Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Mark Steyn on the trouble he has with facts:
Incidentally, I stopped writing for the [New York] Times a few years ago because their fanatical "fact-checking" copy-editors edited my copy into unreadable sludge.
I think it's some sort of chemical reaction -- add facts to a Mark Steyn column and it curdles into sludge. Macleans doesn't seem to bother with fact checkers because check this Sten column out:
The other day, an admiring profile of Cate Blanchett ("Green before it was hip, she cites Al Gore and David de Rothschild as heroes and believes that leaf blowers 'sum up everything that is wrong with the human race,' " etc.) revealed that, in order to give her new mansion as small an environmental footprint as possible, she requested that the plumbing be constructed to "allow them to drink their own waste water." ...
Miss Blanchett and her husband have paid their architect thousands of dollars to design a system whereby the bodily waste goes down the toilet, gets whisked by pipeline through the walk-in closet, over the balcony, down the wall, back in through the rec room, and up into the wet bar directly into the soda siphon. As her fellow Antipodean, the Aussie wag Tim Blair, observed: "Not exactly Pickfair, is it?" -- Pickfair being the legendary mansion of Douglas Fairbanks and Canada's own Mary Pickford. But who's to say Pissfair won't become the norm in the new Hollywood?
All right, let's make us some sludge.
Warning: if you try this experiment yourself, you should wear eye protection and use a fume cabinet. The fumes from Mark Steyn columns can cause dizziness, nausea and foaming at the mouth. If you get a Mark Steyn column in your eye, immediately wash it out with plenty of cold water and see your physician.
Sydney's Sun Herald had a story about Blanchett's new home:
The Oscar-winning actor and her playwright husband, Andrew Upton, are splashing out almost $1.5 million in renovations to create an environmentally friendly home.
A massive 20,000-litre water tank, high-tech solar panelling, low energy lighting and grey water recycling will be among the features of the Hunters Hill home.
Contrary to Steyn's belief, grey water recycling does not involve drinking urine, because:
Grey water does not contain urine -- it is the water from showers and laundry.
It is treated to remove impurities.
You use it for watering the garden, flushing the toilet, and clothes washing. Greywater outlets must be labelled with "WARNING DO NOT DRINK".
Now the writer of the story in W does say that the recycling system allows them to drink the recycled greywater, but she has clearly made a mistake -- health regulations require a "WARNING DO NOT DRINK" sign. Steyn then turned this mistake into his own flight of fantasy. But we're not finished yet, we can curdle more of his column, just by adding more facts!
Sheryl Crow, meanwhile, recently proposed that when it comes to, ah, other waste products, her environmentally conscious fans should only use a single sheet of bathroom tissue per visit.
Crow was making a joke. Isn't making sludge so much fun.
Well I'm sure you can see where his column is heading:
Two of those arrested for plotting terrorism this month in Germany were jihadists with the impeccably Teutonic names of "Fritz" and "Daniel." Both had converted to Islam in the town of Ulm, on the Danube, where the population is, officially, 25 per cent Muslim. That's not evenly distributed: the dying seniors are native Germans, the demographically surging youth is overwhelmingly Muslim.
Yep, the Muslims are taking over. How did he connect TMATO with toilets?
Meanwhile, on the fast depopulating plains of eastern Germany, rural communities are dying, and one consequence is that municipal sewer systems are having a tough time adjusting to the lack of use. Populations have fallen so dramatically there are too few people flushing to keep the flow of waste moving. Traditionally, government infrastructure expenditure arises from increased demand. In this case, the sewer lines are having to be narrowed at great cost in order to cope with dramatically decreased demand. For the demographically dying West, it's not a question of "sustainable growth," but of sustainable lack of growth. One can talk airily about Western civilization being flushed down the toilet of history, but it turns out even that's easier said than done. Long before Sheryl Crow's celebrity pals have squeezed their last Charmin, it will be clear that the job of "saving the planet" is one the West has bequeathed to others.
Simple really.
After curdling a Steyn column with facts, the resulting sludge should be disposed by flushing it down a toilet. Do not put it into a greywater recycling system.
Update: If you check out the blogs that linked Steyn, you find uncritical acceptance by posters and commenters of Steyn's obviously false story about Blanchett. For instance, Ed Driscoll, Van Helsing and Tim Blair. The funniest is this one, where a commenter proves that the story is rubbish, but the others' faith in the Holy Word of Steyn is unshaken.
Politics
Comments
It doubles one's pleasure when Steyn quotes Blair. Does that make it double-sludge or sludge-squared? Perhaps the distinction doesn't matter. They're both inveterate sludge-packers.
Posted by: Zeno | September 29, 2007 3:39 PM
Oh, the stories those fanatical copy editors must have...
Posted by: Tony | September 29, 2007 6:48 PM
It was Steyn's strident defence of Conrad Black that signalled the fact that Mr. Black was guilty guilty guilty. Don't know who Conrad Black is? He's a moderately successful publisher of tabloid newspapers who essentially made Steyn's journalistic career and is now headed for the pokey. If you were a certain class of Conservative Canadian,though, you would grovel at the sound of his name.
Posted by: bigcitylib | September 29, 2007 7:17 PM
Water is of course one of those non renewbale resources that once it's used up we will never see another drop. I'm very sympathetic to Kate's intellectual abilities and not her great looks of course..
Posted by: Jc | September 29, 2007 11:00 PM
You think you're posting clever satire, but unknown to you (apparently) you're right in many cases.
When you deplete an aquifer in a few decades that has taken thousands of years to fill up, then for many generations this represents a non-renewable resource.
Sure, humans 10,000 years distant might see the aquifer replenished, but that's not the point.
But then again you'd know this if you weren't such a fucking idiot.
Posted by: dhogaza | September 29, 2007 11:54 PM
Hoggsie:
Don't be so silly. Most of our water supplies come from what comes down in a cloud, not what was in the ground.
3/5's of the world is water, dummy. Price it correctly and there isn't a problem especially for the rich world in terms of conversion if needed.
Water that is below ground eventually is replished from a rain cloud. Sure you're not one of these people who think that water is made like abiotic oil.
And another thing. Kate's carbon paw print could be bigger than if the brain dead twtit lived in a smaller house and used town water.
Posted by: Jc | September 30, 2007 12:15 AM
Jc, you dummy, can you please be clearer, you idiot, about whether or not you believe that it is bad thing for someone to use grey water recycling, solar power etc? Personally I am finding it hard to understand exactly why you, fucking moron, think it is deserving of ridicule.
How did I do, did I get it right? Is this how one gets one's trolling point-scoring bullshit heard...?
Posted by: Mp | September 30, 2007 12:40 AM
Price it correctly and there isn't a problem
Ah, sure sign of a Randoid, the uncritical worship of the free market.
Posted by: Calton Bolick | September 30, 2007 1:11 AM
As I always said, he's a Steyn on journalism. Nay, a Steyn on humanity. Sigh, I know, but one must have some juvenile fun now and then at the mendacious creep's expense.
Posted by: mndean | September 30, 2007 1:26 AM
Sorry JC, but the market thinks that Cate is worth more than you.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | September 30, 2007 1:39 AM
The shit that 'Shit' Steyn serves up is, apparently, a renewable resource. It only looks recycled.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | September 30, 2007 1:52 AM
=="The Oscar-winning actor and her playwright husband, Andrew Upton, are splashing out almost $1.5 million in renovations to create an environmentally friendly home."==
Another case of vainglorious environmentalism. A smaller house? Ya gotta be kiddin'! And is this her main mansion or is it just a summer cottage?
Posted by: Paul S | September 30, 2007 2:54 AM
"Sorry JC, but the market thinks that Cate is worth more than you."
I know, Tim, proving once again the market knows best.... for actors. Is she a member of F.A.G (derived from Team America) Film Actors Guild. Beauty beats brains at every turn.
MP
You're obviously suffering another incident of blog rage. As your parole officer I have to warn you that another incident like that will automatically mean you go back to prison.
Posted by: Jc | September 30, 2007 3:06 AM
Calton Bolick :
"Price it correctly and there isn't a problem
Ah, sure sign of a Randoid, the uncritical worship of the free market."
Bollicks, Calton. Can I humbly ask if that is your real name.
Posted by: Jc | September 30, 2007 3:09 AM
I turned heavily against Mark Steyn when I read his "We're losing the war because we didn't kill enough Iraqis at the start" column. That was in 2005, I think, before the Lancet surveys, which must have cheered him up enormously. Apparently, Steyn believes a couple of Hiroshimas or Dresdens would have nipped the Iraq insurgency neatly in the bud, or even sooner.
