family. This is because immigrants are not old, tired and without skills. Rather, they are on average in the early prime of their work lives. And they are about as well educated as the native labor force, with a much larger proportion of professional and technical persons such as doctors and engineers.
Immigrants directly raise productivity with the new scientific and technical ideas they invent. Immigrants not only take jobs, but with their earnings which they then spend, they make as many jobs as they take. Furthermore, they make additional new jobs with the new businesses that they open.
Additional children influence the lower developed countries economy by inducing people to work longer hours and invest more, as well as by causing an improvement in the social infrastructure, such as better roads and communication systems. Additional population also induces economies of scales in other ways. The upshot us that although additional children cause additional costs in the short run, a moderate rate of population growth in poor countries is more likely to lead to a higher standard of living in the long run rather than either zero population growth or a high rate of population growth.
Immigrants pay much more in taxes than the cost of the welfare services and schooling that they use. In fact, the average immigrant family uses less welfare services and pays more taxes than the average native family. This is because immigrants are not old, tired and without skills. Rather, they are on average in the early prime of their work lives. And they are about as well educated as the native labor force, with a much larger proportion of professional and technical persons such as doctors and engineers.
Immigrants directly raise productivity with the new scientific and technical ideas they invent. Immigrants not only take jobs, but with their earnings which they then spend, they make as many jobs as they take. Furthermore, they make additional new jobs with the new businesses that they open.
Additional children influence the lower developed countries economy by inducing people to work longer hours and invest more, as well as by causing an improvement in the social infrastructure, such as better roads and communication systems. Additional population also induces economies of scales in other ways. The upshot us that although additional children cause additional costs in the short run, a moderate rate of population growth in poor countries is more likely to lead to a higher standard of living in the long run rather than either zero population growth or a high rate of population growth.
11/05/2012
Population and environment
Although there may be some short-run increase in pollution due to population increases, the additional pollution is relatively small. And in the long run, pollution is likely to be significantly less due to population growth.
Along with higher income and its consequent greater supply of pollutant comes a greater demand for cleanup, plus an increased capacity to pay for it and greater technical ability to execute the cleanup.
Along with higher income and its consequent greater supply of pollutant comes a greater demand for cleanup, plus an increased capacity to pay for it and greater technical ability to execute the cleanup.
Population and land
Though more land per person was available in the past than at present, people did not farm all the land available to them for 2 reasons:
(1) people were physically unable to farm larger areas than they actually farmed
(2) farmers in the past had little motive for farming more land
Reduction in the amount of land available to the farmer causes little hardship if previously he was not farming at all the land that was available. When farmers need more land they make more land. People create land--agricultural land--by investing their sweat, blood, money, and ingenuity in it.
Data show that the absolute number of farm workers is going down, and consequently the absolute amount of land per farm worker is going up.
Job "destruction" is a confusing label for the very essence of economic progress--making a given amount of goods with fewer people.
In the poorer agricultural countries the creation of new land has been the source of most of the long-run increase in agricultural output which has kept up with population growth. As the available land for crops becomes more and more costly to transform into cropland, farmers will instead crop their existing land more intensively. The use of traditional farmland is no longer the only way to produce food.
The idea that population growth breeds war has been used to justified national policies to "control birth rate". But it doesn't apply in modern society. Additional territory nowadays generally has no value to a nation.
(1) people were physically unable to farm larger areas than they actually farmed
(2) farmers in the past had little motive for farming more land
Reduction in the amount of land available to the farmer causes little hardship if previously he was not farming at all the land that was available. When farmers need more land they make more land. People create land--agricultural land--by investing their sweat, blood, money, and ingenuity in it.
Data show that the absolute number of farm workers is going down, and consequently the absolute amount of land per farm worker is going up.
Job "destruction" is a confusing label for the very essence of economic progress--making a given amount of goods with fewer people.
