RE: energy

[Mark Jones]

Rod Hay wrote:

> Charles It is not a matter of faith. It is a simple calculation. Amount
> of energy available minus amount used by humans in the course of their
> history. The result if a very large positive number. We are not going to
> run out of energy.
> 
> Alternatives to internal combustion engines are technological infants,
> but they are available and will soon be economic.


This is simply nonsense.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList

re: energy

[Rod Hay]

Let's stop this thread. All we get from Jones is invective. Not one
thread of evidence, except some stupid post that shows what every high
school math student knows -- exponential functions get large very
quickly.

Rod

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

re: energy

[Rod Hay]

Okay, Mark, please explain why no other energy technology is feasible.

Rod

--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada

Re: energy

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 05:09PM >>>
Charles It is not a matter of faith. It is a simple calculation. Amount
of energy available minus amount used by humans in the course of their
history. The result if a very large positive number. We are not going to
run out of energy.

_

CB: Mark Jones and Lou Proyect seem to get a different result for the difference than 
you with respect to fossil fuels.

"Amount of energy used by humans in the course of their history" has been drastically, 
"exponentially" less up until about two hundred years ago, no ? There was no internal 
combustion engine until about a hundred years ago. That means for the first 200,000 
years minus one hundred years there was almost no fossil fuel used compared to the 
last one hundred. I'm sure you are aware of exponential functions and all that. They 
explode.

__


Alternatives to internal combustion engines are technological infants,
but they are available and will soon be economic.



CB: Well, socialism is coming soon too, but will it be in time to avoid a major 
catastrophe. I mean real major.  It is not guaranteed that the logic of capital 
accumulation will be rational relative to developing the new energy technologies you 
mention. 

For example, GM caused our public mass transit system in Detroit to be ripped up in 
the 1930's so that they could sell more cars. Unless GM and its class partners are 
overthrown, they may sell out the human race on the new energy technologies you 
mention.

Perhaps a better example in reverse, the bourgeoisie caused the development of nuclear 
weapons, an affirmative technological development that is the destructive equivalent 
of not developing the new energy technologies you mention above. This demonstrates 
that capitalists are capable of species-suicide or species-catastrophe short of 
extinction,  levels of irrationality in trying to hold on to their profiteering 
system. Rather than let socialism develop, the capitalists instituted a nuclear 
weapons race to thwart it.

There is a tendency here to ignore that capitalists have developed the mode of 
destruction as fantastically as they has developed the mode of production, evincing 
thereby a world historic level of irrationality and tendency to 
species-suicide/catastrophe.

Right now, the U.S. is more focused on developing Star Wars, a dangerous extention of 
the nuclear arms race,  than the new energy technologies you mention.

I urge a lot less faith in the inevitable rationality of the bourgeoisie.

CB

RE: energy crisis

[Mark Jones]

Jim Devine wrote:
> >
> >>why is there this slowdown that the Fed
> >>can't help by reducing rates?
> >
> >Because it's more of a 19th century slowdown than a post-WW II
> one, with a
> >financial hangover from the burst Nasdaq/tech bubble, and a real sector
> >one from overinvestment in gadgets. It's probably going to take
> some time
> >to work through it.
>
> it's possible that if Greenspan keeps lowering rates, the U.S.
> economy will
> suddenly spurt forward. In that case, he'll have to raise them again to
> avoid inflation, which has always been his main concern.  Isn't this one
> reason why Uncle Miltie argued against fine-tuning?

If it did spurt forward, how would that change the fundamental imbalances in
the US economy, except adversely? In other words, it is simply nemesis
deferred, and for a price.

Mark Jones

RE: energy prices

[Mark Jones]

Jim Devine wrote:

> real energy prices (the consumer price index for energy divided by the
> over-all CPI for urban consumers) did see a big spike from 1999 to 2000
> (first 11 months), one akin to those of 1973-1974, 1978-1979, and
> 1979-1980
> in terms of size.