The newspaper that published Steyn here in Ireland (The Irish Times) dropped his column soon afterwards, a result I think of the protests at his outrageous remarks.
Steyn was written that column sometime after he went all dewy-eyed and emotional about the "right to life" of a brain-dead American woman, Terry Schiavo.
Anyone who could write those columns without a twinge of conscience, or a slight feeling of hypocrisy, is either a raving idiot or a psychopath who can convince himself that even his worst impulses are intrinsically moral. Steyn, I surmise, is a mixture of both.
Posted by: Toby | September 30, 2007 5:58 AM
Very funny, Tim: Incidentally, I stopped writing for the [New York] Times a few years ago because their fanatical "fact-checking" copy-editors edited my copy into unreadable sludge.
I think it's some sort of chemical reaction -- add facts to a Mark Steyn column and it curdles into sludge. Macleans doesn't seem to bother with fact checkers because check this Sten column out:
Never realized you had a good sense of humor (i did actually)..... unlike the mirthless mammals that populate this site in the wee hours across the GMT.
(That reminds me, where's Marion Delagardo today demanding another head to roll from the guillotine. Man, that's one hell of an intolerant, angry gal.)
One slight problem With your comment though. I'am afraid Mark Styen is right about the NYTimes. When Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Mo Do are populating the op-ed section you not only know it's a fact-free zone, you may also reach the conclusion that you are quite close to singularity (of insanity). It's the zone from where no sane thoughts could ever escape.
Some while ago the NYTimes (ombudsamn) actually came out and said they are far loser with the facts when it comes to opinion columns. One reason they appointed such a person was because of constant issues with with complaints about the paper's dishonesty.
No wonder, with that lot!!!!!
Posted by: Jc | September 30, 2007 8:08 AM
Ah jc you ignorant slut the issue is fresh water of which there is an undersupply. Of course we would be happy to kill your garden with sea water.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | September 30, 2007 10:37 AM
The New York Times can get sloppy with the facts but has anyone bothered to read MacLeans since Rogers bought it out and Steyn started writing for it? Sheesh! I'd take the NYT anyday.
Posted by: Geoff | September 30, 2007 10:50 AM
How do you figure there is an undersupply, Eli, you big time science teacher you. Most water systems are supplied by governments around the world so we really don't know what the real price for water actually is most often. With a Soviet command and control system we invariably see shortages develop.
My point about sea water is that we could see large scale desalination systems begin to operate if the price signal was allowed to work as well as material changes in conservation practices by buyers.
There is no shortage of water, Eli, that's just you being too silly for words.
We would also begin to see such things as efficiences begin with water intensive farming leaving Sth Cal and moving to Sth Am for such things as large scale fruit production.
Eli, you have been hanging round campus for too long. Grow up boyo and get in the real world. Jeesh.
Posted by: Jc | September 30, 2007 12:49 PM
JC:
Or, mmmm, the recycling of grey water, eh, JC?
Much cheaper and less disruptive to the local economy than outsourcing ag production.
Posted by: dhogaza | September 30, 2007 1:05 PM
Sydney is getting a desalinisation plant which will cost us two billion dollars. Seems that greywater recycling might be cheaper, but whatever.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | September 30, 2007 1:52 PM
Hoggise
"Much cheaper and less disruptive to the local economy than outsourcing ag production."
Only because the rest of the state is forced to subsidize an industry that should never set up in South Cal. If you removed the subsidies the industry would fold and people in Sth Am would be able to earn a better living supplying the Nth AM market efficiently produced food.
The water subsidy to Cal farmers is massively distortive.
Tim L
Grey is dervived from clear water. If it doesn't rain in Sydney you don't have either. The desal plant is a reasonable insurance policy and we don't have to always live with the threat of restrictions.
Privitize it and let the market the decide the real price of water and the best way to supply needs.
Posted by: Jc | September 30, 2007 9:54 PM
JC has the charming disconnect from reality that South American farmers don't benefit from direct and indirect subsities.
Sigh ...
Posted by: dhogaza | September 30, 2007 11:50 PM
If south american subsities don't exist, then why would we have the "Brazilian Farm Subsidies News"?
http://agriculture.einnews.com/news/brazil-farm-subsidies
Posted by: dhogaza | September 30, 2007 11:54 PM
Ah Jc you ignorant slut, what do you propose to use for energy to run desalinisation plants? It must be fun living there in the sugarloaf mountains where the majic market makes everything free.
jc has many disconects from reality, few charming.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 1, 2007 12:46 AM
Hoggise:
So you let them subsidize to their hearts content. As the American consumer you would be better off if they continued to make produce cheaper for you by the Brazilian government funding it. Never look a gift hourse in the mouth.
