cwan

Irony: "Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science"." More on Pachauri here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-busin...

Between stories like this and the release of the emails / climategate, you really have to wonder especially about the validity of some of the most alarmist claims. On one hand, I wonder how much of this is because of confirmation bias but how much is the result of outright fraud? Something else that I've been reading more about lately (because of another story here) is the reporting by Gary Taubes on 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' and I can't help but wonder about what supposed scientific consensus means and the importance of skepticism.

Obviously there's a massive body of work out there when it comes to climate science and it would be ludicrous to dismiss it all, but surely it's time to agree that we need a lot more skepticism especially when these claims are being used to advocate policies that will at least cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.

I did a quick search - I thought what they've been talking about in Zimbabwe was fascinating: http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/markets14.17028.html.

The basic idea if you believe that a hyperinflationary environment is coming, you borrow money to invest in hard assets and selected stocks. Hyperinflation will cause the value of the currency to fall dramatically, driving up the value of assets relative to that currency. This is why whenever you see countries devalue their currency to reflect rampant inflation (e.g. most recently Venezuela), people run out to buy whatever they can including TVs, disposable goods because these hold value better than cash.

Of course, if you're wrong and the opposite happens (e.g. deflation where currency rises in value but assets fall), you lose money. That said, I'd agree with the general fundamentals Evans-Pritchard describes - but also as he describes, it's basically unknowable when the crash will happen.

(By way of warning, when it comes to applying theory to practice, be careful when playing between various currencies - e.g. http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/what-is-the-carry-trade... - which is basically what happened when the markets started unravelling in North America)

I'm sure there's no harm in trying: http://ycombinator.com/contact.html - whether or not they'll do anything about it is a different question since there are good reasons why they wouldn't want to let people 'revise history' or 'interrupt the conversation' which is more or less what the site seems to be about.

I'd also add this one by Gary Taubes doing a lecture at the Stevens Institute of Technology "Big Fat Lies": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#

If your submission/comment is older than 2 hours old, your ability to delete it expires. I'm also pretty sure you can't delete your account so that your comments that you don't delete within 2 hours or that admins don't delete remain on the record.

As a Canadian, that's the bizarre thing I've found about the American system. The US spends more per capita on Medicare than Canadians do on healthcare - you'd think they would want to try to fix that before they tried to "extend coverage" and force everyone to participate in a public system. I should point out further though that the Canadian model is less than sustainable. As I've mentioned to others in the past, it took me over 6 months to book a physical and unless you know people access to specialists is a very lengthy wait.

Largely irrelevant - at least for now, since Twitter, Facebook and a host of other social networking sites are currently blocked in China.

Just a small quibble - I think you're creating a bit of a strawman in economists. Coming from both an economics and marketing background, I would suggest most economists believe that companies should act in the interests of their shareholders.

Charity can be a form of marketing just as creating a culture where at times short term profits may be sacrificed for long term benefits is also very much in the best interests of shareholders. Thus, the beauty of this economic system is that while you can profit by pursuing profit for its own sake (which can mean being charitable), I do think taking a principled approach results in more sustained and greater long term profitability - as I suspect irrespective of the outcome, this will be a case study for years to come.

An additional thought: this could potentially be genius from a business strategy standpoint against Microsoft. I confess I've been weighing the possibility of switching to Bing for a variety of reasons but because of this I'm less likely to do so.

After the dust settles, if Google is able to change Chinese government policy on search that would be monumental. If they aren't and ultimately leave China, that puts the spotlight on other infotech firms particularly Microsoft which has far more to lose by leaving China. On the other hand, if Microsoft chooses to do nothing and stay, it reinforces in the minds of users internationally a key point of differentiation between Google and Microsoft.

I have to imagine they have also weighed the business calculus on this. Where they might lose in China for now, will enhance their reputation elsewhere - particularly given how they've come under increased criticism in a wide range of fields. This decision whether intentionally so or in keeping with their stated mission is highly symbolic.

Further, don't think this won't help them in China over the long run either. When a "glastnost" comes to China, as it did Russia, if they're clever about marketing, using Google could ultimately be a symbol of new found freedoms. The fact that the Chinese government has made it difficult for them to operate, given competitors an operational advantage and enabled hackers that attack them and other firms, must make it an easier risk to take.