For those interested in seeing what the Fed itself thinks, Mark A. Hooker
wrote a paper in 1997 called Exploring the Robustness of the Oil
Price-Macroeconomy Relationship [Federal Reserve Board, Revised, October
1997 JEL Classification Codes E32, E37]:

>>Abstract:
This paper reexamines the oil price-macroeconomy relationship with rolling
Granger causality and structural stability tests. It finds that the
relationship broke down amidst the falling oil prices and market collapse of
the 1980s, suggesting misspecification of the oil price rather than a
weakened relationship. Some proposed respecifications of the oil price yield
considerable improvements, although they are not sufficient to achieve
Granger causality of output unless interest rates are excluded from the VAR.
There is some support for the explanation that oil prices affect the economy
indirectly by inducing monetary policy responses, but this is incomplete and
some evidence of misspecification remains. <<

Rather than hubris, this paper, if it truly represents any form of conscious
life inside the Fed, also reflects alarming degrees of denial.

The notion that oil prices do not vary much and are still historically low,
is misleading. Doug wrote:

> Prices are still low, whether measured relative to average hourly
> wages or a price index.

But this depends on your baseline and on how you think the price gets to be
specified in the first place. There is no true market-clearing price for
oil, so this is non-transparent. In the post World War II era US oil prices
have averaged $19.27 per barrel in 1996 dollars. Movements in U.S. oil
prices and production have seemed perverse. Real oil prices declined
slightly between 1947 and 1970, but US oil production nearly doubled. Real
oil prices doubled between 1970 and 1986, but US oil production declined 20
percent. US domestic energy prices have changed 1990-1998 as follows:

Motor Gasoline ($/ Gallon) $ 1.22 -- $ 1.12 (9%)
Residential Natural Gas ($/ 1,000 C Ft) $ 5.80 --  $ 6.80 + 17%
Electricity (¢/ Kw) 6.6¢ --  6.7¢ + 1%

These seemingly slight changes conceal striking details. As Michael Perelman
has already pointed out on this list:

>>while
the U.S pays for its oil imports in part with grain exports,
exports of grain and oil are each concentrated in a handful of countries
with grain coming largely from NorthAmerica and oil mostly from
the Middle East.

"The United States, which dominates grain exports even more than Saudi
Arabia does oil, is both the world's leading grain exporter and
its biggest oil importer. Ironically, all 11 members of OPEC are grain
importers.

"Using the price of wheat as a surrogate for grain prices, shifts in the
grain\oil exchange rate can be easily monitored. From 1950 through
1972, both wheat and oil prices were remarkably stable. In 1950, when
wheat was priced at $1.89 a bushel and oil at $1.71 a barrel, a
bushel of wheat could be exchanged for 1.1 barrels of oil. At any time
during the 22-year span, a bushel of wheat could be traded for a
barrel of oil on the world market.

"With the 1973 oil price hike, this began to change. By 1979, the year
of the second oil price increase, OPEC's strength had pushed the
exchange rate to roughly four to one. By 1982, when the price of oil had
climbed past $33 a barrel, the wheat\oil ratio had climbed to
eight to one. This steep rise in the purchasing power of oil led to one
of the greatest international transfers of wealth ever recorded.

"Today, 27 years after the first oil price hike, the terms of trade are
again shifting in favor of OPEC. With grain prices at their lowest
level in two decades and oil prices at the highest level, in a decade,
the wheat\oil ratio has  shifted to an estimated ten to one this year."<<
[25 September 2000, cite from Al Kreb's AgBiz Examiner ]

The world energy mix has changed little since 1972:

World Energy Mix
1972198019901999
Petroleum   46% 43% 40% 41%
Natural Gas 19% 19% 23% 24%
Total Hydrocarbon   65% 62% 63% 65%
Coal29% 29% 28% 25%
Nuclear 0.7%3%  7%  8%
Hydro   6.0%6%  2%  2%
Total   100%100%100%100%

Incidentally, Matt Simmons also wrote:

>>Over the course of the last two years, we let the stocks of spare supplies
for natural gas
in North America fall to their lowest levels ever and let the spare stock of
motor gasoline
fall to over 11 million barrels less than record low levels a year ago.
How serious is this energy crisis? Henry Kissinger described the Oil Shock
of 1973 as
the worst threat to our economy since World 

Re: Energy deregulation

[Eugene Coyle]

Neither of these are conservative "analyses" of the California energy
crisis.  Each is an off-the-top-of-the-head rant that could be written by any
right-leaning neophyte.