In any event, it would be different places producing the fruit and veggies. Central Aemrica, Columbia etc. Places with plenty of water that are itching at the bit to gain bigger access to the massive north American markets.
Cal has a big water problem brought about by massive subsidies towards farming practices that should never have taken off but for silly water pricing methods.
Giving this game away would also reduce the illegal issues is some way as incomes rose in Sth Am as a result.
We have he same issues in Oz.
Water isn't in short supply. It's just priced incorrectly in most places thereby causing misallocation.
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 3:00 AM
Eli's back with the equivalent of the killer app.
Gee whiz mergatroid you got me there. In this case Mergatroid and his mind bender.
Eli, dude, stick a nuke power plant beside a desal one and you could empty out the pacific in a week :-)
Please provide a list of your limitations and I will tell you what the possibilities are within the scope of the conditions you set. But I suggest you try not to make too many limits as we could end up having to shower once per week.
MIT technology report thinks they can reduce the cost of desal by up to 80% with a nifty carbon nanotube filter in a few years time.
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 3:09 AM
Hoggsie:
Cheap water subsidies to West Coast farmers is a shockingly bad method of resource allocation. It should never have happened and and it ought to stop immiediately.
The US particularly California which is about the wealhtiest region in the world can make far better use of scarce capital than to put it into fruit and market garden farming. A great deal of that land could be used for natural reclamation. There would also be far less pressure on water demand up and down the state.
Eg: Colombia would be a natural orchid for the US. It has plentiful water resources and produces up to 180 different kinds of fuits. Doing away with Cal farm subsidies would be a massive boost to Sth Am farmers that would make these countries wealth in a short period of time. Moreover the US would receive a boost as well- cheaper food supplies and a capital structure that is focused on what it does best. The Colombians are also best able to apply intense farming per acreage due to water supply and soil richness.
I keep repeating to you guys that a major cause of our problems are the result government induced distortions. Remove those and we're on our way to a more efficient cleaner enviroment with more nations increasing their wealth status.
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 3:33 AM
Nicely summarized, Tim, and indeed, this is a big benefit of internet stuff - that you can show several articles so immediately. The goal of a Steyn is to dribble out the lies so you've forgotten the last iteration before you see the next.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | October 1, 2007 5:20 AM
When the trolls bring up Austrian arguments about the distortion of "so much" government, I simply say, that's not my rule. I won't be part of revisionism and denial about privatization failures, deregulation failures, or any other market failures simply for the voodoo reason that if there's even one regulation or one commons or one co-op anywhere on Earth, the butterfly-wing fragile hothouse flower that is free market economics simply can't be held responsible, since that just RUINS it. If that's the case, then that's yet another failure of the system, and a deal-killing failure at that. And the next time they follow that up with "it's the way of nature and the strongest economic paradigm ever developed" you have my permission to hit them with a pie.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | October 1, 2007 5:27 AM
Marion: What happened, no thirst for blood today? No demand that trolls ie. people who disagree with your warped ideas must be banned? I'm waiting for the time of graduating to your inevitable demand for public beheadings!!!
Let's see what Marion has to tell us she we?
When the trolls bring up Austrian arguments about the distortion of "so much" government, I simply say, that's not my rule.
Trolls? Oh you mean people who disagree with you? Listen Popsicle, one doesn't have to be an adherent of Mises to argue that free markets offer better outcomes in the provision of goods and services than does the opposite. You're too ideologically blind to see that however so that argument is lost on you. If you can just prove to us that demand curves don't shift downward in a particular good or service and then we'll see. Until such time your argument is about as worthless as a dog shit on a dress shoe.
I won't be part of revisionism and denial about privatization failures, deregulation failures, or any other market failures simply for the voodoo reason that if there's even one regulation or one commons or one co-op anywhere on Earth, the butterfly-wing fragile hothouse flower that is free market economics simply can't be held responsible, since that just RUINS it ' What a long disjointed, tangled mess of a sentence. Listen genius, the soviets learnt long ago that unless you have a price signal the market won't work effectively. Now you can spew however much venom you like towards "trolls" (ie people who disagree with you) but it won't change the fact.