In the poorer agricultural countries the creation of new land has been the source of most of the long-run increase in agricultural output which has kept up with population growth. As the available land for crops becomes more and more costly to transform into cropland, farmers will instead crop their existing land more intensively. The use of traditional farmland is no longer the only way to produce food.
The idea that population growth breeds war has been used to justified national policies to "control birth rate". But it doesn't apply in modern society. Additional territory nowadays generally has no value to a nation.
11/04/2012
Economies of scales
The phenomenon called learning by doing is surely a key factor in the improvement of productivity in particular industries and in the economy as a whole. The idea: the more units produced in a plant or an industry, the more efficiently they are produced, as people learn and develop better methods.
Population
Population growth clearly leads to an improved transportation system, which in turn stimulates economic development and further population growth.
The most important economic effect of population size and growth is the contribution of additional people to our stock of useful knowledge.
It is impossible for the arts and sciences to arise, at first, among many people unless that people enjoy the blessing of a free government...An unlimited despotism...effectually puts a stop to all improvements, and keeps men from attaining...knowledge.---David Hume
The competition fostered by independence allowed people considerable freedom from monarchs and bureaucracy. This afforded them economic opp to use their talents, make advances, and profit from their efforts.
There are two kinds of inventions:
(1) invention-pull: those that are adopted as soon as they are proven successful in that they increase production with no more labor
(2) population-push: those at first require more labor, and hence will not be adopted until demand from additional population warrants the adoption.
Productivity increases faster when population is larger.
A larger population influences the production of knowledge through both supply and demand mechanisms.
Supply side: a larger population implies a larger amount of knowledge being created, all else being equal, as a result of there being more people to have new ideas.
Demand side: more people means there are higher demand for consumption in the short run. Prices rise, and induce entrepreneurs and inventors to step to get profit.
The most important economic effect of population size and growth is the contribution of additional people to our stock of useful knowledge.
It is impossible for the arts and sciences to arise, at first, among many people unless that people enjoy the blessing of a free government...An unlimited despotism...effectually puts a stop to all improvements, and keeps men from attaining...knowledge.---David Hume
The competition fostered by independence allowed people considerable freedom from monarchs and bureaucracy. This afforded them economic opp to use their talents, make advances, and profit from their efforts.
There are two kinds of inventions:
(1) invention-pull: those that are adopted as soon as they are proven successful in that they increase production with no more labor
(2) population-push: those at first require more labor, and hence will not be adopted until demand from additional population warrants the adoption.
Productivity increases faster when population is larger.
A larger population influences the production of knowledge through both supply and demand mechanisms.
Supply side: a larger population implies a larger amount of knowledge being created, all else being equal, as a result of there being more people to have new ideas.
Demand side: more people means there are higher demand for consumption in the short run. Prices rise, and induce entrepreneurs and inventors to step to get profit.
11/03/2012
Demographic
Population has not been constant or steady over the long sweep of time.
The tool-using and tool-making revolution kicked off the rapid rise in population around 1 million B.C.E. The aid of various implements "gave the food gather and hunter access to the widest range of environments." But when the productivity gains from the use of primitive tools had been exploited, the rate of population growth fell, and population size again settled down near a plateau.
The next rapid jump in population started perhaps ten thousand years ago, when people began to keep herds and cultivate the earth, rather than simply foraging for wild plants and game.
These two facts imply that the present rapid population growth, starting 300 or 350 yrs ago, may abate when the benefits of the new industrial and agricultural and other technical knowledge that followed the early scientific and industrial revolutions begin to peter out.
In the long-run view population size adjusts to productive conditions rather than being an uncontrolled monster. Constant geometric growth does not characterize human population history. Population growth to some extent represents economic success and human triumph, rather than social failure.
Population size and growth are influenced by political and economic and cultural forces, and not only by starvation and plague due to changes in natural conditions.
The main cause of the rapid increase in population during the past two centuries is the decrease in the world's population rate.
The tool-using and tool-making revolution kicked off the rapid rise in population around 1 million B.C.E. The aid of various implements "gave the food gather and hunter access to the widest range of environments." But when the productivity gains from the use of primitive tools had been exploited, the rate of population growth fell, and population size again settled down near a plateau.
