DIYbanter - View Single Post

John Beardmore

In message . com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message .com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore
said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

this is true of all the views on this thread, I'm not sure it really
tells us much.

Well - for a start, maybe it suggests that stating your own view as
though it is absolute self evident truth, spoken with absolute self
evident authority is a problem ?

Thats odd, cos I dont recall ever claiming any such a thing.

Not explicitly.

Its just
one more objection that doesnt stand up.

Oh I don't know. When you say something a tad patronising like

"John, the mechanics of different markets have been well
studied, neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been
well established over a good many years by various scholars on
the topic"

it makes my teeth itch. Unpacking that we have,

"John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied"

which is no doubt true, but that doesn't mean they've been well
understood ! Then

"neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well
established over a good many years by various scholars on the
topic"

which doesn't seem too clever either. All of which seems to be an
attempt to imply that this stuff is studied, accepted, well understood,
and not worthy of further discussion or criticism - in short that we
should accept it as an axiom.

Now - I'm not an economist, and I don't know that you are, but I have
written simulations of retail markets to train Deloitte Touche
accountants, and friends of mine from university went on to do modelling
of futures markets, so I'm not totally green about it either.

It seems to me that this is all way more complex and less well
understood than you would have us believe, and if you want me to accept
your view as an axiom, you'll have to be a lot more convincing than
this.

I don't think it's unfair to say that you wrote that as though we should
accept it as self evident truth, spoken with absolute self, and you
present it as if you know it to be unassailable and beyond question. I
could be wrong of course, but I doubt you've found anything in economic
theory that

a) maps particularly directly onto this problem,

or

b) has any particularly good model for accounting the use and / or
destruction of global commons.

And if you imply this without a firm foundation in economic theory, it
is disingenuous at best, and certainly not posted from a position of
authoritative knowledge.

However I'll venture as far to say one or 2 points this time probably
are self evident, which is rarely the case.

I'll venture to suggest that we wouldn't agree on which ones !

John, the mechanics of different markets have been well studied,
neither Andy nor anyone else need rehash what has been well established
over a good many years by various scholars on the topic.

There may be good scholars and bad scholars, but if Andy or anybody else
wants to gain popular support for his scheme, and in a democracy that's
what he needs, first he'll have to tell us what he proposes, and in some
detail, then he'll have to tell us why it's better, then we can make up
our own minds.

he has done.

Last thing I heard was his declining to make specific proposals !

If you want more info, there are already writings on
capitalism that can be consulted.

Asserting such, while true, is too vague to be useful. If you've got a
point, please make it specifically rather than alluding to some body of
knowledge which you expect to be out there.

There is no need or reason to rehash
such things.

There is every reason if you want me to act on the basis of your beliefs
rather than mine !

There is writing on all sorts of other things too, like ethics and the
environment. Start from the premiss that I'm about as keen to grub
about in academic works on economics as you to spend ages reading about
environmental ethics.

Your claim
that the known merits of the capitalist markerplace are a personal
ideology doesnt even begin to be true.

From what I've seen economics is not an exact science, and from what
I've seen there are certain things it does not address at all, like
protection of global commons ! These are well rehearsed arguments at
MBA level. It seems a bit spurious to only trot out one side of the
argument.

So our mostly capitalist system does not have fishing quotas? Our
mostly capitalist system does not legislate against flytipping? Fact is
our system does tackle the tragedy of the commons.

And yet we still have fish stocks in rapid decline in most parts of the
world !

What sort of tackling would this be ?

Anyway, protection of global commons is not a problem with refuse
collection today.

Another statement of your own view as though it is absolute self evident
truth, spoken with absolute self evident authority. Have you got no
idea at all that other people might not completely share your belief
system ?

If you haven't noticed that there are problems every possible waste
disposal method that affect global commons, you are simply a waste of
space from the point of view of this debate !

We have legislation in place to prevent what are now
illegal disposal methods.

Which doesn't mean that there is "not a problem with refuse collection
today".

This is another objection that doesnt stand up.

ROFL !!