The biggest problem with the provision of water is that a great of the industry it is government run. That's why water is misallocated to a large extent causing the distortions I'm referring to.
If that's the case, then that's yet another failure of the system, and a deal-killing failure at that
Bullshit. You simply don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
And the next time they follow that up with "it's the way of nature and the strongest economic paradigm ever developed" you have my permission to hit them with a pie.
Another day and another demand for violence from this very angry little woman.
Marion. Get counseling, as blog rage is a bitch.
I would also suggest you pick up a few textbooks on economics for beginners before you go lecturing anyone as your ignorance is obvious.
Now behead me!
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 6:36 AM
I keep repeating to you guys that a major cause of our problems are the result government induced distortions. Remove those and we're on our way to a more efficient cleaner enviroment with more nations increasing their wealth status.
mind to name a SINGLE nation with LESS government "distortions" and CLEANER environment?
Posted by: sod | October 1, 2007 7:51 AM
"mind to name a SINGLE nation with LESS government "distortions" and CLEANER environment?"
You mean like doing more with less.
Here Sod.
US GDP trebled between 1970 and 2003. However if you picked up the US economy and weighed it, it weigh 25% less in 2003 than 1970.
Hong kong uses far less input to produce a unit of GDP than Singapore two enitites that took off at about the same time and have similar racial characteristics. See RBNZ study fromt eh 90's.
The obvious corollary is that you believe the opposite.
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 8:53 AM
JC - Since the Fed and the Bank of England are currently having to bail out a large number of financial institutions who invested in in loans which were basically crap, its difficult to see the logic in the statement 'free markets offer better outcomes'. Perhaps you should pick up an economics textbook which actually makes makes reference to the real world before you start lecturing - perhaps Galbraith's 'Great Crash' would be a good start?
And while '3/5's of the world is water', the vast majority of it is salt water or otherwise undrinkable. Drinking water is scare, and the free market can't change that, no matter how much you might believe in it.
Oh, and if you want to make serious points, don't call Marion 'Popsicle' - trolling is annoying, but now your getting unpleasently personal.
Posted by: MikeB | October 1, 2007 9:12 AM
JC - Since the Fed and the Bank of England are currently having to bail out a large number of financial institutions who invested in in loans which were basically crap, its difficult to see the logic in the statement 'free markets offer better outcomes
Don't be idiotic, mikeb, the world's monetary system is a socialist setup 100%. Central banks choose the short-term interest rate, level of the money supply from one year to the next, they attempt to influence the bond markets through open market activities and finally they issue the currency as legal tender. Monetary policy in the west reeks of interventionism.
The central banks bailed out institutions as a result of the problems they (CBs) created through their own actions by allowing money supply to increase at too high a rate and maintaining low interest rates and very high liquidity conditions. They are now in the process of adding another dimension to this sorry state through moral hazard and a put on the stock market.
So don't friggen dare attribute these shenanigans to the free market. That argument is a fraud and those who propose it are fraudulent or ignorant.
Perhaps you should pick up an economics textbook which actually makes makes reference to the real world before you start lecturing - perhaps Galbraith's 'Great Crash' would be a good start?
I have read it and thanks for asking. It's truly pathetic. JKG was a nice man, a good writer but he was a terrible economist: something even his NYT obit admitted. There are far better books on the subject.
"And while '3/5's of the world is water', the vast majority of it is salt water or otherwise undrinkable
Really? Who would have guessed?
Drinking water is scare, and the free market can't change that, no matter how much you might believe in it.
I never said it could change it, however market pricing would ensure better allocation and it may also introduce large scale desal if required. We don't know for the most part, because water is essentially based on the soviet model of command and control that invariably leads to misallocation, wastage and/or shortages. That's always the case when you allow for the government to provide goods and services.
Oh, and if you want to make serious points, don't call Marion 'Popsicle' - trolling is annoying, but now your getting unpleasently personal
She makes contemptible comments like you do by referring people who disagree with her in vile ways. She deserves all the respect one would afford a rat near a kitchen Like you do too Mikeb for making the same references.
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 9:38 AM
Since HK has moved most of the manufacturing across the line to Shenzhen as the US moved manufacturing off shore, while Singapore retains much of its manufacturing base, one fails to see jc's point (oh yes, that one, but the hat covers it well).
