Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AlohaDawg]

They do have responsibilities to their shareholders. Given the level of importance energy has in terms of the well being of the people and the economy, it could easily be argued that these companies have a strong moral and ethical responsibility to make rational decisions that impact not only the present but also the future. I think in point of fact they do have a responsibility to respond to the changing political, social, and physical environments in order to continue to provide a necessary resource. The threat of nationalization due to their importance is surely a big factor in their continuing to act rationally.

I'm still confused about how you can divorce the rational action argument from the market forces argument. These companies can not but explore alternatives and develop the future in order to survive in the market.

[Arachno-capitalist]

I'm still confused about how you can divorce the rational action argument from the market forces argument. These companies can not but explore alternatives and develop the future in order to survive in the market.

I'm not. Where do you see me doing that? I agree with every point you've made. The Austrian school of economic thought, the one I subscribe to, is exactly the marriage of individual rational self interested action and market effects of those actors.

[Carlos del Vaca]

More linkery for ya:  10 myths about Canadian health care.

[jay-ell]

So according that argument, we would never have had cars in the first place. I mean, the hoss and buggy makers had all the money, right? Why would anyone have invested in a car if the hoss and buggy is where all the money was?
Why would anyone have invested in oil? That stuff is really expensive to find and produce and transport and refine and pump. The whale blubber dudes had all the money right? Why do we need oil when obviously whale blubber was where the money was?

Actually, steam-powered cars hit the market around the same time as gas-powered ones, but thanks to path-dependency (I'm sure I don't have to define that term for you), we've boxed ourselves into an oily corner both economically and technologically.  If the time and money that has been spent developing gasoline-powered vehicles over the last hundred years or so had been put into steam-powered vehicles, we'd be filling our cars' tanks from the garden hose. 

Of course, there's a major water shortage around these parts right now, so maybe that wouldn't be preferable. 

[AugustWest]

Actually, steam-powered cars hit the market around the same time as gas-powered ones, but thanks to path-dependency (I'm sure I don't have to define that term for you), we've boxed ourselves into an oily corner both economically and technologically.  If the time and money that has been spent developing gasoline-powered vehicles over the last hundred years or so had been put into steam-powered vehicles, we'd be filling our cars' tanks from the garden hose. 

Of course, there's a major water shortage around these parts right now, so maybe that wouldn't be preferable. 

We'd still have to burn something to heat the water to make the steam. 

[KeithHernandez]

I think that there was this one guy at hempfest this one time who was trying to tell me about that...I'm pretty sure it made a lot more sense to him than me.

But for real, I am pretty sure the first fords ran on peanut and hemp.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Actually, steam-powered cars hit the market around the same time as gas-powered ones, but thanks to path-dependency (I'm sure I don't have to define that term for you), we've boxed ourselves into an oily corner both economically and technologically.  If the time and money that has been spent developing gasoline-powered vehicles over the last hundred years or so had been put into steam-powered vehicles, we'd be filling our cars' tanks from the garden hose. 

Of course, there's a major water shortage around these parts right now, so maybe that wouldn't be preferable. 

AW is right, this has little to do with path dependency and boxing into corners and more to do with the fact that it takes a lot more energy to boil water than it does to combust gasoline fumes.

[AlohaDawg]

And steam engines are way heavier and wonkier than internal combustion engines, and way more likely to explode upon failure, showering occu##### and passersby with high-pressure, hi-temperature steam.

A-Rach, where I thought you were splitting that argument was where you contended that the 'oil companies' as you call them have no responsibility to develop alternatives (or sell the old-tyme taste of chickeny-tasting chicken, for that matter). My contention was that they indeed do, due to rational self-interest. So if you are in agreement that they do have that responsibility, due to rational action, then I agree that we agree. I just didn't see that we were agreeing.

[Doc]

Personally I'm holding out for my hydrogen fission plant. 2030's the goal people.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Personally I'm holding out for my hydrogen fission plant. 2030's the goal people.

Im holding out for my flying car that runs on hopes and dreams.

[AugustWest]

Im holding out for my flying car that runs on hopes and dreams.

If they invent one that runs on smug iconoclasm you'll be able to fly it to Saturn.

[lprkn]

Wow, I usually don't go in for snarkiness, but that was gold.

[V-Adore]

I was starting to regret catching up on this whole thread, but no longer. AW, you. Are. Rad.

[jough]

High fives, AW.

Without reading pages 1-7, I think my number one election issue is the war.  McCain is for it (well, only for the next 10,000 years or so) so I voted Obama.  Plus, I like Obama.  I think it's time we had a president that is smarter than the average American.  When was the last time that was true?  Nixon?

[littlefallsmets]

I dunno, Clinton and the first Bush were both well-above-average minds... it's just that Clinton was too quick to compromise to maintain power and the first Bush was simply a pawn of energy interests... but they were both smart dudes in theory.

And Carter was certainly a heavily-educated cat, whether you agreed with him or not.

Ford, second Bush, Reagan, yeah... middling intellects, definitely. But that's three outta six, y'know?

And whether you agree with her or not or personally like her or not, Hillary's brilliant intellectually... at least in a memory/detail-oriented sorta way, would probably score higher than Obama in terms of raw intelligence quotent, for whatever it matters.

I'd definitely stick McCain in with Ford, though... heavy on valour, low on sense.