The next rapid jump in population started perhaps ten thousand years ago, when people began to keep herds and cultivate the earth, rather than simply foraging for wild plants and game.
These two facts imply that the present rapid population growth, starting 300 or 350 yrs ago, may abate when the benefits of the new industrial and agricultural and other technical knowledge that followed the early scientific and industrial revolutions begin to peter out.
In the long-run view population size adjusts to productive conditions rather than being an uncontrolled monster. Constant geometric growth does not characterize human population history. Population growth to some extent represents economic success and human triumph, rather than social failure.
Population size and growth are influenced by political and economic and cultural forces, and not only by starvation and plague due to changes in natural conditions.
The main cause of the rapid increase in population during the past two centuries is the decrease in the world's population rate.
Three ways to organize waste disposal
(1) commanding
(2) guiding by tax and subsidy
(3) leaving it to individual and the market
A good way for garbage:
Each homeowner contacts with any one of the private haulers who works in the area. They gauge their charges according to how much garbage homeowners put out, the standard rate being augmented by special charges for special hauling. Homeowners can change the haulers at the end of each month if they are not satisfied with the service. The haulers make a deal with a private landfill operator.
Two drawbacks to recycling:
(1) it costs taxpayers more money (opp cost)
(2) it usually injects an element of coercion which is antagonistic both to human values as well as to the efficient working of a free-market system.
(2) guiding by tax and subsidy
(3) leaving it to individual and the market
A good way for garbage:
Each homeowner contacts with any one of the private haulers who works in the area. They gauge their charges according to how much garbage homeowners put out, the standard rate being augmented by special charges for special hauling. Homeowners can change the haulers at the end of each month if they are not satisfied with the service. The haulers make a deal with a private landfill operator.
Two drawbacks to recycling:
(1) it costs taxpayers more money (opp cost)
(2) it usually injects an element of coercion which is antagonistic both to human values as well as to the efficient working of a free-market system.
Externalities
The key short-run issue is government policy with respect to energy. The programs called by environmentalists combine support for "alternative" sources of energy such as wind and solar, taxation of fossil fuels to reduce their use, and raising all possible obstacles to the use of nuclear power.
Energy accounting has great intellectual charms but of course if society were to follow an energy-economizing rule, we could not have modern life,
Energy accounting has great intellectual charms but of course if society were to follow an energy-economizing rule, we could not have modern life,
Why do people worry so much about wastes
(1) Lack understanding of how an economic system responds to an incerased shortage of some resource:
People tend to underestimate the likelihood that people and organizations will make characteristically human adjustments to daily life and society.
(2) Lack of technical knowledge or imagination
Many people who do not already know a technical answer to a given problem don't try to discover the possible solutions, and not do they imagine that others can dream up solutions. A "technical fix" is the entire story of civilization. The combination of technical imagination plus a free-enterprising system constitutes the crucial mechanism for dealing with waste.
(3) The moral feeling about recycling
People tend to underestimate the likelihood that people and organizations will make characteristically human adjustments to daily life and society.
(2) Lack of technical knowledge or imagination
Many people who do not already know a technical answer to a given problem don't try to discover the possible solutions, and not do they imagine that others can dream up solutions. A "technical fix" is the entire story of civilization. The combination of technical imagination plus a free-enterprising system constitutes the crucial mechanism for dealing with waste.
(3) The moral feeling about recycling
Conservation
We can clarify conservation issues by distinguishing among the following:
(1) unique resources, which are one-of-a-kind or close to it, and which we value for aesthetic purposes (Mona Lisa, MJ's basketball game)
(2) One-of-a-kind resources that we value as historical artifacts, (original U.S. Declaration of Independence)
(3) Resources that can be reproduced or recycled or substituted for, and that we value for their material uses (wood pulp, trees, copper, oil, and food)
Category 3 are resources for which we can calculate whether it is cheaper to conserve for future use, or use now and obtain the services they provide. A question is whether as individuals and as a society we should try to use less of these materials than we are willing to pay for. Answer:apart from considerations of national security and international bargaining power, there is no economic rationale for special efforts to avoid using the resources.