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 1, 2007 10:38 AM
jc, you ignorant slut, nuclear power is not free either. You can stick a nuclear power plant near the sea (the Soviets did it) but the capital, fuel cycle and operating costs still make it expensive water even if you use the rejected heat to run the desalinisation.
Geez, no cost energy, free water, it sure is great out there in majic mountain country. Yah gotta stop smoking those free market dope ciggies jc.
And yeah Marion is a guy, like John Wayne who originally was a Marion. Made that mistake myself to my shame.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 1, 2007 10:46 AM
Eli
For Christs sake, stop being so pig ignorant. Of course nuke power has a cost, did I ever say it was free? Does everything go over your head. The marginal cost of the additional water prodced by desal may be worthwhile IF IF IF we really knew the real market price of water through the price signal. We don't know that in most cases becasue water is not priced as market good.
We may not even require additional water through desal if the allocation was made through the market process instead of allowing huge rent seeking to sneak in. In other words California could be swimming in water if it were priced by the market and my hunch that water intensive industry such as fruit and veg farming moved to where water was plentiful such as Central Am. Is that clear now?
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 11:38 AM
"impeccably Teutonic names of "Fritz" and "Daniel."
Daniel isn't exactly Teutonic. I seem to recall a famous Daniel who was rather Jewish and middle eastern. Something about lions.
Doubtless the sort of thing that fact checkers would have ruined.
Posted by: Mike | October 1, 2007 11:45 AM
Eli........
AND........
Listen up and stop making inaccurate assertions such this:
Since HK has moved most of the manufacturing across the line to Shenzhen as the US moved manufacturing off shore, while Singapore retains much of its manufacturing base, one fails to see jc's point (oh yes, that one, but the hat covers it well).
When what I said was this:
Hong kong uses far less input to produce a unit of GDP than Singapore two enitites that took off at about the same time and have similar racial characteristics. See RBNZ study fromt eh 90's.
I'm not talking about manufacturing here, Professor. I'm talking about units of capital input to demonstrate efficiency in being able to achieve more with less. HK was far more laissez faire than state directed Spore.
The US has moved a great of manufacturing offshore, however there is a great deal more manufacturing done in the US in 2003 than there was in 1970.
You're ignoring that startling statistic of the US GDP being 3 times bigger 2003/1970 and 25% lighter.
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 11:50 AM
Oh, look. Jc is copying my anger, even down to the vermin quip! How cute, a wingnut troller slavishly mimicking. They never can be original till they grow up, which in this case will likely be never.
Posted by: mndean | October 1, 2007 12:23 PM
JC is confusing Pareto efficiency with efficiency in energy/resouce use.
UNIVERSITY-TRAINED LIARS (Economists)
DELIBERATE LIE #4. The market is "efficient". This is central to economic theory, but it's also a deliberate lie (actually an "idiosyncratic redefinition" of terms). Economists know that people who do not have economic training are going to assume that "efficient" is used in the same way that engineers use the word: acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.
But for economists, "efficient" means either "efficient distribution" of profits or "efficient production" of products - not the "efficient use of materials." Since the market economizes "money" (that which is limitless supply), the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The reason economists use idiosyncratic redefinitions instead of coining new terms (like every other discipline) is to make them better liars!
Idiosyncratic redefinition allows economists to stand in front of your local Rotary Club and appear to HONESTLY use words that mean one thing to them, while Club members think they mean something completely different. This is how economists evade our innate ability to spot liars.
Far from being "efficient", the so-called "market system" is probably the MOST INEFFICIENT social organization possible! The overhead (commuting to work, banks, insurance companies, advertising agencies, etc.) associated with our present way of organizing consumes the largest fraction BY FAR of our natural resources.
Here is a very rough idea: In 2004, Americans consumed about 342,700,000 Btu, per capita, per year. [8] This converts to about 86,358,951 calories per year [9] or 86,358,951 / 365 = 236,599 calories per day. But humans only require something like 3,000 calories per day to survive, so it seems we (very roughly) waste something like 236,599 - 3,000 = 233,599 calories per day, per capita.
Studies show that food grains produced with modern, high-yield methods (including packaging and delivery) now contain between four and ten calories of fossil fuel for every calorie of solar energy. So we will allow ten calories of energy to grow and process each calorie of food delivered, so 3,000 * 10=30,000 calories per day is required to keep someone alive. Thus, 233,599 - 30,000 = 203,599 calories are still being wasted each and every day, by every American.
