Comments on: Repeating the Same Mistake, Over and Over

By: Chris Yeh

Chris Yeh — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:41:27 +0000

Best paragraph I’ve read all week. I just had to blog about it:

http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2009/04/zero-sum-fallacy-of-socialism.html

By: Craigo

Craigo — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:21:49 +0000

My first thought was also “common sense”

The simple answer is in the demand/supply/price model.

Gold was first exploited from visible sources (gold nuggets, panning, digging out visible seams, using amalgam plates etc). Now it is chemically extracted from rocks that look no different to any other rock. (I once worked in a selective opencast gold mine that had several stockpiles – high grade – take to mill fast, medium grade – to heap leach and low grade to “not economic yet” stockpile.)

We now extract oil, gas etc from places that previously lower prices couldn’t support. Dare I suggest that if the icecap melts for long enough, there will be an exploration scramble!

There are unexploited resources in third world countries that simply require higher risk (and cost) to develop but are constrained by unstable politics and limited infrastructure. Look at China’s activities in Africa where political expediency (or “we don’t interfere in domestic politics”) gives ready access to new resources that others who require a more highbrow approach are excluded from. Before you accuse me of exploiting poor third world nations, note that the front of that queue is currently occupied by leaders of third world countries actively protected by their cronies in the UN. (Note how South Africa protected Zimbabwe from scrutiny during their chairmanship of the UN Security council). This may seem off topic but have a look at Geccamines in the DRC. Recent exploitation of Cobalt was allegedly happening under protection of the Zimbabwe Army who actively helped overthrow the former dictator Mobutu and profits are rumoured (the truth is hard to find) to be shared by Mugabe, Kabila and the current owners.

So whilst commonsensium is now in the n/a category, pragmatisium will prove to be an alternative.

By: Allen

Allen — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:02:31 +0000

Isn’t part of the huge problem with many estimates of reserves that not only do they only reflect what we know of without acknowledging how little we actually know in general but also things like accounting rules that while they make sense for the business mean reserves aren’t counted depending on the cost of extraction versus the market rate for them? That is, we know they’re they’re but when compiling huge data sets from around the world they end up not getting counted?

Anyway, I love Brian’s comment : Seriously, name one commodity we have plain run out ofâ€¦

By: John O.

John O. — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:46:49 +0000

The current “field” of environmentalism is the last stronghold of Socialism, captured in the late 20th when it became increasingly obvious to the socialists and communists of the threat of capitalism winning the struggle between the two ideologies.

– John O.

By: Frederick Davies

Frederick Davies — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:27:13 +0000

“…(*cough* Julian Simon *cough*). People say, well, the resources have to be finite and I would answer, ‘I suppose, but given that we have explored and mined about 0.000001% of the Earthâ€™s crust…”

Actually Simon’s idea was that resources are infinite: in his book, The Ultimate Resource 2, he specifically says that even if the idea of very large but finite resources may be easier to understand, it is still wrong.

By: spiffy

spiffy — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:00:40 +0000

No, “new” stands for “nude.” “Socialist” may be substituted for “scientist” in this case.

Warren, I’m somewhat surprised you have never encountered the New Scientist because just a few months ago they published a rather shrill and notorious special issue wherein a cadre of, er, experts, called for the complete abolition of economic growth in order to save the environment. Alas, most of it seems to have disappeared behind the firewall.

By: ArtD0dger

ArtD0dger — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:12:50 +0000

No, “new” stands for “nOOd.” “Socialist” may be substituted for “scientist” in this case.

By: rxc

rxc — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:33:17 +0000

Interesting seeing the comment on uranium. The Japanese got worried about this about 20 years ago and figured out a way to extract it from seawater, at a cost that would be less than the peak that occured a few years ago when the speculators tried to run it up again. The uranium in the seawater comes from the rivers that wash down from mountains, and there is enough uranium in the sea to run our society for multiple millenia, if we wanted to. And, given the high quality of this energy, it would make sense to use nuclear to make process heat to convert coal and water into liquid fuels for vehicles, instead of burning it for electricity.

But this would be bad, because it would provide too much energy to too many people, which is contrary to the shared vision of the environmentalists. Peter is right-on in his analysis.

By: ArtD0dger

ArtD0dger — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:31:45 +0000

No, “new” stands for “nude.” “Socialist” may be substituted for “scientist” in this case.

By: Dr. T

Dr. T — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:46:09 +0000

“have never read the New Scientist, but my experience is that in periodicals one can generally substitute â€œSocialistâ€ for the word â€œNewâ€”

Actually, you should substitute “pseudo” for “new” and retitle the magazine “Pseudoscientist.”

————–
â€œI suppose, but given that we have explored and mined about 0.000001% of the Earthâ€™s crust and none of the floating mineral reservoirs in space (called asteroids), I think we are a long, long way from running out.â€

We also haven’t begun any serious undersea mining. There are nodules on the sea floors that contain many trace elements. (The only problem is that somehow the UN thinks it owns the mineral rights beneath all the oceans and demands a 10% cut.)