Bitcoin Forum
May 11, 2024, 06:38:34 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Negative Externalities  (Read 12227 times)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007



View Profile
April 15, 2011, 08:24:33 PM
 #61


State-sponsored force has been the only agency so far by which any modicum of forward-thinking can be imposed on the market.  Without it, fridges would still be pumping out CFCs,

It's funny that you should mention this because...

(wait for it)


...they still do!  And it's largely because of government regulations that they do!  Did you know that common air is a refrigerant?  It is....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_cycle_machine

So why isn't air cycle refrigeration used for household refrigerators?  Two reasons...

1) Air cycle machines were inefficient as compared to the ozone destroying refrigerents banned in the US in 1992, but modern advancements have improved their efficency so that they are competitive with the green(er) (still CFC based, just less destructive) refrigerents used in consumer devices today.

And the big reason...

2) Air cycle refrigeration is, by definition, and open cycle.  And the same law referred to above also banned the intentional release of any refrigerant into the atmostphere related to the production, use, repair or destruction of a consumer device.


So it is against the law to manufacture a refrigerator that uses any open refrigeration cycle, including one of the few modern refrigeration cycles that does not use CFC's!  There's your govenment at work!

The airlines get to use open cycle refrigeration because they are not consumer devices!

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
1715452714
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715452714

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715452714
Reply with quote  #2

1715452714
Report to moderator
1715452714
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715452714

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715452714
Reply with quote  #2

1715452714
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1715452714
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715452714

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715452714
Reply with quote  #2

1715452714
Report to moderator
1715452714
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715452714

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715452714
Reply with quote  #2

1715452714
Report to moderator
benjamindees (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 15, 2011, 08:37:40 PM
 #62

I think you're really underestimating the proclivity of industry and commerce to simply ignore stupid laws.

Aircraft are a special case.  Weight is an issue.  They require pressurized cabins.  Etc..

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007



View Profile
April 15, 2011, 11:55:46 PM
 #63

I think you're really underestimating the proclivity of industry and commerce to simply ignore stupid laws.

Aircraft are a special case.  Weight is an issue.  They require pressurized cabins.  Etc..

Well, I did oversimplify the situation, but the basic premise is true.  Air cycle refrigerators do not exist because prior regulations into the industry makes research into alternatives unattractive for manufactures.  How much does the risk of getting sideways with some nitwit government oversight board cost?  That seems worthwhile with aircraft, mostly because the risk of a freon leak in a pressurized cabin at 3000 feet could kill your customers.  I doubt that it's worth the risk with consumer devices that usually depend upon profit margins measured in a few dollars each.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
benjamindees (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 16, 2011, 12:22:48 AM
 #64

I think you're really underestimating the proclivity of industry and commerce to simply ignore stupid laws.

Aircraft are a special case.  Weight is an issue.  They require pressurized cabins.  Etc..

Well, I did oversimplify the situation, but the basic premise is true.  Air cycle refrigerators do not exist because prior regulations into the industry makes research into alternatives unattractive for manufactures.  How much does the risk of getting sideways with some nitwit government oversight board cost?  That seems worthwhile with aircraft, mostly because the risk of a freon leak in a pressurized cabin at 3000 feet could kill your customers.  I doubt that it's worth the risk with consumer devices that usually depend upon profit margins measured in a few dollars each.

Then it sounds like the opposite of what you are arguing is true.  Air cycle refrigerators exist in aircraft because of the risk of liability for freon leaks at 30000 feet, and because of laws which account for this externality.

Of course it's usually pretty cold at 30000 feet also, so air cycle cooling probably saves a lot of energy.  And small scale turbines are impossibly difficult to manufacture and not very efficient, so having one in your refrigerator is not practical.  And closed-cycle air and CO2 cycle refrigerators are somewhat high pressure, so having one explode in your home would not be fun.

Overall I don't think this is a very good example of unjust government intervention, even if we assume the law is at all enforceable.  Considering the fact that I am not being arrested for breathing, I think your interpretation is somewhat broad.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 590
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 16, 2011, 12:29:33 AM
 #65

(still CFC based, just less destructive) refrigerents used in consumer devices today.

No, they aren't.  HCFCs are not CFCs.  The naming is similar, but they're completely different chemically.  CFCs are gone as of last year except in a few small applications where there is no suitable replacement, mostly specialized fire suppression systems.

Most HCFCs do not deplete ozone to a relevant degree, though they are potent greenhouse gasses and and have been being phased out for 15 years now and will be gone by 2020 (2030 for developing nations).
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007



View Profile
April 16, 2011, 12:37:31 AM
 #66

Then it sounds like the opposite of what you are arguing is true.  Air cycle refrigerators exist in aircraft because of the risk of liability for freon leaks at 30000 feet, and because of laws which account for this externality.

Airlines would be using the least dangerous tech regardless of what consumer protection laws might say.  It tends to be bad press when airlines kill their customers.
Quote

Overall I don't think this is a very good example of unjust government intervention, even if we assume the law is at all enforceable.  Considering the fact that I am not being arrested for breathing, I think your interpretation is somewhat broad.

