Why Is Youth So Left-Wing?

[storealex]

Bjørn Lomborg? That economist? Didn't he recently host a conference about problems of globalization or something? I probably read about that in a newspaper.

Lomborg is a man who used to do statistics. One day he asked: "When we can't solve all the worlds problems, where do we solve most for our money, where is our help most effective?"
An interesting thought really. The problem is the Lomborg don't know much about the world, all he knows is statistics. Still he said what the anti-environment politicians wanted to hear - that it's ok to care less about the environment, which is exactly what they did.
He often put together some numbers that prove him right and "forget" about the numbers that prove him wrong. He tells half the truth and present it as the whole truth.

An example: He say we shouldn't care about the worlds forests being destroyed, because in the last fifty years the world have actually gained more forest than it have lost. Sounds all peachy, only problem is that the world have gained pine trees which are pretty much irrelevant to global warming, while the rainforest is reduced tremendously, which is a disaster because destruction of rainforest have a huge impact on global warming.

 

[Mise]

What we should do is remove the "moms" (Mads please tell them the English word) on vegetables. Moms is a tax that makes most things 25% more expensive, don't remember why we have this tax, but Im sure it would be a good idea to remove it from vegetables.

I think you're talking about Value Added Tax or VAT. In the UK, it doesn't apply to food (it's supposed to be a luxury tax), and I don't see why it should in Denmark!

One last thing - some of you guys seem to always promote freedom as the ultimate end, the end we should all strive for, the obvious choise. However you still want freedom with restricions as long as the restrictions are sound on a economical level. Then why, I must ask you, why only on the economical level. If less freedom could be sound in other aspects too, what would the problem be?

This is the point which I have been trying to get across. Well said.

 

[Evertonian]

Ecology is one of the areas where free market has proven itself to be incapable of effective self-regulation. A little bit of totalitarianism can't be bad in this matter.

crystal, I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. the problem is that as private individuals (and private companies do the same) we apply very high discount rates to benefits we received. What this means is that we value $250 now much more than $250 in one years time.

To take an example, and its one of my own obsessions, is energy generation. Even though we need to be preparing now to use more renewable sources of energy, it cheaper in the short term to carry on using up the oil. The cost involved in making a transition now are much less than the consequences of an oil crunch in 10 years time, when the economy will be unprepared for a reduction in the amount of oil being pumped. However because it is a cost in the future, not a cost now, agents in the free market don't value it high enough to realise something should be done.

 

[crystal]

crystal, I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. the problem is that as private individuals (and private companies do the same) we apply very high discount rates to benefits we received. What this means is that we value $250 now much more than $250 in one years time.

Wow, it seems everybody aren't my ideological opposites here.

To take an example, and its one of my own obsessions, is energy generation. Even though we need to be preparing now to use more renewable sources of energy, it cheaper in the short term to carry on using up the oil. The cost involved in making a transition now are much less than the consequences of an oil crunch in 10 years time, when the economy will be unprepared for a reduction in the amount of oil being pumped. However because it is a cost in the future, not a cost now, agents in the free market don't value it high enough to realise something should be done.

I almost hope this would not happen in our lifetime. However, that is probably an empty wish if we look at how fast countries like India and China industrialize and consume gazillion barrels of oil (and third of the global population lives there! )

 

[insurgent]

"moms" (Mads please tell them the English word)

A little late, but as requested: It's VAT.

 

[luiz]

One last thing - some of you guys seem to always promote freedom as the ultimate end, the end we should all strive for, the obvious choise. However you still want freedom with restricions as long as the restrictions are sound on a economical level. Then why, I must ask you, why only on the economical level. If less freedom could be sound in other aspects too, what would the problem be?

I only want restriction to promote actuall freedom, and not only on the economic level.

For exemple, murder must be forbbiden so that the people have the right to live. Technically this is a restriction on the right to kill, but the point is there is no right to kill, only right to live(or right to property over your own life)

 

[insurgent]

I'm from Finland... umm, whatever.

My bad. It's just that I was discussing a little with Mise and... my mistake.

Ecology is one of the areas where free market has proven itself to be incapable of effective self-regulation. A little bit of totalitarianism can't be bad in this matter.

I respectfully disagree. If there's no ecological supply in Finland, then it's because there's no demand for it.

And I don't quite agreed with your reasoning. If we ban non-ecological food, people HAS to buy ecological food (demand increases), thus supply increases as well when farmers start to produce more ecological food. And mass-production lowers the prices, doesn't it?