You should turn off the light if the money cost of he electrical energy is greater than the felt cost to you of taking a few steps to the light switch and flicking your wrist. It is rational for us to avoid waste if the value to us of the resource saved is more than the cost to us of achieving the saving.
There is much confusion between physical and economic conservation. To "save water" by not flushing the toilets is not rational economics.
Worst-case thinking may be appropriate for safety engineers, but it is not appropriate for most everyday planning.
The conservationists do not believe that consumers will react rationally to changes in resource availabilities and prices.
Where costs do not settle the issue, the decision about what is conserved, and how much, is a matter of tastes of values.
Recycling is one thing when it is economically worthwhile for the person who is doing the recycling but another thing when it is done purely for symbolic purposes. People voluntarily recycle valuable resources and throw away less valuable items that take more effort to recycle than they are worth. Coercive recycling is actually more wasteful than throwing things away. It wastes valuable labor and materials that could be put to better use--creating new life, new resources, and a cleaner environment.
(1) unique resources, which are one-of-a-kind or close to it, and which we value for aesthetic purposes (Mona Lisa, MJ's basketball game)
(2) One-of-a-kind resources that we value as historical artifacts, (original U.S. Declaration of Independence)
(3) Resources that can be reproduced or recycled or substituted for, and that we value for their material uses (wood pulp, trees, copper, oil, and food)
Category 3 are resources for which we can calculate whether it is cheaper to conserve for future use, or use now and obtain the services they provide. A question is whether as individuals and as a society we should try to use less of these materials than we are willing to pay for. Answer:apart from considerations of national security and international bargaining power, there is no economic rationale for special efforts to avoid using the resources.
You should turn off the light if the money cost of he electrical energy is greater than the felt cost to you of taking a few steps to the light switch and flicking your wrist. It is rational for us to avoid waste if the value to us of the resource saved is more than the cost to us of achieving the saving.
There is much confusion between physical and economic conservation. To "save water" by not flushing the toilets is not rational economics.
Worst-case thinking may be appropriate for safety engineers, but it is not appropriate for most everyday planning.
The conservationists do not believe that consumers will react rationally to changes in resource availabilities and prices.
Where costs do not settle the issue, the decision about what is conserved, and how much, is a matter of tastes of values.
Recycling is one thing when it is economically worthwhile for the person who is doing the recycling but another thing when it is done purely for symbolic purposes. People voluntarily recycle valuable resources and throw away less valuable items that take more effort to recycle than they are worth. Coercive recycling is actually more wasteful than throwing things away. It wastes valuable labor and materials that could be put to better use--creating new life, new resources, and a cleaner environment.
11/02/2012
Pollution
The worst pollutions of the past were diseases caused by microorganisms, and spread by contaminated drinking water and by airborne germs and insects. In the rich countries we have been so successful in sanitary operations and preventive medicine that infectious diseases are no longer even thought of when pollution is discussed, though in poor countries these diseases still are mass killers.
The next worst pollutions of past and present are dust particulates from burning fossil fuels.
Finally, there are the trivial pollutions and downright false alarms.
Economics theory views natural resources and pollution as the opposite sides of the same coin. The key conceptual difference between a natural resource and pollution is that the goods we call "natural resources" are largely produced by private firms, which have a strong motive--profit--for providing what consumers want. In contrast, the good we call "absence of environmental pollution" is largely produced by public agencies through regulation, tax incentives, fines, and licensing.
Another difference between natural resources and pollution is that natural-resource transactions are mostly limited in impact to the buyer and the seller, whereas one person's pollution is "external" and may touch everybody else.
Economists conceptualize the reduction of pollution as a social good that can be achieved technologically but costs resources.
