I've always found it absurd that mankind invented money, yet when it comes to financial problems, recessions, poverty, etc we are given a load of spiel as if we had to stick to some 'laws' of money that had the same weight as the law of gravity. You'd almost get the impression that money invented man......and not the other way round.
Given the wretched state of some on Earth, and how little money it would take to lift them out of that, I'd be all in favour of simply saying 'stuff the rules' and printing the money and saying 'here, have this'.....or let them do it themselves. Economists would have a heart attack at the prospect of resultant inflation....but that is not what would happen. It might do if you simply printed extra money in a western nation, as has been done before, but in a third world nation it would stimulate growth, with all the money being spent on necessities that people largely cannot afford currently.
Well I don't really have strong opinions about this yet so let's see if we can work through them.
My first thought is that it's just not physically possible for India and China to have the same degree of industrialisation as the west. Current optimistic (possibly dodge - from wiki) estimates of oil reserves are 32 years and gas reservs of 72 years, at the current level of usage. The west accounts for (I'm guessing) about 1 billion people. Let's say we want to raise 3 billion more to the same standard of living then surely that implies that oil and gas will be dry in less than 20 years. They will be uneconomical to burn in much less than that.
Coal reserves are estimated at 252 years so at 4 times the usage rate they will be gone in 63 years.
I can't see how it is physically possible for the world to have the same usage of energy that the west currently has.
Originally posted by Chi Squared: I'd be all in favour of simply saying 'stuff the rules' and printing the money and saying 'here, have this'.....or let them do it themselves. Economists would have a heart attack at the prospect of resultant inflation....but that is not what would happen. It might do if you simply printed extra money in a western nation, as has been done before, but in a third world nation it would stimulate growth, with all the money being spent on necessities that people largely cannot afford currently.
Your estimates about oil reserves are exactly what you state -'dodgy'. There has been oil reserve forecasts in the past according to which we already should be without oil. Also the oil reserves point to the reserves that are usable through the current technology. There is for example 'heavy oil' that are plentiful and can be extracted if economically feasible way are developed in the future. Coal is plenty both in India and China. So there is plenty of fossil fuel around and I really don't understand your point about India and China not able to achieve the level of Industrialization comparable to the west.
But you have not really answered my question. The AGW lobby is crying that there is a crisis, that needs immediate action. Not 40-50 years from now but in the next 5-10 years something drastic should be done or we are doomed for ever. So are you suggesting that there is a way that India and China continues its growth (averaging around 9%p.a) for the next 5-10 years without generating more carbon emission?
Wiki states they are optimistic estimates but I can't be bothered to research them. The specific numbers don't really matter - the oil is going to run out some time, and it will be pretty soon if we are all consuming it as fast as the Americans.
Bear in mind that oil is already much less economical that it was when the western countries were growing. Oil is now about 30 times as expensive as it was in 1970.
I think I'm suggesting that there is no way for the rest of the world to match the level of industrialisation of the west. Full stop. The west is going to find it pretty hard to just maintain it soon enough.
Obviously there is no way for China and India to continue their current level of growth without generating more carbon. We have no (practical) carbon-free energy sources and their growth implies more energy use.
But why is industrial growth so important? Should we not be more concerned with food, water, housing and medicines? Why do these things require 9% growth?
Are you suggesting that oil is more expensive now because of lack of oil reserves? Oil is expensive because OPEC is a cartel.
Stating that obviously there is no way for developing nations to match the developed nations is of course assuming that the economy is a zero sum game and for one to win the other has to lose. Industrial growth is important because that gets people out of poverty. Thats been the way people have got out of poverty in the developed nations like USA and UK and that's the way its got to be in India and China
I think you are articulating what is often kept at a implicit level in this debate. For CO2 theory to have any normative implications, we have to restrict growth of the developing nations and a handy way of doing that is through carbon trading
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Are you suggesting that oil is more expensive now because of lack of oil reserves? Oil is expensive because OPEC is a cartel.
No, oil prices are largely set by the market. And, of course, OPEC restricts production precisely because reserves are limited.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Stating that obviously there is no way for developing nations to match the developed nations is of course assuming that the economy is a zero sum game and for one to win the other has to lose.
No, not at all. As an example both the UK and the US have an extensive road and rail infrastructure. Much of the primary development of this infrastructure was done in the 60's and 70's when oil was cheap. There is no way that we would be able to build it all again at today's prices.
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Industrial growth is important because that gets people out of poverty. Thats been the way people have got out of poverty in the developed nations like USA and UK and that's the way its got to be in India and China
Where does this assumption come from? Why has it got to be like this?
Well oil has been expensive for some time we don't see abatement of growth of India and China.
If you accept that India and China are going to grow ( and they are not going grow as per your wish) how do we control carbon emission? and if we don't control carbon emission where that puts the CO2 theory?
This might be where the discussion is going to get a bit boring as I actually don't think it's possible to control carbon emissions (pretty much for precisely this reason).