For a REALLY conservative analysis see the work of Univ. of Chicago
economist Lester Telser.  I quite agree with his analysis that electric power
must be regulated or publically-owned, otherwise cooperation (collusion)
among the producers is required for efficiency.  See my paper for extensive
quotes and citations.  And Professor Telser was kind enough to tell me that I
had gotten him correctly.

Gene Coyle

David Shemano wrote:

> For those interested, enclosed are conservative analyses of the California
> energy crisis:
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=75000389
>
> and
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20001228/t000123514.html
>
> I would be interested in your critique.
>
> David Shemano

Re: Energy deregulation

[kelley]

just for you  came off of Declan McCullagh's Politics and Technology List,

http://reason.com/ml/ml010401.html

Re: energy experts

[Margaret Coleman]

I think the energy crisis has been exacerbated by a few things: 1) those large
companies which have refused to sink any more capital into new plants until
they could get "super" profits in a de-regulated market.  2) the shortage of
natural gas.  3) our insatiable appetite for electricity.  (Can anyone explain
to me how this shortage of natural gas came about?)
Aside from that, there has already been a shortage in poorer neighborhoods for
years.  A year and a half ago, Washington Heights lost power in New York -- Con
Ed claimed they took just as good care of 'poor' neighborhoods (read non-white)
as wealthy ones, but the records proved otherwise.  Then this last summer,
there were a few power outgages in DC, but mysteriously, they lasted the
longest in southeaast and pg county.  I was just shocked as I sat around in my
hot, candle lit apartment, thinking about how the blacker the neighborhood, the
longer the outage.  maggie coleman

Jim Devine wrote:

> Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / L.A. TIMES (for more, see:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010109/t02285.html )
>
> Energy Experts Are Talking, but Who's Plugged In?
>
> Electricity: Academics say they've warned of a power crisis for years. Now
> some are media darlings, but state officials dismiss the professors as
> unrealistic.
>
> By JOHN M. GLIONNA, Times Staff Writer
>
> 
>
> But in the end, the economists ask, who's really listening [to these energy
> experts]?
>
> "It's frustrating," said Stanford's Wolak. "The evidence is out there--the
> reports advocating things that could have been done long ago to keep costs
> down. But with politicians, it has to blow up in their face. They're not
> taking advantage of a resource. We don't have all the answers, but we've
> been thinking about this much longer than they have."
>
> In a 1997 report for the California Energy Commission, Borenstein and other
> researchers predicted that electricity prices would soar in a deregulated
> market unless the power plant owners were broken up into numerous small
> firms. Otherwise, the report concluded, a few bigger companies could
> collectively mandate higher prices.
>
> "Policymakers said our findings were ridiculous," Borenstein said. "We were
> called alarmists."
>
> In recent meetings with politicians, Borenstein and others have suggested
> establishing a real-time pricing system in which electricity prices would
> rise during peak hours to encourage conservation. They also advocate that
> utilities form long-term purchase contracts with power plant owners to
> avoid having to resort to the volatile spot market.
>
> "The politicians nod and say, 'Good idea. Now I understand what I have to
> do.' But nobody's done a thing," Borenstein said. "The politicians are
> making trade-offs."
>
> Not so fast, say policymakers.
>
> "It's easy for academics to say higher prices are good for conservation,
> but we don't live in any hypothetical classroom or ivory tower," said an
> aide to a legislator close to the crisis, who spoke on the condition that
> he not be named. "They don't have to sell their ideas to real people. We
> live in a different world."
>
> John Roza, an aide to Sen. Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista), chief negotiator of
> deregulation law, said not even academics are all-knowing.
>
> "Economists have always complained their counsel isn't heeded--that if
> someone would only listen to them, things would happen," he said. "Their
> concept of conserving power has people turning down their air conditioners
> on the hottest day of the year. Economists have a very impoverished
> understanding of human behavior."
>
> 
>
> What's most interesting about this article is that it really doesn't say
> much more than the above about what policies UC-Berkeley's Energy Institute
> energy experts recommend. They want to have peak rate pricing, too.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: energy crises

[Jim Devine]

My old undergraduate economics advisor, William Nordhaus, presented a model 
back in the early 1970s (when I knew him) in which the growth of the 
economy encouraged high prices of the main resources used as energy 
sources, which then induced the search for new supplies, for new energy 
sources, and for new technology. This allowed the capitalist system (my 
words, not his) to recover from the energy crisis and to begin growing 
again, eventually to run into a new era of high energy costs. This theory 
-- which might allow for the government to help with the process of 
adaptation to high energy prices -- does not result in the destruction of 
the world by capitalist growth.