While there are things that

a) we value,

or

b) we depend on,

that are not represented by simple cash values, economics will never
give a complete picture of any but the most artificial of situations
that can be fully described by simple market mechanics.

This is basic capitalist principles that anyone can read up.

The hell it is. Essentially it's an area that has been outside the
gamut of traditional capitalist thinking and description. If you
believe otherwise, cite your sources.

It is specifically the failure to deal with or value environmental
issues that makes the 'proposal' from Andy so questionable for so many
of us.

That isnt really so. If consumers want a green service, and most do,
thats what theyll buy.

Not if they want a cheaper service more, but the cheaper service may not
be [as] sustainable, so although cheaper in the shot term, the cheaper
solution may impose a greater cost on humanity as a whole, and on users
of the service in the longer term.

2ndly arguments such as that shipping waste plastic to china is a must
do are at best open to debate.

Better yet, they are open to LCA. Better to resolve and fix problems
from a position of knowledge than prejudice.

You seem unwilling to recognise that
there are some significant issues with the POV driving todays garbage
system in UK.

Oh no. I recognise that there are huge problems, but I don't think they
are best resolved by leaving it to the uninformed to make decisions,
without factual support, when they have short term financial incentives
to choose less sustainable solutions.

Given that he seems unable to engage with anything other than wild
allegations about local authorities and 'leaving it to the market',

'Leave it to the market' is the answer.

ROFL !

And he's gone into rather more
explantion that you give him credit for there.

Well - he's certainly aired his prejudices. I wouldn't dignify them
with the term "explanation".

I
suggest that his position is personal ideology -

Your claim that Andy's wish to let capitalism have a market is a
personal ideology is 100% bogus, and on this point, yes I do think this
is obvious, self evident. It has the reality-connectedness of a carrot
called gordon with 4 wings, 6 eyes and 100 noses.

Well - if he thinks there is justification, let him prove it by some
method other than repeated assertion !

at least in as far as
it doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced view,

of course, it isnt meant to be. Its no more balanced than your one
sided views, or mine.

Indeed, but if he can't justify his position, he won't get support for
the change he wants to make - which is pretty much fine by me.

it doesn't seem to
take the views of many stakeholders into account, and it's not shared by
all, (I suspect most), of the population.

No view is shared by all the population.

Well - his views aren't shared by a bunch of people in this news group
for a start, and I'm utterly certain we aren't the only ones, so that
assertion is toast too !

As for most, I would be
curious to see your evidence. If you have any

Well I guess it stems from the period when Derby was considering setting
up and EFW plant. There was very considerable debate about the whole
issue of waste disposal. I was involved, privately, talking to
activists, participating in public meetings, etc, but not one person
spoke in favour of setting up a number of competing services to cover
the same geographical areas, or 'leaving it to the market' !

The mechanics of markets my be "well established", but that doesn't mean
that introducing a market where there wasn't one [of the same type]
before, will bring about a situation that will be universally seen as
better.

John this is a nuts objection. In no political or market system on
earth is there ever a 100% consensus that its better than the last
system.

Fair point, but you have no evidence that it will be better at all.

Keep in mind my original comment:

"...if Andy or anybody else wants to gain popular support for his
scheme, and in a democracy that's what he needs, first he'll have
to tell us what he proposes, and in some detail, then he'll have to
tell us why it's better, then we can make up our own minds".

And if you want to bring about a situation that won't be seen as
better universally, in a democracy, you need to start convincing the
rest of us.

Why would I 'need' to do that do you think? It is an option, a choice,
one of many things I may or may not do with my life, and nothing more.

Well - you seem to be advocating a change, and if you want wide
support, my experience would suggest you'll have your work cut out.

Of course if you don't want change, that's fine, but you seem to putting
quite a bit of effort into arguing is support of Andys idea for someone
who isn't supporting it.

So start, or go whistle !

Charm school

Quite so.

John, you've argued page after page after page here,

Well - it seems worth trying to tease out what you think and why.

and still have not
come up with ANY valid objection to opening the market up to
capitalism. Not even one.

Well - you don't have to accept my arguments any more than I have to
accept yours. It doesn't particularly matter that we disagree.

Enjoy ! J/.
--
John Beardmore