Being the idealist I am, I want to believe, and I think there's a good probability that doing the right thing here, will mean greater profits now and in the future.

I do think he makes a good point though that "Your patient, non-bastard supporters are the lifeblood of your community" and these are the people who have to be protected. Whether his approach is the right one is arguably questionable.

An addendum from Fred Wilson (another one of the partners at USV): http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/01/why-we-need-an-independent-i... -

"But anyone who has spent a significant time in technology based businesses will understand that two groups working completely independently from each other will often solve a problem similarly. One group is not copying or ripping off the other group. They are simply coming to similar conclusions about how to get something done.

In these cases, it makes no sense to protect one group from the other. Nobody has taken anyone's "intellectual property." Both groups should own their inventions outright without having to license technology from the other."

That's a pretty cool program that's evolved with other NGO's using SMS messages to cell phones. The proliferation of mobiles and utility of cheap cell phones has been a massive boost to productivity in rural areas. One of the key market barriers continues to be consistent logistics given the shelf life of agricultural products which means some of these middlemen still have a significant upper hand.

"You clearly prefer a position where you don't innovate until your back is against the wall, and you mock anybody who does it earlier, and accuse them of not believing in innovation."

Where is the mocking? Again, the point being that the concerns over peak oil are wholly unnecessary - further to assume that anyone who uses the word "endless" in the context of any finite physical resource is hardly "dumb" as was suggested. Prices create the incentives for innovation - and that's not just when "your back is up against a wall" (any number of cheap emerging technologies being good examples). For someone who doesn't care, you seem terribly emotional and intent on personalizing the issue.

I believe your confusion stems from defining what you term a "conservationist". At first you use it to describe someone who worries about peak oil / the finite nature of oil (presuming you understood the original context of the discussion), and later you use it to describe an environmental conservationist - one who is concerned that the costs of resources are underpriced because of the effect on the environment - to which you've helpfully provided examples of strictly environmental externalities.

Markets aren't perfect problem-solving devices - no one has said that they are, however, the regulatory "cure" is often worse than the disease. Regulations are certainly not the ideal way to deal with concerns a given resource are finite. Further, prices are signals in markets that themselves call for market innovation/adaptation - vocal calls for conservation are redundant.

(As a side note: it is also noteworthy however that the drop in sulphur dioxide emissions happened far before the creation of regulated markets suggesting that the fall in SO2 might have occurred irrespective of the regulation - further, from purely an economic efficiency standpoint, pigouvian taxes tend to be more efficient than the added structure of artificial pollution markets. Further, as an addendum to acid rain/"dead lakes" - this was a big concern for Canada until someone noticed that the primary reason the lakes were dead was because of reduced logging and the sediment that it disturbed)

Not sure why you're trying so deliberately to be antagonistic. You state conservationists argue resources are "mispriced due to uncaptured externalities, and that this leads to overuse" (or misuse). How do you suppose these conservationists aim to correct these "externalities"?

Obviously they attempt to do more than point out an item is mispriced. Otherwise, their best course of action would be to buy resource XYZ as it's pure arbitrage in which case it is a bet against our ability to innovate and adapt.

edit: I notice you've modified a significant portion of your response and added a disclosure. I tend to agree that the grid will get smarter and we will become more energy agnostic. That merely goes back to proving the point that the markets themselves create the incentives for resources allocation - ie innovate and adapt and for this reason it has been historically foolish to bet that we will run out of a given resource.

Apparently still not true. Have a look here (California State Per Capita Revenue numbers) 2010E - State: $4015; State+Local: $9050 http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/CA_per_capita_revenue.htm...

and here (Texas State Per Capita Revenue numbers) 2010E - State: $2980; State+Local: $7041 http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/TX_per_capita_revenue.htm...

These tie better back to the US Census numbers (which are only as at 2004 but are on an apples-apples basis): http://www.census.gov/govs/state/04rank.html

The problem is that states do not report revenues in the same ways and some are clearly more creative than others.