I'm not an expert on this subject at all, but what's wrong with the 
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy 
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time -- and that 
the capitalists might deal with the problem by cutting wages instead of 
following the Nordhaus path. In the US at least, the non-Nordhaus path was 
an important part of the political economy of the 1970s and 1980s, helping 
to explain the fall and/or stagnation of wages relative to labor 
productivity. But beyond that (if people agree with this point), what's 
wrong with the Nordhaus theory?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: re: energy

[Michael Perelman]

Rod, I don't think that it needs to be stopped, but certainly changed.
Mark, Mr. Minimus here thinks that you need to tone down your rhetoric.  I
think that we all know where you stand.  At this point, everything is
unprovable -- like global warming.  I don't mean that it is wrong.  I
largely agree with you, but no evidence can be mustered to convince people
easily.

At the same time, social change is difficult to organze and if you are
correct there is much work to do.  I don't think that you are merely an
agent of despair as some have suggested.  Given the organization of
society as it now stands, where do we start?

I would love to see a socialist rev., but it is not in the cards at this
moment.  What do we do right now to clean up the mess.

No more names or characterizations.  Let's just talk specifics for a
while.

Whether the problem is global warming, pollution or scarcity, what do we
do?  How do we communicate with an ordinary working class person or a
college professor?  Specifics?

Rod Hay wrote:

> Let's stop this thread. All we get from Jones is invective. Not one
> thread of evidence, except some stupid post that shows what every high
> school math student knows -- exponential functions get large very
> quickly.
>
> Rod
>
> --
> Rod Hay
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The History of Economic Thought Archive
> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> Batoche Books
> http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> 52 Eby Street South
> Kitchener, Ontario
> N2G 3L1
> Canada

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: re: energy

[M A Jones]

Rod, I'd be happy to debate you but metaphysical assertions about 'infinite
energy' which are easily + demonstrably untrue, are not a basis for debate.
So yes, quit this silly non-debate.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "Rod Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pen-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 11:11 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20899] re: energy


> Let's stop this thread. All we get from Jones is invective. Not one
> thread of evidence, except some stupid post that shows what every high
> school math student knows -- exponential functions get large very
> quickly.
>
> Rod
>
> --
> Rod Hay
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The History of Economic Thought Archive
> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> Batoche Books
> http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> 52 Eby Street South
> Kitchener, Ontario
> N2G 3L1
> Canada
>
>

Re: re: energy

[M A Jones]

Rod Hay wrote:
> Okay, Mark, please explain why no other energy technology is feasible.


This kind of thing is debated on Jay Hanson's list, where ex-vice presidents
of PV companies argue that PV's are the future and people answer them like
this:

From: Mark Boberg  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed Jun 28, 2000 11:02pm
Subject: PV (was RE: Re: Lynch recap)


--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Glenn Lieding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Investing today's oil-energy in manufacturing, deploying, and
> maintaining PV, in order to realize an energy return on that
> investment in the future, makes sense if the average rate of energy
> made available by the PV, multiplied by the lifespan of the PV,
> exceeds the total energy invested.

A real world test of PV viability would be for a PV manufacturer to
commit to building and operating a PV production facility using only
PV power to do it. Solarex (BPAmoco) has a plant with an impressive
all-PV roof. I sent them an Email asking whether that plant was self
sufficient. Their answer was: no, actually we are the second largest
electricity consumer in the county.

So, PV industry, if you're listening, here's the challenge:

1) Using your coolest, best, most efficient technology, build say 10
megawatts of PV panels. Acquire all the necessary mounts,trackers,
inverters, wire, batteries, controllers, etc. We won't even count the
energy required to make all this, its a freebie.

2) Find the best solar site in the World and set up your system
there.