If demand increases, the prices will go up. Then production will increase a little later and stabilise prices. But the fact of the matter is that it costs more to produce ecological food than it does to produce regular food, and the productivity of the land falls. So prices will generally go up - they will most likely just stabilise at the present ecological prices.
Mind you, the advantages of mass production are smaller when it comes to ecological farming. It's not like a wrist-watch which costs a whole lot more hand-made than it does when it's made in a supply line by automated machines. With ecological farming, you have to stick to the methods that permit you to call it ecological. The effectivisation that follows production is much smaller in farming.

Bjørn Lomborg? That economist? Didn't he recently host a conference about problems of globalization or something? I probably read about that in a newspaper.

Yeah, he makes statistics. The left hates him. But all he does, really, is tell the politicians how to spend the money best. This leads him to controversial conclusions like that the Kyoto Protocol is not worth it - that the money spent on the Kyoto Protocol could supply the entire world with clean water instead of, at best, delaying the global warming with 6 years.

 

[storealex]

I only want restriction to promote actually freedom, and not only on the economic level.

For example, murder must be forbidden so that the people have the right to live. Technically this is a restriction on the right to kill, but the point is there is no right to kill, only right to live(or right to property over your own life)

I see, I thought you also wanted economic restrictions if they were beneficial. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

In an other thread I asked if the supporters of absolute freedom would also support the freedom to take drugs. My reasoning was like this:
It's a valid assumption that legal drugs equals more people doing drugs. This is surely a bad thing, still it's freedom. Would you support it in honoring of the principle of freedom, would you recognize that at least in some of these matters freedom should be restricted, or would you disagree on what I regard as a valid assumption?

 

[storealex]

Yeah, he makes statistics. The left hates him. But all he does, really, is tell the politicians how to spend the money best. This leads him to controversial conclusions like that the Kyoto Protocol is not worth it - that the money spent on the Kyoto Protocol could supply the entire world with clean water instead of, at best, delaying the global warming with 6 years.

Oh he does a lot more than that. Did you read my post on this subject? If it wasn't enough to convince you I'll add a little to what he does:

1. He claims to be the "Sceptical environmetalist", he claims to be a scientist and he claims he know a lot about the worlds problems.
He is NOT sceptical, he is as much a sheep and a follower as the extreme left, he just follows the money instead of the herd. He is NOT a scientist, at least not in this matter and he does NOT know a lot about neither the worlds problems, nor much about the environment.

2. Remember when tobacco companies paid doctors to claim that it's healthy to smoke? Funny how big American companies "reward" him to say what hey wanna hear...

3. To present half of the facts as the truth is wrong.

4. His reasonning is that of a statistic, not a scientist. What do you think the army would say if a statistic told them what to do?

 

[luiz]

To take an example, and its one of my own obsessions, is energy generation. Even though we need to be preparing now to use more renewable sources of energy, it cheaper in the short term to carry on using up the oil. The cost involved in making a transition now are much less than the consequences of an oil crunch in 10 years time, when the economy will be unprepared for a reduction in the amount of oil being pumped. However because it is a cost in the future, not a cost now, agents in the free market don't value it high enough to realise something should be done.

I object to the notion that you, as a private individual, or the whole governmet may know something that the Market doesn´t. After all the Market is the sum of all individuals.

If you believe that a Oil crunch will happen in 10 years, then why don´t you buy hundreds of stocks of a company that researches alternative energies?(there are plenty of them)

If the scientific community was convinced that a major Oil crisis will happen, then there would be many investors putting their money in alternative energy and thus the transition would begin.

If this Oil crisis was indeed a consensus, there would be no lack of resources in the development of alternative energies.

To say that the ´Market only sees the short-term´ is to say that individuals only see the short-term, what is proven wrong by your concern over the possible crisis in 10 years.

 

[luiz]

I see, I thought you also wanted economic restrictions if they were beneficial. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

In an other thread I asked if the supporters of absolute freedom would also support the freedom to take drugs. My reasoning was like this:
It's a valid assumption that legal drugs equals more people doing drugs. This is surely a bad thing, still it's freedom. Would you support it in honoring of the principle of freedom, would you recognize that at least in some of these matters freedom should be restricted, or would you disagree on what I regard as a valid assumption?

I support legalising drugs, both because of the principle of freedom and because I believe that it would decrease drug-related violence(Ie the gangs that sell drugs would either disappear or become regular businessmen).

I think that banning drugs has a similar effect as the Prohibition had in the US in the 20´s.

 

[storealex]

My main problem with oil is the pollution.

 

[storealex]

I support legalizing drugs, both because of the principle of freedom and because I believe that it would decrease drug-related violence(Ie the gangs that sell drugs would either disappear or become regular businessmen).

