Reddit reviews The Ultimate Resource 2
We found 10 Reddit comments about The Ultimate Resource 2. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Reddit reviews The Ultimate Resource 2We found 10 Reddit comments about The Ultimate Resource 2. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Recommended Reading(As v3, I'll try to add a book before each checklist now): The Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon
^(I assume that's the book you were referring to by "people are the ultimate source of capital")
[✅] American People will Die!
[✅] Doesn't know how
gunspurchasing power works(Only looks at nominal wages decreasing from immigration and assumes PP does as well, ignoring price decreases also from immigration and thus possible increases in real wages)[✅] Not Real
Socialism/CommunismCollectivism™(THE GLORIOUS NATION™ is still a collective)[✅] Anyone who disagrees is a shill for Berkley and CEOs
[✅] The Greater Nationalist Good™
[ ] Hoodie's Law
[ ] Esoteric's Law
[✅] Sargon's Law(Says OP is hurting Americans with more immigrants, hurts America with r/badeconomics)
[ ] I used to be a libertarian
[✅] Lovejoy's Law
[✅] Ban things and people I don’t like(The immigrants/outsourcing)
[✅] Who Will
Build the RoadsProtect the Disabled?[ ] We need TO DO SOMETHING!
[✅] Breaking windows will boost GDP
[ ] Fake Nuance
[ ] Sunk Cost Fallacy
[✅✅✅] Fearmongering(DEY TERK ER JERBS!)
→→[ ] The Koch Brothers Conspiracy
→→[ ] Someone of Group X did something, therefore Group X is EVUL!
[ ] Distinction without a Difference
[✅] The God that Failed
[ ] Just-in-Case Fallacy
[ ] Nirvana Fallacy
[ ] But that’s not PC!
[ ] RESPECT DA LAUH!
[✅] Move to Somalia
[ ] Spotlight Fallacy
[ ] r/AsABlackMan Fallacy
[✅] Questionable Cause(The immigrants & outsourcers did this!)
Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.
Much of the reason it's hard to find an example (part of which someone already mentioned) is that as the price begins to increase for a resource that becomes rare, the technology used to refine, extract, or use it is upgraded to be more efficient. This drives the price back down as suddenly you can keep the same output, or even increase output, without using as much of the resource as before.
Julian Simon famously won a bet with another professor that the price of several precious metals would go down over time. The other professor (Ehrlich), believed the price would go up because we would begin to run out of those resources as demand for them increased.
Basically - the economic argument that Julian Simon makes is that as our natural resources become more scarce, the more there is to gain by investing in efficiency. For example, when we first discovered oil and it's benefits, it was extremely unrefined. All the money made from oil was used to find more oil since it was cheaper to find more than it was to figure out more efficient ways of using it. Since then, the refining of oil has become a massive process and the oil we use for energy today is so different from the oil used a long time ago. Basically, if we never put any effort into the refinement and use of oil, we would have run out of it decades ago - but the reason why we keeping pushing back "peak oil" is because we keep figuring out how to be more efficient. Just look at the current trend with cars. If you're interested in learning about this theory more I highly recommend Simon's book "The Ultimate Resource". Essentially he argues that our brains and the ideas we come up with are the "infinite" resource we need. It's flawed but really interesting
https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Resource-Julian-Lincoln-Simon/dp/0691003815
(Edit: I'm thinking of non-living resources like metals, oil, wood etc. This argument/idea doesn't really hold up with animals/species)
> States would compete to see who could exploit their finite resources the fastest.
I am reading this right now; it's quite germane -
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Resource-Julian-Lincoln-Simon/dp/0691003815
Well, if things are as bad as you make out, what do you care about bullet trains?
Tell you what, I'll read a bunch of articles on /r/population if you read a Julian Simon book.
I feel a little bit bad writing this but I have read (second-hand) that The Ultimate Resource 2 is the superior book.
If you are interested in books that read as generic non-fiction books and not as textbooks, these two were interesting to me and assigned by professors (one of my majors was economics).
The Choice by Russell Roberts is a very accessible text about international trade (so this book will definitely drive home how free trade is best for society as a whole) but its themes are relevant to general economic theory as well. It is written in the form of Platonic conversation where the entire story is just two people talking back and forth in a question:answer format. My macro professor made all of his classes read it, even his honors students.
The Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian Lincoln Simon explores issues of resource scarcity, population dynamics, and technology diffusion; each of these is important to economic theory and the themes and anecdotes explored here are common to economics. Some of the ideas expressed might fall more into the Austrian/Libertarian camp, but certainly not all (it isn't always black-and-white).
>His claim is my claim. Your assertion is that once man recognizes the problem it will be too late, I don't agree. Personally, I would like to see both nuclear and hydrogen power pursued in the future. Why isn't hydrogen power on the front lines? Would love to hear your take on that topic.
