1petermcc’s Blog :- Another nice Potholer contribution

I left the following comments at  https://1petermcc.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/another-nice-potholer-contribution

and received the somewhat ill conceived reply below.

I look forward to further comment from this guy.

“In the final wash up, governments don’t collapse economies”

Indeed!

I listed a few examples below but one could carry on with Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal not to mention the USA  as well  just to name a few.

This fact represents a weakness in our modern democratic system. In order to gain power, politicians in “democratic countries”  must garner votes.

What better way is there than to promise a guilable public all the freebees you can think of.

For example: Bolivia = subsidised petrol prices, US = subsidised  Healthcare, Greece= generous old age pensions.

And it works!  To a point!

Unfortunately the voters do not grasp that it is all ultimately paid for by them – in other words these are election bribes paid for by the tax payers own money.

Unfortunately or otherwise, there is a limit to how much the public will tolerate taxation and typically a government will borrow to keep the populace happy, until the credit is exhausted. Like Greece and Ireland today and New Zealand under one Robert Muldoon 25 years ago,are just a few examples.

This is how governments collapse economies and of course it is not the only way.

 

My comment

Maybe you should get potholer to comment on the economics of trying to lower CO2 emissions.

Here is what I think.

I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

AGW is baloney anyway!

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

I have great difficulty with the huge conspiracy theory and the assumption that the money goes to people unknown.

From a economic standpoint it makes no sense to collapse the world economy. There is no point in having lots of bits of paper (formerly money) when you can’t spend it anywhere.

Economies balance out and whatever happens to the way power is produced it gets factored into the marketplace. We don’t get our milk delivered by horse and cart any more simply because it isn’t economic.

Simple economics also means that when fuel prices become unsustainable then alternatives are developed or folk choose not to travel. That is how economies work.

A 500% increase in the petrol price would see folk opt for different choices and governments do not make radical changes in any case. Better, smarter alternatives get developed and the economy’s do what they always do and adjust themselves in the marketplace.

In the final wash up, governments don’t collapse economies, and countries don’t deliberately throw the world into wholesale starvation and that is another problem for the skeptics. If they want to run their line they have to make sense on the reasons for the greatest hoax ever.

The sky is falling approach just isn’t going to cut it with the Voters. They need something plausible.

1petermcc

 

 

Peter
Thanks for your reply.

Your answer is conflicting to me though.

“Money goes to people unknown”  The IPCC wants to broker a world wide carbon trading scheme. That is known.
If governments restrict usage of fossil fuels, people and organisations who are in the business of supplying fossil fuels will enjoy huge margins. That makes a lot of economic sense to me.

“From a economic standpoint it makes no sense to collapse the world economy. There is no point in having lots of bits of paper (formerly money) when you can’t spend it anywhere.”
“In the final wash up, governments don’t collapse economies”

Well I can think of a few examples of the latter. Howabout PRChina between 1949-76. Howabout Zimbabwee  or Burma or Cambodia. Not to mention my country in 1984.

Of course these things do not make any sense except for the people in influence trying to increase their grasp on power. Money is not wealth, it just represents wealth and you can most certainly have wealth and power when there is no viable currency.

“Simple economics also means that when fuel prices become unsustainable then alternatives are developed or folk choose not to travel. That is how economies work.”

So when food prices (which are reliant on fossil fuel prices to a large extent) become unsustainable, people will develop alternatives or choose not to eat?

Given time like about 100 years some adjustment may be feasible but the IPCC wants emissions cut in less than 20!

If you have some problem with the logic of what I say, then fine, but to say “governments don’t collapse economies, and countries don’t deliberately throw the world into wholesale starvation ” when we have UN documents promoting actions that will do just that, requires a little more thought other to say “it wont happen”.

Finally, just think who is the Chicken Little in this scenario. You are the guys who think the world is going to burn up, I’m just one who is pointing out the likely consequences, (using standard economic theory by the way) of the proposed solution. A proposed solution prepared by the United Nations no less.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: