We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Jason Hickel is a knobhead Just to make this plain. Electricity is sold at the one price. We do not get charged different amounts for a green electron than a dirty brown one (we might well do dependent upon time of day, reliability of supply, etc, but that doesn’t change this particular argument). We have one price for the output. Whoever produces cheaper will make more profit. Because that’s just how profit works – revenue minus costs is profit. Therefore either renewables are cheaper and thus they make more profit or renewables are not cheaper and they make less profit.
There is no version of this story in which renewables are cheaper and yet they make less profit.
– Tim Worstall
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
One of the central doctrines, perhaps the central economic doctrine, of the left is to deny the law of supply-and-demand. This is part of a general denial of economic law – indeed denial of objective and universal laws of reality.
This goes back (at least) to Robespierre – who opposed the death penalty for murder (indeed he had resigned from a pro Revolution court because he opposed the death penalty for murder), but supported the death penalty for violating his price controls (or even for verbally disagreeing with the Revolution).
This is because, to the left, prices are about “Social Justice” NOT supply and demand – so if it is “Social Justice” that “Green” energy is less expensive – then, to the left, it is less expensive, regardless of objective reality – because, to the left, “Social Justice” is more important than objective reality.
By the way on the latest media darling “Andy” Burnham……
The media (and Wikipedia and so on) are saying that Mr Burnham follows, bases his politics upon, “Catholic Social Teaching” – he-does-NOT.
Mr Burnham is not out campaigning against abortion, or homosexual acts, or anything else in relation to “Catholic SOCIAL Teaching” – what he may (perhaps) follow is Catholic ECONOMIC teaching – or, rather, a particular faction of Catholics on economics.
Catholics have always been divided on what a “Just Price” is – some Catholic thinkers (for example the scholastic School of Salamanca) argued that a “Just Price” (including wages – as wages are prices, as are rents) is one that is voluntarily agreed to by buyer and seller – but other Catholic thinkers have defined a “Just Price” very differently – as a price imposed by the authorities (with the threat of violence on people ignore this imposed price, wage, rent – whatever).
Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 encyclical seemed (seemed – there is some debate on this) to endorse the interventionist position on economic matters. Indeed the very first paragraph of the 1891 encyclical seems to make the claim that capitalism had led to a rise in poverty and immorality – both of these claims being false, indeed absurd. Compare countries in 1891 to 1791, or to 1491 for that matter – the idea that people were poorer or more immoral in 1891 is utterly false, indeed the opposite of the truth.
Be that as it may, a faction has grown up (of which the present Pope Leo XIV appears, perhaps, to be a member) which holds that government intervention on prices – including wages, rents and so on, is beneficial to the poor.
It must be clearly stated that such government intervention is not beneficial to the poor – indeed it greatly harms the poor.
To state these basic economic facts is in no way “anti Catholic bigotry” as many Catholic thinkers themselves, over the centuries, have understood these basic economic facts – it is just unfortunate (to put the matter mildly) that these are not the Catholic thinkers who are presently fashionable in the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Some people may point out that Jason Hickel is a Professor.
Sadly being an academic, indeed being a senior academic who has won all sorts of prizes and other such, does not mean that someone accepts even the most basic laws of economics.
In Germany the “Historical School” (the “Socialists of the Chair” – although they were formally interventionists rather than full-on socialists) rejected the principles of economic law in the late 19th century.
This spread to the English speaking world with such people as Richard Ely (an influence on both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) – the founder of the American Economics Association, who, indeed, not only rejected the basic principles of economics – but worked to try and ensure that people who understood economics did NOT get positions in academia.
The late W.H. Hutt was once asked how the Keynesians “won the debate” in economics departments – he replied, truthfully, that there was no real debate – the Keynesians just gained control of the setting and marking of examinations, and the appointment and promotion of academic staff – and “that was that”.
The economic doctrines of the late J.M. Keynes are nonsense – they violate basic logic, as does interventionism in general. But this basic truth does-not-matter in academia – what controls academia (and much else) is who is better at manipulating committees and so – and I am sure that Professor Hickel is excellent at such work.
The economic doctrines of the late J.M. Keynes are nonsense
All economic doctrines are nonsense.
“Economic doctrines” allegedly guide the policies of Governments. That’s what “political economy” is for.
But, the correct policies of governments are: doing nothing. Nothing as far as the economy is concerned. Especially – not to print money. Which is exactly what all economist recommend yes to do. The only difference between economic theorists is how much money printing is desirable.
Whatever they do – they (economists in government) – do harm.
Does private enterprise employ economists? Well, maybe the banks.
Most economists work in Government (or central banking, which is the same).
Renewables….
There ain’t such a thing as “renewables”. There is just windmills (hundreds of thousands) and solar panels (billions of them). They produce next to nothing. Electricity is supplied mostly by fossil-fuel plants (about 85%), with a little added by hydro dams and nuclear power.
Renewables are a fiction…
That’s not ideology or opinion, these are the facts.
They are not a fiction in the sense that billions of solar panels do exist, the fiction is that they produce anything (such as electricity).
No Jacob – the basic principles of economics are not nonsense.
All “Greens” are evil and ought to be treated that way. And I mean truly, deeply, evil.
No Jacob – the basic principles of economics are not nonsense.
Every economist has his own “basic principles” of economy. The one thing almost all agree on is: “print more money”.
All “Greens” are evil and ought to be treated that way. And I mean truly, deeply, evil.
No. Just idiots.
Come now, Jacob…. renewables produce oodles and oodles of what they are designed to produce: subsidies.
…said no Austrian school economist ever 😀
Mike Marsh,
LOL! It reminds me of a quote that nuclear fusion has produced many more PhDs than Watts.
Jacob,
They fly in private jets to conferences in nice places to try and ban plebs like me from getting on EasyJet.
They may be idiots. They are definitely, though, terrible cunts. And I say that with no offence to Uncle Monty who at least kept a decent cellar…
@Jacob
No. Just idiots.
Economists and Green doomsayers spend their lives making predictions that are almost always wrong. And yet they still get paid. I think these guys are f–king geniuses.
@Paul Marks
No Jacob – the basic principles of economics are not nonsense.
You have to distinguish. The principles of microeconomics are a law, not as in legislation passed by parliament, but law as in the laws of physics. There is no department of supply and demand to plan out that principle. No Federal Supply and Demand Enforcement police force to punish violators of the law. It happens as sure as gravity sucks you down, and petards hoist you up.
Macroeconomics is mostly bullshit. It has a track record of almost always being wrong about almost everything.