I think all forms of clean energy are great but my argument is that it doesn't matter if we solve the energy problem because that doesn't solve the greater ecological problems of species and habitat loss which are caused by economic and population growth and exacerbated by fossil energy use. You have yet to dissent with evidence on species and habitat loss. Your only pertinent comment was to plant some trees. If you like the technology position you should read The Ultimate Resource and its sequel. As I mentioned, Simon only addresses scarcity in response to the Cobbs, Trainers, and Kassiolas and not the ecological problems described by Coyne and Hoesktra.
>I and others like me don't like throwing money after good intentions.
No one is asking you to pay more for anything, you probably already are. Wherever you pay taxes probably contributes to some centralized space program or national research. But no one ever said the solution was to contribute money to something. I'm not convinced that money will be a thing by the time we develop the capability of interstellar travel. All of the authors I cite all over the place are pretty convinced of the end of industrial society.
>Is CO2 rising? Yes. What effect will it have on the planet, we will find out.
We already know. Statistically significant levels of ocean acidification, average temperatures that exceed all of the data ever collected by the human species, and sea level rise due to warmer temperatures melting the ice caps. No one disagrees that these things are happening in the status quo, not even Mr. Kimoto. The only argument they are having now is if it is the fault of fossil fuels or not. I don't care whose fault it is, I care about addressing the problem.
>Allow people to take money before their is a measurable negative consequences or solutions, not going to happen.
Take a look at the Maldives, they seem convinced enough to center their national infrastructure strategy around sea level rise. The effects of these problems are already apparent to many people globally. The consequences here are measurable and detrimental. I agree, it will take more immiseration before many will begin to realize the gravity of the ecological problems we face.
> In response, people try to point at events, like your flood, as some kind of proof, or they make wild overstatements.
The hallmark of rising CO2 levels is drastic climatic fluctuations. The reason I mentioned the flood was because it exceeds the crests of any flood in this area in human recorded history. We seem to be collecting a lot data of unprecedented weather patterns in the last decade.
I'm leaving a day later than expected -- so when I said you could have the last word, I lied. :-)
>The case for collapse is quite clear.
Apparently so clear there is no need to present any.
Collapse is a verfy serious thing. Having the best demographics of any major country in the world is not evidence of comming "collapse", just because one would prefer them to be better. The need for the richest nation in the world to increase taxes and reduce promised spending in the future is not evidence of coming "collapse". Etc.
>It would be nice to see something that would challenge that evidence.
You mean that evidence? :-)
> (The best response to the question was the link to The Rational Optimist.)
Oh, Ridley only follows in the footsteps of the late Julian Simon and his classic Ultimate Resource 2 of which there is now a free if poorly formated version online.
>>How much of a shorter life expectancy would you prefer? Admittedly your shorter life might feel a lot longer as you listen to your 8-track tape...
> I'm trying to decide if that is more strawman or half truth. Hell, I can't decide. I'll just call it both.
Half? I can fill out the rest ... You'd be listening to your 8-track in your car with Big Fins but no seat belts getting 12 miles to the gallon, spewing pollution, as you race to get home in time for the Hillbillies... shall I go on?
You think I'm kidding? There's no straw man about it. Life expectancy was 10 years shorter. What's a year of life worth? What's "straw man" about life being shortened by 15%???.
> If you want to compare life a few decades ago to today, please tell the full story. Yes, consumer goods are cheaper. So is food. So are clothes.
Food, clothing, consumer goods, not merely less expensive but better. You couldn't get today's common consumer goods at any price back in time. How much would a computer and internet connection cost to have this conversation in 1965?
>Unfortunately, housing is much more expensive.
Is it?? Why do you think so? Perhaps you are impressed by how much new bigger, better homes cost relative to older, smaller homes. But that's entirely subjective, and cherry-picking selective.
Let's look instead at BLS data. From 1967 to 2011 the housing component of the CPI has risen more than the total CPI by all of 6.1% ... that's after 44 years. Not so much, eh?
Now compare the 6% real increase in the cost of housing to the 120% real increase in per capita income over the same period, and we get this. Wow, things get tougher and tougher all the time, eh?
> So is heath insurance.
Now there's both a simple point and a sophisticated point you are missing here.
Now before you become absolutely wedded to the idea that health care costs have risen a lot since 1935(!) ponder this chart and commentary which takes into account rising income since 1935 and the "superior good" effect. Hmmm.
> So are many other things.
Like what? Well ... there is entertainment. We spend a lot more on entertainment. That's a superior good too. But is this a sign of coming collapse?
>>Do these indicators include, for instance, the recent "unprecedented increase in magnitude of U.S. natural gas resource base"...
>Yes.
>>...and the resulting drop in energy prices that has already occurred from it?.