I laid this out in my "different kind of sceptic" thread, but briefly (and crudely) our free market economies mean that any reduction in carbon emissions by (say) the UK will be exactly offset by other countries (presumably, though not necessarily, China/India). As long as we operate in a free market all of the oil, gas, coal etc. will be consumed as that is what a free market does - consumes resources entirely in the most efficient way available.
Oh! so we are in agreement then. No problem. Let's allow the developing world get on with their development without all this hocus pocus of carbon trading.
So what will be your advise to the politicians of the developed world on global warming? What do you suggest they do with the holy IPCC report?
To reduce carbon emissions, my advice to China would be to sell its trillion dollar currency reserves and demand that any country that wants to sell it oil price it in Euros. This would destroy the US economy overnight and slash global carbon emissions.
I'm only half joking
Other than that I would advise them to forget about global warming, at least as long as the US is unwilling to make meaningful cuts, and rather concentrate on really improving the lives of the majority of its population, rather than driving headlong into this industrialisation dead-end.
From my, admittedly poor, knowledge of India I think they are already leaning this way and are probably doing a better job than China.
In reality, both governments are too weak - let me rephrase that - all governments are too weak to make any meaningful changes to their population's lives. They are driven by the self-interest of their middle classes.
I think the real problems are not that people can't afford cars, but that they don't have water, food, medicines etc.
It seems to me that industrialisation is all about getting access to the resources of other countries. It's about getting a job in the city so that you can earn hard currency so that you can buy an imported TV.
Clean water (for example) is about being given control of your own local resources so that you can prevent rapacious companies from stealing them - rather you can ration them and use them in the most appropriate way.
Housing is about being given ownership of the land you live on rather than letting rapacious companies steal it and kick you off.
Medicines is about taking control of research and development of meaningful drugs (like a malaria cure) rather than leaving it to rapacious companies to use it to come up with a cure for impotency.
So where do government get the money do all the things that you are specifying? Clean water, basic healthcare etc. Well they are two ways of doing this - depend on World Bank and IMF to give you grants so you can provide this public services to your people.
India used this route mostly before 1991 when they started their economic reforms. Once the economic reforms started, industrialization gathered pace, people started getting rich, started paying taxes and governement from those taxes pay for the public goods- and this of course is the other way.
So what are you suggesting? Developing nations remain dependent on grants from World Bank or industrialize?
Very little of this has to be done by central governments. Give people ownership of their own land, water, resources etc. and they can do a lot of this for themselves.
The World Bank is the worst thing that ever happened to the developing world. During their growth phase all of the western nations used centralised control, strategic resource protection, protective trade practices, patent infringement etc. to ensure their own growth. Now that the developing world wants to do the same thing it's all anti-corruption and free trade. That's where the hypocrisy is, not in carbon trading.
are you trying to be deliberately obscure? Just as the AGW lobby wouldn't specify through which mechanism the CO2 emission will be controlled, you are refusing to specify through which mechanism the developing countries will get out of poverty (if not industrialization). India's dependence on World Bank IMF grants have gone done proportionately with their economic growth
It can't be the case that if you and I pray hard enough the developing countries would get out of poverty. What is the mechanism?
Since you have stopped responding I will give up on the query just as I have given up asking the AGW lobby about the mechanism to control CO2.
Instead let me ask you what you mean by this "During their growth phase all of the western nations used centralised control, strategic resource protection, protective trade practices, patent infringement etc. to ensure their own growth. Now that the developing world wants to do the same thing it's all anti-corruption and free trade."
This is a fantastic claim. As far as I know most of the developed economies (that are successful) have used free market ideas rather than central planning to increase wealth of their nations. So which economies do you think generated wealth through centralised planning?
Originally posted by What's in your mind: Since you have stopped responding I will give up on the query just as I have given up asking the AGW lobby about the mechanism to control CO2.
Sorry - real life intruded
Indian GDP may be increasing. Is this really being translated into less starvation, more clean water, less pollution, less forced migration?
As I said before, I think India is probably one of the more enlightened countries. Apply these measures to China and I think you'll see what I'm getting at. China gets rich. The chinese middle class get rich. The chinese rural poor get poisoned, starved and their land taken away.
quote:
Instead let me ask you what you mean by this "During their growth phase all of the western nations used centralised control,
Think of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. This is when the western powers were establishing themselves. They grabbed central ownership of strategic resources, imposed punitive import duties, blatantly stole intellectual property - in fact they did anything they could to further their own interests. Then, once they have established themselves as the bankers of the world they start demanding that other countries must open up their economies so that they can be bought up by international (read: western) corporations.
They still do a lot of this, they're just a bit quieter about it now. Look at the way the US negotiates trade agreements (and the EU is just as bad). They won't give an inch unless they're getting a foot in return.
Oh dear, I sound like a pinko hippie type, don't I? I'm actually a strong believer in the free market, but only a truly free market on equal terms. This kind of hypocrisy makes me sick.
