When gas hits $10 / gallon, we're totally [censored]

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must be one hell of a teacher. Do you routinely belittle your students when they get something wrong, or question something? You act like a nun who's had a student who dared question Section 2, Paragraph 5, Subsection 3d, Part 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll bet you're a peach in the classroom. Maybe I'll get ambitious and look up your student's rating of you. That might be a hoot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, double standards. If you are going to critize Boro for an aspect of his behaviour then you cannot act in the exact same way. That would be hypocritical and projection and also it means that you are not actually interested in showing him a better way because this type of hypocrisy is totally clear to everyone.

So tell me, what is the real purpose of such a posting?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not acting like a pompous a$$, which would be the "Same way".

[/ QUOTE ]


So in defending MrMon and saying that he does not belittle others while telling them that belittling others is bad, you have now tried to belittle Boro by calling him a pompous ass. Do you see how that doesn't work?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any ideas on how to deal with this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no solutions...

[/ QUOTE ]


?


If you're looking for some solutions I would recommend www.mises.org .

[/ QUOTE ]

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[/ QUOTE ]

When all the problems are caused by government, all you need is less of it.

I find your one liner doubly ironic, because the only tool government has in its toolbox is a hammer (a blunt instrument for delivering force).

[/ QUOTE ]

Blind faith in markets is no more a solution than blind faith in government.

[/ QUOTE ]

By using a perjorative term like "blind faith", you demonstrate how little you understand the market. Reading quotes like this is like reading creationists complain about "blind faith" in evolution. There is no blind faith; I just understand how it works. It creates staggering spontaneous order out of self-interested action and the logic of mutual acoomodation and by taking advantage of distributed decision making about destributed means and distributed ends using distributed information. Whereas central planning can only produce a colossal clusterfuck because the information required for planning cannot be centralized, or is in fact never even generated in the first place, decisions are political rather than economic, artificial legal intervention in the market cannot supercede economic law, and an innumerable host of reasons. It is you have have blind faith in government to cheerfully violate the laws of reality without consequence.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that markets in general should be trusted more, but markets also occasionally fail. They are not infalable. As someone once commented, in long the long run, the markets is always correct, but in the long run, we're also all dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define market failure. Let me guess: the market doesn't provide enough of something that you personally subjectively think that it should, or provides too much of something that you personally subjectively think that it shouldn't. Fantastic definition of "failure" you statists have.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my original comment was directed to the fact that my confidence in 95% of the participants in this forum to truly comprehend the papers at mises.org are about what your confidence would be in their ability to truly comprehend the papers at physicstoday.org.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should we have any confidence in your confidence, given that you are clearly in the 95%?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be one hell of a teacher. Do you routinely belittle your students when they get something wrong, or question something? You act like a nun who's had a student who dared question Section 2, Paragraph 5, Subsection 3d, Part 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll bet you're a peach in the classroom. Maybe I'll get ambitious and look up your student's rating of you. That might be a hoot.

Now, responding to your screed, I actually took the time to look up various papers on market failure, including at your beloved mises.org. Now, there's a buch of crap out there from the left, about how any inequality is a market failure, I'll give you that. But what struck me as interesting was the Austrian School's take on it. I see where you're coming from now. The Austrian School starts with the assumption that the free market is perfect. That's orthodoxy, there is NO questioning it. All who question it are heretics. It's also not science, it's religion. So whenever we discuss the free market (genuflect, genuflect, genuflect), no wonder you act like your god is under attack - it is. So my use of the term "blind faith" really was closer to the mark than I thought.

I was actually going to continue our discussion of market failure (Oops, I said that word again. Forgive me Hayek, for I have sinned...) but I wouldn't want to offend any religious sensibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: Feigned indignity, strawman, ad hominem, no I'm not actually going to make an argument.

There is no assumption that the market is "perfect", in fact the Austrians explicitly state that the market can never be "perfect"; the capital structure is never completely correctly allocated to most efficiently supply ever changing consumer wants; there is always a better possible allocation of the factors of production. The function of entrepreneurs is to try to identify these mismatches, which represent profit opportunities, and continually tear down and rebuild the capital structure to more efficiently supply those wants, but they can never reach the target, because the target is ever moving. Consumer wants change, tachnology improves, new resources are opened up, old resources used up, and on and on.

I'm still waiting for your definition of "market failure." My prediction about the form of such a definition still stands.

[Borodog]

And my students like me just fine. I'm not an a-hole in real life. I only play one on the internet.

[Leaky Eye]

I don't think that is possible, unless the dollar devalues to affect the $ per gallon equation. The rise of oil prices has made recovery of entirely new sources of oil economically viable. We are seeing and are going to continue to see large new sources of petroleum enter the marketplace.

Refinery capacity will experience the same phenomenon. The higher the gas price rises the more viable it is to build new refineries.

Cliff notes: Peak oil is nonsense propagated by political thinkers using only existing oil fields.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
And my students like me just fine. I'm not an a-hole in real life. I only play one on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the best.... when and if I ever grow up, I wanna be just like you.

[CharlieDontSurf]

if the gov really wanted it to happen we could all be driving plug-in hybrids in 10 years.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Cliff notes: Peak oil is nonsense propagated by political thinkers using only existing oil fields

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. "Peak oil" is based upon the ability to extract it, move it to the port, ship it to its destination, refine it; move it within the country shipped to, etc.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
if the gov really wanted it to happen we could all be driving plug-in hybrids in 10 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you really appreciate the energy density of gasoline.

When you pump gas into your car, the rate you are delivering energy is about ten megawatts. An entire nuclear power plant like the one near my house (Sharon Harris) delivers only of order a thousand megawatts. Hence, an entire nuclear plant could serve approximately 100 cars "fueling up" at any moment.

In other words, electric vehicles are only attractive right now because nobody uses them. If everyone used them, then nobody could use them, because there wouldn't be enough electricity being generated to power them by orders of magnitude.