If We Ignore the Costs…..

Is this a blog? Today my husband and I decided that all that Ozzie and Harriet taught us has crumbled. Yes, we are in our 50's have worked, saved and bought property. Sold and bought better property, Then bought rental property. I was just there cleaning up after the my last tenent. 25 Year old who just bought a house for 147K, 3 bed /2 baths, 5% interest, that 795.00 a month plus 9K back on taxes. She was paying 800. a month at my place. 3/2 that I bought for 210K, 1 year ago. payment 1000.00 a month. So my husband and I are stumped. Very happy for the kids. But as we have lived the last 20 years in the old economy we wonder, who is going to step forward and help us with our retirement which is why we have bought property in the first place. Not because we like cleaning up after other people and paying part of their rent. Todays events, just sign up to twitter and I believe I am blogging now. Last night we decided we are going to do a little research to develop a new prospective because the Ozzie and Harriett ideals we grew up with no longer apply, so I ask you, Ms Twitter and Mr. Blog what is the plan?Have to run as the webinar for the new networking business we just bought on to is about to start.

There was nothing logical in any of Friedman's arguments in that article. This morning he was speaking about it again, on CNBC I believe. His argument is taxes = switch to subsidized green technology + innovation = brand new clean life. His response to naysayers is that they are all dumb, and in a democracy, we all have to cater to dumb. At least in China they have an autocracy so they can legislate rational policy. I sat dumbfounded.

If only we could all be as smart as Tom, and dream that raising our cost of living 20% while using technology with the equivalent efficiency of burning sticks, would make us all rich. I guess that's why he makes the big bucks. Nonetheless, that is the Obama plan, and instituted to a great degree in Denmark and Germany.

If a large percentage of vehicles are electric, what happens during rush hour when many run out of their charge ? Complete gridlock, I would guess...and what about the disposal costs of those huge battery packs (toxic and expensive) which must be replaced every 2 years or so ?

If a large number of vehicles were electrically powered, what would happen during a rush hour in Los Angeles or other Metro area when cars run out of charges on the highway ? This would happen frequently and completely jam traffic which is already pretty frustrating. And does anybody consider the disposal costs of those huge battery packs which must be replaced every 2 years or so ? And of course, the charge comes from electical plants .

If we shift away from oil, we won't need most of our military and the middle east will become as irrelevant to us as Somalia. We play some games and kill bad people, but otherwise we leave them alone to kill each other. With the rapid population growth rate in the area, they would depend upon us for food and would probably be willing to suppress their internal nut cases.

The savings in military cost would be much greater than the cost of decreasing oil dependence. Work out the numbers, a few hundred billion per year will get us off of oil dependence and crash the price of oil. That is much less than the 600 or so billion we are spending on our military.

Just a few hundred dollars per car will make them dual fuel -- natural gas and gasoline. They already have cars in Brazil that run on natural gas, gasoline, gas ethanol mixes, or E 85.

Peak Oil will be forcing changes to car technology anyway.

Yep! And we're smarter then The Invisible Hand God. We need to plan for this. Plan a 4 letter word for libertarians.

Lord Muir, Given that we are out of oil, do we need to plan for CO2 emissions cut also?

Who said we are out of oil? Maybe you should educate yourself on the concept of peak oil.

I have read only Matt Simmons, Richard Heinberg, Jame Kunstler, Marion King Hubbert, his protege Ken Deffeyes, Peter Tertzakian, and may be a couple of others on this topic (from the believers camp )- may be a total of a dozen books on this topic. I will hold off on the non-believers I have read, I am sure you have no interest in it. Do you have any other suggestions, so I can increase my level above that of the average Joe.

Given peak oil, do you think Kyoto makes any sense, how much better is Kyoto going to do? Are planners getting it right?

There is money to be made muir. mmmmwwwwaaaahhhhh

"Of course, he cannot be sure. Not even close. Like so many other pundits, Mr. Friedman simply ignores, or arbitrarily discounts, the costs of turning his oh-so-lovely daydreams into quotidian actuality."


There is no doubt in my mind that we are at a turning point. The world will be unrecognizable in 50-100 years.

We will look back in horror at the fossil fuel subsidies, the wars, the terrorist, the political cronyism, the corporatism, the dirty air, the warming climate, the loss of species and the lack of competitive energy markets. We will find disbelief in the stories of how we were all once hostages to the Cartels of Oil, Coal, the Utilities and the Internal Combustion engine.

Individuals will produce all their own energy. No need for dependence on terrorist regimes or terrorist fascistic multinational corporations or utility monopolies. We will be amazed how some said there was no other way and argued to continue their state of dependence and servitude afraid of change. We will love our liberty and shudder for the hard times of the old ways and the narrow thinking of those times.


This will happen. No more buggy whips!

Friedman leads with "wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels".

No chance you'll see nuclear or natural gas; they're an environmentalist's nightmare.

Yep, wind and solar all the way (to the poor house).

Thomas Friedman lives in an 11,000 square foot mansion. Why would he care what things might cost?