>What price drop?
Did you read the links? Big price drop in natural gas, combined with big increase in production.
>Are you seriously suggesting that what people pay overall for energy has decreased? Yes, natural gas is cheaper. Is electricity? Is gasoline?
Total energy costs? Percentage of national income, 1970: 8%; 2007: 8%. Sign of imminent economic collapse?
> efficiency improvements are logarithmic. The lowest hanging efficiency fruit has already been picked.
And what evidence for this is there in the history of the last 200 years??
In the late 1800s there was a very serious Peak Coal scare in Britain. The logic was irrefutable: The Industrial Revolution ran on coal. The supply of coal was finite. The least expensive, highest-quality coal was being consumed first, and fast. Yet demand for coal was rising at an accelerating rate. As the supply and quality of coal declined, its price had to go higher and higher and higher -- bringing the Industrial Revolution to a grinding halt!
Could you disagree?
Yet today there is more coal in the ground in Britain, literally worthless, than they imagined even existed then. What was the systematic mistake they made? Read Julian Simon.
>If the price of energy rises, additional efficiency gains won't be able to prevent the cost per unit of economic activity from reversing.
The Peak Coal argument lives! No number of stakes driven into its heart by factual reality, hard data, and economic analysis can kill it! :-)
Every generation says "the low hanging fruit has finally now been picked". Then the next says it too, and the next, and the next. What systematic error do they all make?
>>Japan's real GDP has increased 13%. Are we now defining down "economic collapse" to equal slower growth?
> 1) Take the first derivative of that.
Weak, dude. You go troll up a squigley line that can't possibly tell you the net GDP+/- number for 1990-2010 (it doesn't even go to 2010) then you talk about how you respect data??
If you want data, go to IMF GDP data and find "Japan, 1990-2010, +20.7%". (Ooops, not 13%, I made a mistake! Using primary data sources keeps one honest.) Which is what that squigley line totals up to, if you add 2010.
> 2) How about GDP per capita?
>> Tax increase = "economic collapse"? Defining collapse downward in every direction you can think up? Gee, what were the 17 years after 1929 compared to ... a tax increase!
>If real income net of taxes go down, how does that affect standard of living? C'mon now, I know you are bright enough to figure this out.
"If", I love that. What a data-based argument!
Now I pretty much loathe the current course of US fiscal policy, but the worst case for the USA is it will end up with a tax burden equal to Western Europe's for the last generation. Has Western Europe's real income been declining for a generation? That's a relevant data point.
On what factual grounds can you predict your "If" will come true? (Western Europe's worst case going from today on is a lot worse -- but that's another reason to expect the US will remain a solid #1.)
>>The USA has the best demographics of any major economy in the world, by far. Over the next 40 years the US working age population will grow 24% while every other one (except India's) will shrink. China's working age population is peaking right now and will fall 21% by 2050.
>This is a fair point. The question, though, is will we be able to provide jobs for this growing working age population?
Another "If"! Yeah, if the economy collapses, it will collapse!
But really, dude: "Demographics will collapse the US economy". "The USA has the best demographics in the world." "Yes, but what if we can't take advantage of it? Then we'll have an economic collapse in spite of our best demographics".
That's an argument???? That's an expression of creed -- whatever fact comes up, it's spun to: ... so collapse can be coming! To conform with a creed that can't be challenged by fact.
>>OK, yup, you are hearing from me. You are right! That is exactly what the media does, to drum up revenue for itself. How much money does it make from saying "Oswald acted alone ... UFOs aren't from other planets ...The economy by historical standards is OK, pretty good even as people are much better off than ever before." Not so much.
>I don't give two shits what the media says. I do care about data and what I can deduce from it.
What data??? Do you care where you get it?
You don't get your living/housing cost data from the BLS, don't get your energy data from the EIA, don't get your international GDP data from the IMF -- but from squigley lines you Google up that you think support your claim.
If not from the media, do you get it from politically partisan Youtube clips full of strong feelings and moving if dubious claims you don't verify (and which wouldn't do well if you did)? Well, Youtube is media too.
As to Elizabeth Warren as a recommended "data source" in that clip ... oh, my ...wow... I'm going to write a separate comment just about that.
>Of commodities? Of Oil? For the most part, they CAN'T.
Yes they can.
>That's why those things are rising in price while the price of manufactured goods remains flat- because there's a finit supply of them, but more people that want to buy them.
Production of virtually every commodity has been increasing, not decreasing. You have zero evidence for your position.
>And that is why commodities are rising in price while core inflation remains flat.
Firstly, core inflation leaves out food and energy. Secondly, CPI has been manipulated numerous times in the past few decades. It will be manipulated again very soon so that the government does not need to make COLA payments.
>But I'm done talking with you and people like you. r/economics is depressing.
Read this.