The combination of affluence and improved tech tends toward greater cleanliness.
After thousands of years of almost no improvement, in the past two hundred years in the rich countries there has been a long upward climb in life expectancy; in poor countries, life expectancy has increased extraordinarily sharply during the latter half of the century.
Serious deterioration in some aspects of environmental quality did take place between 1840 and 1940... Since 1940, however, the quality of the environment has in some respects markedly improved. Rivers have been cleaned of their grossest floating materials.
The next worst pollutions of past and present are dust particulates from burning fossil fuels.
Finally, there are the trivial pollutions and downright false alarms.
Economics theory views natural resources and pollution as the opposite sides of the same coin. The key conceptual difference between a natural resource and pollution is that the goods we call "natural resources" are largely produced by private firms, which have a strong motive--profit--for providing what consumers want. In contrast, the good we call "absence of environmental pollution" is largely produced by public agencies through regulation, tax incentives, fines, and licensing.
Another difference between natural resources and pollution is that natural-resource transactions are mostly limited in impact to the buyer and the seller, whereas one person's pollution is "external" and may touch everybody else.
Economists conceptualize the reduction of pollution as a social good that can be achieved technologically but costs resources.
The combination of affluence and improved tech tends toward greater cleanliness.
After thousands of years of almost no improvement, in the past two hundred years in the rich countries there has been a long upward climb in life expectancy; in poor countries, life expectancy has increased extraordinarily sharply during the latter half of the century.
Serious deterioration in some aspects of environmental quality did take place between 1840 and 1940... Since 1940, however, the quality of the environment has in some respects markedly improved. Rivers have been cleaned of their grossest floating materials.
11/01/2012
Oil
1. Energy is the most important of natural resources because
a. the creation of other natural resources requires energy
b. with enough energy all other resources can be created
2. The most reliable method of forecasting the future cost and scarcity of energy is to extrapolate the historical trends of energy costs.
3. The history of energy economics shows that in spite of troubling fears in each era of running out of whichever source of energy was important at that time, energy has grown progressively less scarce, as shown by long-run falling energy prices.
4. The cause of the increasing plenty in the supply of energy has been the development of improved extraction processes and the discovery of new sources and new types of energy.
5. These new developments have not been fortuitous, but rather have been induced by increased demand caused in part by rising population.
6. For the very long run, there is nothing meaningfully "finite" about our world that inevitably will cause energy to grow more scarce and costly. Theoretically, the cost of energy could either go up or down in the very long run. But the trends point to a lower cost.
7. Forecasts based on technical analysis are less persuasive than historical extrapolations of cost trends. Furthermore, the technical forecasts of future energy supplies differ markedly among themselves.
8. A sure way to err in forecasting future supplies is to look at current "known reserves" of oil, coal and other fossil fuels.
9. An appropriate technical forecast would be based on engineering estimates of the amounts of additional energy that will be produced at various price levels, and on predictions of new discoveries and technological advances that will come about as a result of various energy prices.
10. Some technical forecasters believe that even very much higher prices will produce only small increases in our energy supply, and even those only slowly. Others believe that at only slightly higher prices vast additional supplies will be forthcoming, and very quickly.
11. Causes of the disagreements among technical forecasters are differences in
a. scientific data cited,
b. assessments of political forces,
c. ideology,
d. belief or nonbelief in "finiteness" as an element of the situation,
e. vividness of scientific imagination
12. The disagreement among technical forecasters makes the economic extrapolation of decreasing historical costs even more compelling.
The statistical history of energy supplies is a rise in plenty rather than in scarcity. The price of oil fell because of technological advance.
A preposterous but commonly accepted notion is that energy situation can be predicted with the aid of " known reserves". "Known reserves" are much like the food we put into our cupboards at home. The amount of food in cupboards tells little or nothing about the scarcity of food in our communities, because as a rule it doesn't reveal how much food is available in the retail stores.
a. the creation of other natural resources requires energy
b. with enough energy all other resources can be created
2. The most reliable method of forecasting the future cost and scarcity of energy is to extrapolate the historical trends of energy costs.