> Nearly all instances of "we'll run out of oil" are calls to action to innovate

Hardly. In my experience, most alarmist calls about the finite nature of oil or resource xyz come with it a series of proposals to regulate or "conserve" whereas prices in and of themselves provide incentives to increase supply either through greater extraction/technology or substitutes.

I'm guessing there's something seriously different on the accounting between states (2004 Census - comparison between states): http://www.census.gov/govs/state/04rank.html

Shows California State's per capita consumption/expense at $6,397.23 / $5,686.48

For Texas State it's $4,030.37 / $3,441.53

Granted, it's 2004 numbers but at least it's more certain the numbers are being compared on the same basis.

I'm not sure how "dumb" it is to consider the economics of resource consumption/exploration/extraction. On a practical level, the last drop of oil will never be consumed or x resource mined because substitutes develop and markets are forward looking.

While this article doesn't talk about the substitutes specifically, have a look at the availability of natural gas as just an example of why energy prices will go down. What I think they suggest here though is that politics and technology make it more available. Now as for "serious analysis", it's impossible to predict what new technologies will show up in the future as the massive _new_ abundance in natural gas in the last couple years (compare to just 4-5 years ago) shows.

Now consider the emerging technologies that could have a major impact on reducing both cost and carbon dioxide emissions (e.g. thorium, pebblebed, thin film solar, concentrated solar, non-corn biofuels, etc.). To bet that we'll "run out" of oil/peak oil is to place a bet against our ability to innovate and adapt.

imdb was just blocked as well. I don't know of anyone who can figure out their logic for how they determine why and what sites get blocked and when. It's a fool's errand to try. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/technolo...

That they blocked Wired though (irrespective of people's views of the magazine), is doubly silly for what people can learn and speaks to the ever present threat censorship plays in innovation/web development in China.

Do you disagree with the conclusion or the use of uhaul data? While I don't think he proves all his points with respect to why people are leaving California, it is certainly surprising the cost differentials in Uhaul rates between California and Texas - which is indicative of migration demand/patterns irrespective of the "why".

http://industry.bnet.com/media/10003790/flat-world-knowledge... - Open source textbooks is another alternative - and a pretty exciting one at that.

Not sure how this relates to what karzeem has said. You're right, taxation can shape behaviour. So what do you suppose it's saying here? Let's tax and discourage a productive part of society - or at least a part that helps people get things done faster to subsidize an industry (that's already being protected and promoted by government) that people are not interested in enough to actually support with their own money?

Let's also not forget Quaero that the French tried to create as a counterbalance to supposedly American centric search for a total estimated amount of 293M Euros over 5 years! If the French government was that concerned about certain favored industries, why not just put their money there?

There is a moderated Hacker News LinkedIn group which would make it far easier (and be a better filter) - though I'm not sure if it's active: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=86116 run by http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=wheels

The report's more than a year old - December 30, 2008. I'd be curious how that's changed in the last year given how difficult markets have gotten for capital raising - especially for VCs and PE firms.

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice that and it was linked today by another source.

I wonder if this qualifies as "looking like a toy" - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1029069. This'll be sweet if true and if it hits the price points as described - I think TechCrunch was right about needing to hit the price point to get acceptance though it'll be interesting to see where Apple ends up pricing them (especially if it's true that they're targeting sales of 10M units).

Definitely not good for the JooJoo - since effectively this will probably mean they are competing against Apple's marketing/design while being squeezed out of the lower end of the market.

Add - a few more details here http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357588,00.asp

There's probably something to that. I do wonder whether for economists look at something like Walmart and see them doing more social good by making goods more affordable than XYZ charity (and arguably they do). I think when most of us think of "social good" we tend to idealize not for profits more than for profits, but there shouldn't be any reason why profitability doesn't equate to social good - in fact, arguably it does given that revenues by definition require that people want a service/product enough to pay for it.

Not sure I agree with that point. I admire those who are able to consistently separate emotions from decision making - and that's what I think economics training does for individuals when it comes to money and time. Of course, it can be taken to extremes and what may seen logical and rational on its face may not ultimately be viable/optimal especially when you take into account the emotions and reactions of others.