It's a less than ideal example, but I wasn't the one who brought up CFC's in refrigerators.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
elewton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 407
Merit: 100


DIA | Data infrastructure for DeFi


View Profile
April 16, 2011, 12:42:44 PM
 #67

...but you can certainly expect that I, in an attempt to keep my land, air and water clean, will sue those who don't.
This has obvious advantages and disadvantages.  I agree in spirit with the majority of your post, but don't understand how this could work.
The biosphere is absurdly complex, and often irreparable on human time-scales.  A rational actor across the world can toxify a lake which destroys a local insect population which reduces the throughput of migratory birds which were themselves fertilising speciaised plants halfway around the globe with a continuing chain of effects.
These events happen naturally at a variable frequency, but the rate at which they are now occurring is effectively an emergency.

In the history of humanity, we generally destroy enormous wealths of biological diversity for individual economic gain.  Now that individuals have the potential to damage large amounts of the Earth through market forces, many people believe that they should be preemptively prevented.
An extreme example is of Joe Bloggs deciding to set up a fission power plant to sell power to his neighbours.  Even if they all agree, the potential damage could be felt worldwide.

Quote
That's corporatism, the opposite of a free market.


Yes and no.  I went a little off-topic there.

Quote
You can't achieve social freedom without economical freedom. Communists don't have the luxury of being naive, since their concept is contradictory by nature.

I don't necessarily support full social or economic freedom, along with a great many people.
I'm also not sure that communism is essentially contradictory.  I believe that it makes sense to a certain portion of the population who conceive of humanity as a mass entity striving to betterment.  The socialist impulse has been useful in bettering the conditions of the poor, just as it has been useful in suppressing large numbers of people.
The libertarian principle has been responsible for much of the rise of science, culture, and technology, but I have yet to see it applied stably over large numbers of people.

Remember, in an Ant colony, the libertarian fails.  Amongst Piranha, the communist is lunch!


benjamindees (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 16, 2011, 06:12:35 PM
 #68

Remember, in an Ant colony, the libertarian fails.  Amongst Piranha, the communist is lunch!

Ants eat food sources that are several times larger than they are.  It makes sense to cooperate when resources are effectively unlimited.
Piranha eat food sources that are smaller than they are.  It makes sense to compete when resources are scarce.

Earth's resources are becoming fewer every day.  At the same time, human knowledge is growing exponentially.  You do the math.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3668
Merit: 1347

Armory Developer


View Profile
April 16, 2011, 10:08:08 PM
 #69

This has obvious advantages and disadvantages.  I agree in spirit with the majority of your post, but don't understand how this could work.
The biosphere is absurdly complex, and often irreparable on human time-scales.  A rational actor across the world can toxify a lake which destroys a local insect population which reduces the throughput of migratory birds which were themselves fertilising speciaised plants halfway around the globe with a continuing chain of effects.
These events happen naturally at a variable frequency, but the rate at which they are now occurring is effectively an emergency.

In the history of humanity, we generally destroy enormous wealths of biological diversity for individual economic gain.  Now that individuals have the potential to damage large amounts of the Earth through market forces, many people believe that they should be preemptively prevented.
An extreme example is of Joe Bloggs deciding to set up a fission power plant to sell power to his neighbours.  Even if they all agree, the potential damage could be felt worldwide.

I understand your point very well in that matter. Let's say my answer is the typical response you would get from a "fundamental" anarchist, in that the responsabilities that I am willing to bear and the actions that I am willing to take are certainly not enough to properly and effectively half wrong doings, in this case pollution, but that such actions will put a term to obvious, tangible problems that the actual system perpetuates.

I am aware that ecological consequences are of an unfathomable complexity, yet there are a few obvious, potent ill effect that could be put to an end right now and that would have disappeared long ago if it wasn't for government support. Let's say extensive corn farming as an example. But my knowledge of the environement is too limited to present you with well documented arguments, so i'll provide you with an economic analogy, since i think we can agree money is managed as a common nowadays.

I am thinking about fractional reserve banking. See, there will be people who will argue that fiat currency is necessary to support today's economy, or that debt supports the kind of growth that a savings based economy could never dream to achieve, and i don't pretend that walking out of the fiat system will fix all the ills of the world, simply that I choose to not be part of it (one of the reasons I like Bitcoin). But whatever your stand might be on that matter, the fractional banking act is an abomination and needs to go.

My point, if you may percieve it so, is that to chose between an unknown future rathered than a well identified evil, I will pick the unknown, and that I will always be best served by myself. And also that political power attracts the corrupt, so I wish for as little of it to be available as possible.

Of course, a society where people are directly liable for their actions is doomed if their members aren't acting is a responsible fashion, but then again, such is the case in any other type of society.

The contradiction with communism or socialism globally, is that it purports people should be ruled, implying they are evil, and yet that to rule them is for their own good, which they don't deserve, since they are evil by definition.

I aknowledge that socialism has birthed some social progress, but it all appears to me as a band aid to fix ills that have been born from socialist reforms to begin with.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!