3. The history of energy economics shows that in spite of troubling fears in each era of running out of whichever source of energy was important at that time, energy has grown progressively less scarce, as shown by long-run falling energy prices.
4. The cause of the increasing plenty in the supply of energy has been the development of improved extraction processes and the discovery of new sources and new types of energy.
5. These new developments have not been fortuitous, but rather have been induced by increased demand caused in part by rising population.
6. For the very long run, there is nothing meaningfully "finite" about our world that inevitably will cause energy to grow more scarce and costly. Theoretically, the cost of energy could either go up or down in the very long run. But the trends point to a lower cost.
7. Forecasts based on technical analysis are less persuasive than historical extrapolations of cost trends. Furthermore, the technical forecasts of future energy supplies differ markedly among themselves.
8. A sure way to err in forecasting future supplies is to look at current "known reserves" of oil, coal and other fossil fuels.
9. An appropriate technical forecast would be based on engineering estimates of the amounts of additional energy that will be produced at various price levels, and on predictions of new discoveries and technological advances that will come about as a result of various energy prices.
10. Some technical forecasters believe that even very much higher prices will produce only small increases in our energy supply, and even those only slowly. Others believe that at only slightly higher prices vast additional supplies will be forthcoming, and very quickly.
11. Causes of the disagreements among technical forecasters are differences in
a. scientific data cited,
b. assessments of political forces,
c. ideology,
d. belief or nonbelief in "finiteness" as an element of the situation,
e. vividness of scientific imagination
12. The disagreement among technical forecasters makes the economic extrapolation of decreasing historical costs even more compelling.
The statistical history of energy supplies is a rise in plenty rather than in scarcity. The price of oil fell because of technological advance.
A preposterous but commonly accepted notion is that energy situation can be predicted with the aid of " known reserves". "Known reserves" are much like the food we put into our cupboards at home. The amount of food in cupboards tells little or nothing about the scarcity of food in our communities, because as a rule it doesn't reveal how much food is available in the retail stores.
Water, lumber
Usable water is like other resources in being a product of human labor and ingenuity. People "create" usable water, and there are large opportunities to discover and utilize new sources.
Water for residential use will never be a long-run problem in itself because even at the cost of the most expensive means of production--desalination--the cost of water used by households is small relative to households budgets in rich countries. The desalinated price may be much less as tech improves and the price of energy falls. Furthermore, homes reduce their use of water as the price goes up.
The most important fact for consumer water supply is that most water is used in agriculture. The reason that there are cases of absolute shortage and rationing is that price is not allowed to respond to market conditions, but rather is fixed at a low subsidized price in many agricultural areas. Another difficulty is that agricultural and municipal rights to use water from rivers are complex legal structures that often do not fit modern needs.
Many trees are planted in order to be cut down--especially for paper. Indeed, 87 percent of all paper in the United States is produced from trees planted and grown for that purpose by the paper industry.
Why does the public believe that forests in Europe are declining when they are actually increasing? Part of the explanation is that researchers invalidly infer general effects from partial biological data.
More lumber is purposely planted. Higher productivity enables an increasing number of trees grow on a shrinking area. Conservation efforts due to higher prices, and research on wood and wood substitutes.
Water for residential use will never be a long-run problem in itself because even at the cost of the most expensive means of production--desalination--the cost of water used by households is small relative to households budgets in rich countries. The desalinated price may be much less as tech improves and the price of energy falls. Furthermore, homes reduce their use of water as the price goes up.
The most important fact for consumer water supply is that most water is used in agriculture. The reason that there are cases of absolute shortage and rationing is that price is not allowed to respond to market conditions, but rather is fixed at a low subsidized price in many agricultural areas. Another difficulty is that agricultural and municipal rights to use water from rivers are complex legal structures that often do not fit modern needs.
Many trees are planted in order to be cut down--especially for paper. Indeed, 87 percent of all paper in the United States is produced from trees planted and grown for that purpose by the paper industry.