I think that banning drugs has a similar effect as the Prohibition had in the US in the 20´s.

I personally think the cost/benefit is in favor of a ban. We don't know how many people would turn to drugs were they legal. And at least we can agree that enough people on drugs, is worse than the crime that follows a ban right?

What about guns? In say a country like Denmark. Here guns are extremely rare due to a ban. They are used in bank robberies like they are in US, but gangs almost only use knives. Because of this we have almost none gang related deaths per year (Most people survive a knife attack)

 

[Evertonian]

1.I object to the notion that you, as a private individual, or the whole governmet may know something that the Market doesn´t. After all the Market is the sum of all individuals.

2. If you believe that a Oil crunch will happen in 10 years, then why don´t you buy hundreds of stocks of a company that researches alternative energies?(there are plenty of them)

3. If the scientific community was convinced that a major Oil crisis will happen, then there would be many investors putting their money in alternative energy and thus the transition would begin.

4. If this Oil crisis was indeed a consensus, there would be no lack of resources in the development of alternative energies.

5. To say that the ´Market only sees the short-term´ is to say that individuals only see the short-term, what is proven wrong by your concern over the possible crisis in 10 years.

(i added numbers so my response was clearer)

As usual, luiz, you've made some very intelligent criticisms of my point . But I stand by it. Here's my defence

1. The market is the sum of all individuals economic decisions. It isn't the sum of all individuals knowledge. My pattern of consumption is frankly, currently, no different than if I hadn't found out about the peak oil supply problem. I do now about the problem, but as a consumer I can't do anything to affect the requisite changes. However the government is in a position where it can.

2. Well, as a matter of course I don't buy shares with my savings as they are too risky for my taste. There's every chance that any individual company might suffer unforseen problems, or that the sector will underperform as a whole, because the patent on the key technology gets filed by Shell or Exxon.

3. It's not primarily a scientific problem. But I do think that the reason people aren't as worried as they should be is because there's a counter school of thought promoted by SOME right wing economists which suggests there's no problem. But they are wrong because what they are essentially saying is that in their theory there could never be a problem because all that would happen would be that relative prices would change causing a move to other fuels or people would spend their money on other things. But they don't account for the huge costs and upheavel involved in shifting away from a primarily oil fuelled economy.

4. Disagree with this because of the high discount rates that agents employ, and the ultra-long-term nature of the returns involved in this. If we have a discount rate of 10% we don't give a damn about a huge return in 2050, but when we get to 2050 and we don't have enough energy we are going to be in trouble. (2050 is way to optimistic, we'll be in trouble long before that, but I just use it as an example).

5. Individuals see long term, but their economic decisions represent short term priorities. My consumption decisions don't reflect what I want to buy now, today, not my fears for the future. I'm part of the problem I guess, but I'm not the only one.

See link in my sig for more info on peak oil problem

Thanks

 

[newfangle]

My main problem with oil is the pollution.

My main problem with oil is that we rely too much on Middle Eastern theocratic despotisms for it.

 

[luiz]

I personally think the cost/benefit is in favor of a ban. We don't know how many people would turn to drugs were they legal. And at least we can agree that enough people on drugs, is worse than the crime that follows a ban right?

What about guns? In say a country like Denmark. Here guns are extremely rare due to a ban. They are used in bank robberies like they are in US, but gangs almost only use knives. Because of this we have almost none gang related deaths per year (Most people survive a knife attack)

We can judge by some limited experiences in legalising drugs that took place in some european countries, particularly the Netherlands(where Marijuana is legal).

Even if some problems were created there, I think the overall result was good. There is not a significativly higher percentage of pot smokers there then in the countries where it's forbbiden, and the level of drug-related violence is small. AND there is an extra tax revenue, when before all the money would be in the hands of criminal gangs very likey to commit other crimes.

Guns are a harder matter, that should be judged individually by each country. A ban might work in Denmark, but it would be moot in the US or Brazil(where guns are banned but anyone can buy one cheaply).

 

[luiz]

(i added numbers so my response was clearer)

As usual, luiz, you've made some very intelligent criticisms of my point . But I stand by it. Here's my defence

1. The market is the sum of all individuals economic decisions. It isn't the sum of all individuals knowledge. My pattern of consumption is frankly, currently, no different than if I hadn't found out about the peak oil supply problem. I do now about the problem, but as a consumer I can't do anything to affect the requisite changes. However the government is in a position where it can.