Let's allow 20,000 calories per day, per capita to collect and deliver food and water to each and every household in the country, so 203,599 - 20,000 = 183,599 calories wasted per day, per capita in the US.
Population in America is 302,664,192 (August 2007 est.), [10] so 183,599 * 302,664,192 * 365 = 20,282,627,690,257,900 calories or 2,028,262,769 tonnes of oil equivalent is wasted each year in the US feeding people! (In 2006, oil production in the Middle East was only 1,221,900,000 tonnes! [11]) The market system is obviously the most inefficient organization in human history!!
On a spherical planet, governed by the laws of thermodynamics, "the market system" WILL end - sooner-or-later, one-way-or-another.
http://www.warsocialism.com/economic.htm
Posted by: JM | October 1, 2007 1:31 PM
This is great, there's someone here who didn't know water is a limited resource. You learn something new every day.
JC, go to Florida. Ask them whats happened as their aquifers dry up (sink holes, massive water shortages.) Realize they got tons of rain... See how none of your logic adds up.
Water is a limited commodity.
Posted by: Evinfuilt | October 1, 2007 1:57 PM
Well, fresh water for sure is limited.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 1, 2007 2:05 PM
You mean like doing more with less.
Here Sod.
US GDP trebled between 1970 and 2003. However if you picked up the US economy and weighed it, it weigh 25% less in 2003 than 1970.
Hong kong uses far less input to produce a unit of GDP than Singapore two enitites that took off at about the same time and have similar racial characteristics. See RBNZ study fromt eh 90's.
The obvious corollary is that you believe the opposite.
funny, but the term ENVIRONMENT does NOT show up in your reply. less cost of a unit of whatever does NOT imply a better environment.
singapore is doing very well, btw. very high quality of life index, very good education.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITYOFLIFE.pdf
(and yes, for a moment let s us ignore all the other differences between Hong Kong and Singapore..)
so again:
"mind to name a SINGLE nation with LESS government "distortions" and CLEANER environment?"
Posted by: sod | October 1, 2007 2:14 PM
JC brings up nuclear power as the free marketers tend to do when confronted with the issue of powering their cornucopian utopias. The most important problem with nuclear power is a lack of fuel in the form of the necessarily concentrated uranium ores. I'm sure he'll trot out dilute uranium "sources" like seawater, phosphates, granite, and coal. Low density sources are a non-starter from a net energy standpoint with our current once-through fuel cycles and highly speculative with fast breeder technology that nobody seems to be able to commercialize.
http://ihp-lx2.ethz.ch/energy21/nuclearoption.pdf
Posted by: JM | October 1, 2007 2:15 PM
looking at nuclear technology, Jc s cailm becomes incredibely bizarre:
if thee was ZERO state regulation on nuclear technology, we would have cheaper and safer nuclear technology and the industry would treat the wastes in a way, that cause LESS environmental problems/dangers.
must be great to live in wonderland!
Posted by: sod | October 1, 2007 2:37 PM
Where did I say that , Sod?
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 11:06 PM
Eli,
Nice try, I never said water wasn't a limited resource.
Do you often make things up, professor?
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 11:08 PM
JM
I'm not confusing anything. You are.
I don't suggest markets are pefectly efficient, you dope. I am asserting that market are superior in the allocation process than a public servant or in your case socialism.
Nice try in suggesting socialism is superior. That's possibly the dumbest comment I've read in while. It's so dumb that even the people at this site would be embarrassed to support it openly.
We have been through that arguemnt for 200 years of history of economic ideas. Yours was proved wrong ages ago. It's not even worth discussing.
Posted by: Jc | October 1, 2007 11:29 PM
Jc wrote:
Yes, that's absolutely right, Jc. We saw what wonderful efficiencies could be introduced into water supply when the UK privatized all of the water companies some years ago. The result was much improved efficiency for the investors, who made out like bandits.
In particular, it turns out to be much more efficient to save money by not investing in infrastructure (specifically fixing mammoth leaks in the water distribution system), rather than inefficiently ensuring that there is enough capacity for hot years, which you don't need most of the time. I mean, the lost profits that occurred when the water actually ran out every now and again turned out to be not worth chasing with additional investment. Simple math, really.