Why does the public believe that forests in Europe are declining when they are actually increasing? Part of the explanation is that researchers invalidly infer general effects from partial biological data.
More lumber is purposely planted. Higher productivity enables an increasing number of trees grow on a shrinking area. Conservation efforts due to higher prices, and research on wood and wood substitutes.
Food production
The record of food production entirely contradicts the scary forecasts.
A long and broad view of food production found continuous improvement with no end in sight. Any country that gives farmers a free market in food and labor, secure property rights in the land, and a political system that ensures these freedoms in the future will soon be flush with food, with an ever-diminishing proportion of its work force required to produce the food.
The rise in food output was so great as to cause grain to become cheaper despite the large increase in demand. (agricultural knowledge gained from research and development induced by the increased demand, the increased ability of farmers to get their produce to market on improved transportation systems.
Superficially it might seem that farmers benefit from the overall government program because of the subsidies. But close analysis shows that most of the subsidies finally come to rest in the hands, not of the cultivators, but of the owner of the land in the form of proceeds from land sales at price made high by the value the subsidies confer.
Another set of beneficiaries of government programs are the government officials.
Modern technological capacities in league with modern transportation capacities, harnessed to farmers' ingenuity when offered a chance to make money, have vastly reduced the likelihood of a major disturbance in our food supplies.
The most important fact about the world's agricultural land is that less and less of it is needed as the decade pass. The reduced economic importance of land is shown by the long-run diminution in the proportion of total tangible assets that farmland has represented in various countries.
The definition of "arable" changes as tech develops and the demand for land changes. Hence, any calculation of "arable" land should be seen for what it is-- a rough temporary assessment that may be useful for a while but has no permanent validity.
The combination of increased productivity per acre of good land, and increased use of equipment adapted to flat land, has made it unprofitable to farm some land that formerly was cultivated.
Though the stock of usable land seems fixed at any moment, it is constantly being increased by the clearing of new fields or the reclamation of wasteland. Land also is constantly being enhanced by increasing the number of crops grown per year on each unit of land, and by increasing the yield per crop with better farming methods and with chemical fertilizer. And land is created anew where there was none.
A long and broad view of food production found continuous improvement with no end in sight. Any country that gives farmers a free market in food and labor, secure property rights in the land, and a political system that ensures these freedoms in the future will soon be flush with food, with an ever-diminishing proportion of its work force required to produce the food.
The rise in food output was so great as to cause grain to become cheaper despite the large increase in demand. (agricultural knowledge gained from research and development induced by the increased demand, the increased ability of farmers to get their produce to market on improved transportation systems.
Superficially it might seem that farmers benefit from the overall government program because of the subsidies. But close analysis shows that most of the subsidies finally come to rest in the hands, not of the cultivators, but of the owner of the land in the form of proceeds from land sales at price made high by the value the subsidies confer.
Another set of beneficiaries of government programs are the government officials.
Modern technological capacities in league with modern transportation capacities, harnessed to farmers' ingenuity when offered a chance to make money, have vastly reduced the likelihood of a major disturbance in our food supplies.
The most important fact about the world's agricultural land is that less and less of it is needed as the decade pass. The reduced economic importance of land is shown by the long-run diminution in the proportion of total tangible assets that farmland has represented in various countries.
The definition of "arable" changes as tech develops and the demand for land changes. Hence, any calculation of "arable" land should be seen for what it is-- a rough temporary assessment that may be useful for a while but has no permanent validity.
The combination of increased productivity per acre of good land, and increased use of equipment adapted to flat land, has made it unprofitable to farm some land that formerly was cultivated.
Though the stock of usable land seems fixed at any moment, it is constantly being increased by the clearing of new fields or the reclamation of wasteland. Land also is constantly being enhanced by increasing the number of crops grown per year on each unit of land, and by increasing the yield per crop with better farming methods and with chemical fertilizer. And land is created anew where there was none.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)