2. Well, as a matter of course I don't buy shares with my savings as they are too risky for my taste. There's every chance that any individual company might suffer unforseen problems, or that the sector will underperform as a whole, because the patent on the key technology gets filed by Shell or Exxon.

3. It's not primarily a scientific problem. But I do think that the reason people aren't as worried as they should be is because there's a counter school of thought promoted by SOME right wing economists which suggests there's no problem. But they are wrong because what they are essentially saying is that in their theory there could never be a problem because all that would happen would be that relative prices would change causing a move to other fuels or people would spend their money on other things. But they don't account for the huge costs and upheavel involved in shifting away from a primarily oil fuelled economy.

4. Disagree with this because of the high discount rates that agents employ, and the ultra-long-term nature of the returns involved in this. If we have a discount rate of 10% we don't give a damn about a huge return in 2050, but when we get to 2050 and we don't have enough energy we are going to be in trouble. (2050 is way to optimistic, we'll be in trouble long before that, but I just use it as an example).

5. Individuals see long term, but their economic decisions represent short term priorities. My consumption decisions don't reflect what I want to buy now, today, not my fears for the future. I'm part of the problem I guess, but I'm not the only one.

See link in my sig for more info on peak oil problem

Thanks

You made some very good points.
Here's my attempt to reply:

1-You can't do anything to change the ultimate result alone, but if you're absolute certain of the 10 year crunch you could make much money. History suggests that people usually embrace the opportunity to make money. If alot people thought like you, then the result would be changed indeed. The market is not the some of knowledge per se, but people are always using knowledge to make economic decisions.

2-But if you are convinced of a major crisis in the forseeable future, certainly it would be wise to invest a couple thousand dollars in some companies researching alternative fuels. Maybe the Stock Market is not thing, but many people with similar opinions to yours surely take part in it.

3-Even if only a smaller part of the population is concerned, if they were certain enough of the problem to put their money in action(buying those stocks, or selling stocks of oil companies making their prices drop and perhaps creating a crisis), then there would be a speed-up proccess in the development of alternative fuels. If this proccess is nota taking place, it's because very very few people are convinced about the upcoming oil crash.

4-If the big return is in 2050 then people will only worry about after 2030(beign arbitrary), sure. If there was a certainty or at least a high probability of an crisis in the near future, it would certainly be wise to invest in alternative fuels now.

5-Most individual economic decisions indeed only reflect short term needs, but when there is spare resources people tend to look to the long run. That's the way to get rich in the Stock Market
There are alot of people with spare resources around.

 

[storealex]

Guns are a harder matter, that should be judged individually by each country. A ban might work in Denmark, but it would be moot in the US or Brazil(where guns are banned but anyone can buy one cheaply).

But if guns should be judged individually why shouldn't drugs?

 

[insurgent]

1. He claims to be the "Sceptical environmetalist", he claims to be a scientist and he claims he know a lot about the worlds problems.
He is NOT sceptical, he is as much a sheep and a follower as the extreme left, he just follows the money instead of the herd. He is NOT a scientist, at least not in this matter and he does NOT know a lot about neither the worlds problems, nor much about the environment.

That's your opinion, not facts.

2. Remember when tobacco companies paid doctors to claim that it's healthy to smoke? Funny how big American companies "reward" him to say what hey wanna hear...

I need to see plausible documentation to believe that.

3. To present half of the facts as the truth is wrong.

Obviously that's a matter of opinion as well. Not all scientists hate him, just the mainstream scientists that get time in the media. So, your conclusion is worth no more than an opinion to me.

4. His reasonning is that of a statistic, not a scientist. What do you think the army would say if a statistic told them what to do?

Do you think the quality of your education is why we should listen to you? Seriously, his work is as valuable as other scientists'. The only reason he's being denounced for being a statistician is that his reports don't serve the mainstream cause of predicting complete environmental mayhem. He's unpopular among most of his colleagues, and so they try to question his credibility. Politicians do it all the time, and to see the actual issues and hope to see the truth, you have to be able to see through all the blur and all the slander.
That's what it is. I don't care that he is a statistician, as long as his results are credible and his work is sound, he could be a fishmonger, and I'd still take his work into consideration.
And so far, every time his infuriated colleagues try to shut him up (you know what I'm talking about, storealex) and every time they try to trash his work, it's they who end up looking foolish. They seem almost blinded in their hatred against this man, and that only makes me respect him more for his work.

 

[insurgent]

My main problem with oil is that we rely too much on Middle Eastern theocratic despotisms for it.

It's amazing how these medieval tyrannies can hold a stranglehold on our governments with their oil. We should do something about that.