Hooray for the invisible hand of the market!
Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 2, 2007 2:32 AM
Brian Hertz
The British example is how not to privatize. It is a private monopoly with government supervision.
Instead the supply and catchment should be seperated allowing anyone to supply the market.
Posted by: Jc | October 2, 2007 2:50 AM
Jc,
I understand your point, but it doesn't address the problem that occurred in the case of the UK situation in 1995-96.
The problem wasn't the supply of water at the source, it was the distribution (the pipes leaked and it wasn't economic to fix them). How would you propose to create competition that can be exploited by individual consumers as to their choice of supply pipes?
In any case, even if you could do that, it wouldn't have solved the actual problem: specifically that it was more economic to have water run out in some places under extreme conditions than to invest in the (over)capacity required to prevent it.
Incidentally, the problem was eventually fixed by government regulation. The market was clearly illustrated not to be capable of fixing the problem.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 2, 2007 3:02 AM
Clarification: what I referred to as "supply of water at the source" is, I think, what you termed "catchment", and what I termed "distribution" is what you termed "supply".
Not making a point, just aligning the terms.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 2, 2007 3:04 AM
by the way, the reference in the OP to Sheryl Crow reminded me of the headline on one of the major US media websites (I think CNN) reporting on the controversy surrounding the joke. It briefly read (I'm not making this up):
"Furor Over Sheryl Crow Toilet Paper Crack".
It got changed a little while later. I guess one of the "fact checkers" must have read it and decided that it sort of came out wrong...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 2, 2007 3:17 AM
It's as if they don't understand, not just balance in chemical reactions, but even mixtures.
By the way, on my list of 10 books I wish we could force the fanatics to read, I would put Jeremy Rifkin's Entropy at the very top. a good refresher on significance for the rest of us, it also points out the PRECISE things they don't know about.
A lot of other work (Jared Diamond's comes to mind) is really just an expansion on it. and the "into the greenhouse world" expanded edition was quite ahead of the curve.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | October 2, 2007 3:33 AM
By the way, every one of their absurd "beliefs" seems to have an ulterior origin - anti-evolutionism? not just pleasing the traditionalists - it's also useful for denying resistance to disease caused by agriculture and animal husbandry and unnecessary medical use of antibiotics and so on.
And this water thing? Well, this way you can deny that what Israel does in the Occupied Territories and the US does in Iraq - denying the locals water, especially fresh water - is not a major atrocity and an unforgivable crime. It's making the desert bloom and spreading democracy. It's helping the market find the correct price (and correct buyers) of water.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | October 2, 2007 3:37 AM
Marion;
in your previous life, did you have an ugly moustache, thin lips and referred to yourself as the general secretary of the party? Have you eve tried to channel this previous life of yours, dude?
Posted by: Jc | October 2, 2007 5:03 AM
Maron says:
"By the way, on my list of 10 books I wish we could FORCE the fanatics to read, I would put Jeremy Rifkin's Entropy at the very top. a good refresher on significance for the rest of us, it also points out the PRECISE things they don't know about."
I capitalized what I thought was the most pertinet word in your rant there, Marion.
As an aside, do you own a knew length black leather jacket, refer to most people as comrade and have this strong desire to put to death anyone who disagrees with your opinions?
Posted by: Jc | October 2, 2007 5:08 AM
Brian H
Good question
Allow many suppliers to enter the market. In fact allow anyone who wants to supply safe drinking water to enter the market.
If the firm didn't feel there was need to fix the pipes it's their issue to figure.
You're prestenting an issue here that has to be matched against the inability of the government to supply water at the market price. This usually means it is quite possibily underpriced and the wastage is much larger thatn a few burst pipes.
Posted by: Jc | October 2, 2007 5:14 AM
Godwin's law ...
Posted by: dhogaza | October 2, 2007 5:14 AM
Where did I say that , Sod?
you are slippery like a fish and prefer not to say anything of substance.
but here is what you said:
I keep repeating to you guys that a major cause of our problems are the result government induced distortions. Remove those and we're on our way to a more efficient cleaner enviroment with more nations increasing their wealth status.
i simply paraphrased that over to nuclear technology.
I keep repeating to you guys that a major cause of our problems (with nuclear technology) are the result government induced distortions. Remove those and we're on our way to a more efficient cleaner enviroment (concerning nuclear waste, fuel and technology) with more nations increasing their wealth status.
s