Home  5  Books  5  Magazines  5  News  5  GreenPro  5  HelpDesk  5  Your Cart  5  Register  5  Green Living Forum
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

This month's favourite choices




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




General: Sustainable use of fossil fuels!

Bottom of Page

31 to 39 of 39

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: SeretIt's major flaw is that it assumes everyone acts rationally, which in reality they don't
    Think that is now a major area of research and in principle understood, though not always applied.

    If you don't like the idea of 'follow the money' approach, look at some of the other key indicators that are real goods, energy and food are key ones, then the derivatives like transport and storage, just don't get suckered into thinking that the derivatives have real value on their own, that is the mistake the banks made.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeagoods, energy and food are key ones
    Looking forward to the day when human species' survival on this planet becomes a key one.
    • CommentAuthorbella
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012
     
    Are land and property also "derivatives"? If so these kept the Marcher Lords in fine style for 900 years! They owned and exploited and disposed within family, most of the nation's westerly land from the Norman Conquest until the second world war and still pop up all over Companies House and the City. There are endless such examples of the very, very long lived distortions to a self correcting "supply and demand". Indeed, follow the money but don't expect it to be spent on reducing energy use.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012
     
    Land isn't a derivative, they are not making any more of it, property on land (if you mean buildings and such like) is.
    Why would we be investing in reducing energy use when it is cheap and plentiful and any environmental damage it causes is not impacting on enough people, enough of the time. It is harsh but that is the way it is at present. Tomorrow may be different though.
    • CommentAuthorbella
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012
     
    Would it be more accurate to say "only impacting of poor people who don't have enough money to influence the markets"? Perhaps half the world's population - or am I underestimating?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012 edited
     
    Society (quite properly) regulates the uses to which land can be used - interfering (rightly) in the sovereign rights of private landowners.

    In doing that society creates an artificial shortage of development land (so it should) and - here's the crunch - thereby creates massive over-value of those few bits of land that are consented for development. Society hands windfall fortunes to those private landowners lucky (or cunning) enough to get consent.

    The 'laws' of supply and demand are artificially steepened out of recognition. The excessive value is considered highly bankable, one of the principal foundations of capitalism, but it's almost entirely artificial and could collapse overnight if some govt was brave enough to so legislate.

    There have been two serious, but failed attempts to do so in UK, since WW2. To say that as the artificial value is created by society's legislation, it's not inherent in the private landowner's land, so why should he scoop the windfall? That any such value uplift should belong to society, not the lucky landowner.

    This is not 'nationalisation of the land', but society's rightful claiming of what's due instead of handing windfalls to individuals.

    It's extraordinary that to this day, no non-communistic govt has dared to enforce this reasonable principle, but have continued to favour the rich.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: fostertomThe 'laws' of supply and demand are artificially steepened out of recognition

    I would say that they are just reflecting reality, nothing artificial.
    The movement of goods and services, and how they are described by economic theory is not that same as economic theory moving goods and services about.
    Very easy to get dependant and independent variables around the wrong way when looking for patterns.
    Remember that correlation does not prove causality.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeSep 23rd 2012 edited
     
    ..
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2012
     
    That's just what I'd say too, tony

31 to 39 of 39

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press