Seriously, Don...has a letter to the editor EVER appeared with the word "quotidian" in it? :-)

in France, surely :)

Friedman also says, "When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially 'catastrophic,' I buy insurance." Which leads to the same point. Is it not relevant what the insurance costs relative to what it pays back? I doubt he would buy home owner's insurance that costs more than the value of his house.

Not only can Friedman not be sure that his clean energy hobbies would be more valuable that what is forgone, but WE can be nearly 100% certain that the opposite is true.

Do people like Friedman, who focus on benefits to the exclusion of costs, manage their personal affairs with the same acuity and insight?

i have a feeling he does so. didnt he/wifey drive their General Growth Properties to bankruptcy?. apparently they believed in the good cheer permanently rising real estate prices bring to america

Isn't Friedman's reasoning a kin to the "broken windows" fallacy?

I'd say it's more like the work of another Frenchman: Blaise Pascal. Friedman's logic is a secular reformulation of Pascal's Wager, so he just confirmed my bias the AGW is a religion.

Excellent reference. To give Pascal some distinction vs. Friedman (as if that were necessary), Pascal was wagering on eternity. Even if Friedman's most dire fears proved entirely true, they'd still count less than a speck of longer life for the earth even under some understandable span of time (eg, billions of years). And billions of years are only a speck vs. eternity.

So, yes, definitely the same type of wager, but Pascal was playing for higher stakes.

Using the same logic as Friedman, we ought to engage in a trillion-dollar project to develop strains of wheat that will not be digested when the Flying Spaghetti Monster brings his legion of devouring warriors to swallow whole our crops.

I mean, even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't arrive, we'll still have an incredible body of knowledge about botany, as well as grain that can survive most any known disaster.

That is, if anyone can afford to purchase it anymore...

DENIER!!!!!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is totally reeel, I'm super, super serial....

Why did you give up journalism? You're have exactly what journalists today are missing. A brain.

Thanks.

I gave up journalism for a couple of reasons. First was health. It's simply too stressful working for peanuts in an environment where promotion to management is based on an internalized merit system that's got no basis in reality or people skills.

Second, I saw the writing on the wall. The media implosion was coming, and there is no rebound coming when the economy moves again. Within the last 18 months, the newsrooms at my local television stations have shrunk by 30%. Permanently. The daily newspaper today offered buyouts for long-time employees.

I've been out almost six years, and there hasn't been a day that's passed where I wish I was still in. I love writing, learning and talking with people... but my skillset is in greater demand in the business world, and I am just wise enough to avoid under-employment.

(There never have been many journalists with real smarts - but in today's environment, the newsrooms are too sparsely staffed to allow them to do the sorts of stories that matter. There will never be another Stossel, because the remaining roster must stick to what's tried and true, and fits the orthodoxy.)

Ike,

The problems with journalism seem to be related to the corporate profit motive. Fox News is the most successful cable news channel. The like WWF becoming the national sport.

And this "... working for peanuts in an environment where promotion to management is based on an internalized merit system that's got no basis in reality or people skills." ...sounds like the life of most people who have the dreary of working up a totalitarian corporate structure.

Ah, again the arrogance of the socialist.

Ike was in the business, but you know better than he. The reason you know better than he isn't because you spent twenty years in journalism. No, the reason you know more about journalism than Ike does, is because you vote for Democrats.

muir, in this instance, you are out of your element entirely.

The problems with broadcast news have NOTHING to do with some academic exercise related to the Profit Motive, and everything to do with being tied to a business model that has been completely disrupted by technology. There is now competition, and a status quo that did not adapt is being swept out for the irrelevance it represents.

The issue with newsroom management is unique to that culture, and I say that from having spent time in both the non-profit world and now with a corporation in the Fortune 200.

In television newsrooms, it is assumed that the path to management is through being the producer of a show. I've known many talented writers and show-stackers with a great penchant for creating entertaining television -- who have ZERO people skills.

Unlike most other businesses that recognize human resources and leadership as skill sets worth investment and cultivation, television news tells aspiring reporters they can cram management dreams up their respective asses.

Newsrooms are functional strictly by chance, as there is no weeding of candidates based on people skills. (I was once ordered to cancel a pending colonoscopy more than a week in advance because coverage plans and a shortage of personnel dictated there was 'no other way.' Never mind that my doctors suspected cancer - managers with no people skills flourish.)

It's not a totalitarian corporate structure to blame, but a unique culture. It also doesn't help that every year in the U.S., there are as many people graduating with degrees in TV news as there are jobs in the industry. Supply-and-demand ensures that you can ignore management and leadership investments, because the people you mistreat for peanuts can be easily replaced.

Harsh, but true.

And not a bit of it has anything to do with your tired arguments against capitalism, nor does it have anything to do with success or failure of cable news outlets.

Ike, OMG! I am surprised with your opening comment!

You seem to suggest there might be an element in which muirduck will fit? Reconsider. No one else has found even a hint of that.

As if a min-anarchist with a government pension fits somewhere except in the non-existent delusional schizophrenic recesses of his own twisted amygdala.

That's not encouraging for the profession. Hey, I know! Let's pay financial professionals peanuts for stressful work where promotions are based on an internalized merit system that's got no basis in reality or any skills relevant to finance. I'm sure that'll attract the best and brightest like yourself! Ugh.

Thanks for the lesson. Truly dismal. I'm glad you found a better market for your skills (couldn't have been difficult) and I'm glad we still get the benefit of your thoughts in forums like this. Love your posts.

Let's also take a page out of the UK's book and engage in arbitrary, punitive, one-off taxations of industries that are unpopular. That's a great way to encourage business development.

yes, I saw that article yesterday. It'll be fun to watch Britain's financial sector wither and die. There's just no shortage of stupidity.

Meanwhile, we are taking a page out of Britain's health care book.

Typical progressively stupid economic thinking.

Actually I believe that if the nation proceeds with climate change legislation as the Obamasites want, then Friedman's predictions would be ridiculously easy to see in the past.

Those of us lucky enough to get on the list and finally get one, would be driving the Obama version of the Zil.

We'd be powering our industry with the horse.

We'd be wearing a lot of patched clothing and in many layers to protect us from the weather which we could no longer escape....

Due to the lack of heating materials.

We'd be cooking on a one element pump-up butane stove......and we'd be eating some sort of unidentifiable grain. Forget meat.

Socialism has never produced anything beyond the level at which it achieved political dominance because socialism is a consuming philosophy not a producing philosophy.

It consumes resources, it consumes character, it consumes ambition, and ultimately it consumes the people.

Only a fool can look at the grass and hay going in the front end of the socialist cow of government and believe it capable of expelling gold from the other in end in a matter of hours.

Does this make Friedman a fool, your call.

Don't worry. Pretty soon, we'll all be so rich we can afford to burn money to keep warm.

The Elsworth Tooheys multiply.

What's so economic about T. Friedman's thinking? Economics is the study of trade-offs. There's none of that in his fantasy.

But Friedman wrote "the world is flat"!!!! He was so hip in 2004.

Can't disagree with that.

Isn't that a signature of the "progressive" left?

Best writing on the inanities that emanate from freedman's brain are written by Bill Bonner. here is a small byte sized sample -

Back to Mr. Thomas L. Friedman. What we like about Mr. Friedman is that he is such an unworthy opponent. It is like playing darts with a blind man or a boxing match against a paraplegic. In a battle of wits, The New York Times columnist is unarmed. We get to pummel him, confident that he can't hit back.

Yesterday's column must have been intended to reassure Americans. The 21st century might be the American century too, he says. Yeah, yeah...the Chinese have more of our money than we do. And yeah, they can beat the pants off of us in commerce. And yeah, we're all growing old and going broke. But we still have something that nobody else has: imagination!

Forget capital formation. Forget savings. Forget relative pay scales. Forget the trade deficit. Forget de-leveraging. Forget mortgage debt and the zombie banks. And forget the public debt and the other $100 trillion worth of financial obligations of the US government.

We can still walk with a swagger and hold our heads up high. Because we've got...imagination!

Why don't other nations have imagination too? Why couldn't they invent things such as sub-prime mortgages, color-coded Terror Alerts, and the Ultimate Fighting Competition? Friedman does not attempt to explain the Imagination Gap. So, we will just take it as a given.

But he goes on to say that he is worried. In addition to imagination, the other critical ingredient to success in today's world, he says, is good governance. And here, he's not so sure that the US has it as a genetic advantage. Indeed, he thinks that the body politic USA sometimes comes up with "suboptimal" solutions.

"A great power that can only produce suboptimal responses to its biggest challenges will, in time, fade from being a great power - no matter how much imagination it generates," he warns.

Wow...deep...right up their with Machiavelli, Clausevitz and Toynbee.

How do you come up with optimal solutions, you might wonder? Simple. At least, it's simple in Friedman's world...where everything is simple. His planet is populated by a race of such simpletons that they can come up with better governmental solutions simply by being "better citizens." What's a better citizen? It's someone who is "ready to sacrifice, even pay, yes, higher taxes..."

Is that all there is to it? If we pay more in taxes we will have better governance. But how much more do we have to pay? Maybe it can be graphed out. If we pay 25% of our incomes in taxes, perhaps our solutions will be 25% optimal. If we raise taxes to 50%...well, 50/50 on the optimal scale ain't bad. But if we go the Soviet route - to 100% taxation - can we expect optimal solutions 100% of the time?

Oh, Friedman, what a lamebrain you are! We'll spot you one on that imagination thing; we don't have any idea what you're talking about. But on governance, where have you been for the last 50 years? If there's one thing we've learned it is that governance is subject to the law of diminishing returns, just like almost everything else - like greenbacks and girlfriends, the more laws you have, the less you appreciate another one.

Yes sir. I believe it is.