3) Locate, lease, and set up the equipment necessary to construct a
PV plant from scratch. Select versions of all this stuff that will
run on PV electrical power (invent new versions as required - an
electric backhoe comes to mind). Use a PV powered truck, train, boat
to bring the equipment and raw materials to the site. The lease cost
of this stuff will be charged to the future PV production of the
plant
on an energy basis (ie equivalent PV panel lifetime energy
production).

4) Saw the wood, smelt the steel, burn the limestone for the cement,
crush the gravel, machine the bolts, dig the dirt,etc, etc, and erect
the building, all using the PV from your 10 megawatt system.

5) Locate, lease, and set up the equipment necessary to produce PV
panels complete (silicon production, wafer production, panel
assembly,
etc.) The lease cost for this stuff will also be charged to the
future PV production of the plant on an energy basis.

6) Operate the plant, the employee housing, the stores and utilities
supporting the employees, all from the 10 megawatt system. Don't
forget to pay the employees in scrip redeemable in PV panels.

7) Produce PV panels until "breakeven", which would be something like
10 megawatts worth (item 1) plus a bunch more (items 3, 5 and 6).

8) (Maybe) produce a bunch more "net" panels until the plant wears
out. Don't forget to subtract any panels made to replace "burnouts"
in your 10 megawatt array and PV panel scrip redemptions by the
employees (I'm guessing about one to three 100 watt panels per
employee per week).

9) Divide the number of panels produced by the number of "breakeven"
panels in item 7). If the number is say, 2.0 or more, you win. Less
than 2.0, we all lose.

This isn't really an unreasonable challenge, IF PV really has what it
takes to replace some significant portion of the hydrocarbon energy
demand.

So, how about it? Solarex? Siemens? Koyocera? Solec? Anybody?

Re: RE: energy crisis

[Jim Devine]

At 09:47 PM 6/21/01 +0100, you wrote:
> > it's possible that if Greenspan keeps lowering rates, the U.S.
> > economy will
> > suddenly spurt forward. In that case, he'll have to raise them again to
> > avoid inflation, which has always been his main concern.  Isn't this one
> > reason why Uncle Miltie argued against fine-tuning?
>
>If it did spurt forward, how would that change the fundamental imbalances in
>the US economy, except adversely? In other words, it is simply nemesis
>deferred, and for a price.

exactly: that's what I said -- in a sketchy way -- in the part you elided. 
However, we may disagree on the nature of the "fundamental imbalances."

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: RE: energy prices

[Doug Henwood]

Mark Jones wrote:

>Jim Devine wrote:
>
>>  real energy prices (the consumer price index for energy divided by the
>>  over-all CPI for urban consumers) did see a big spike from 1999 to 2000
>>  (first 11 months), one akin to those of 1973-1974, 1978-1979, and
>>  1979-1980
>>  in terms of size.
>
>For those interested in seeing what the Fed itself thinks, Mark A. Hooker
>wrote a paper in 1997 called Exploring the Robustness of the Oil
>Price-Macroeconomy Relationship [Federal Reserve Board, Revised, October
>1997 JEL Classification Codes E32, E37]:
>
>>>Abstract:
>This paper reexamines the oil price-macroeconomy relationship with rolling
>Granger causality and structural stability tests. It finds that the
>relationship broke down amidst the falling oil prices and market collapse of
>the 1980s, suggesting misspecification of the oil price rather than a
>weakened relationship. Some proposed respecifications of the oil price yield
>considerable improvements, although they are not sufficient to achieve
>Granger causality of output unless interest rates are excluded from the VAR.
>There is some support for the explanation that oil prices affect the economy
>indirectly by inducing monetary policy responses, but this is incomplete and
>some evidence of misspecification remains. <<
>
>Rather than hubris, this paper, if it truly represents any form of conscious
>life inside the Fed, also reflects alarming degrees of denial.

Surely there's more to life than Granger causality, but how do you 
respond to the statistical point, Mark - that oil prices don't 
explain that much about growth rates?

Doug

Re: Energy and politics

[Tom Walker]

Gene Coyle wrote:

>This I fear is going to seem doubly or triply provincial.  First it is
>California centered, second energy centered, and third USA centered.
>But here goes.

I wish I could do that self-effacing bit. Gene, what happens to energy
prices if there is a considerable slowdown in the economy, particularly in
the tech sector? Are they sensitive to relatively small changes in demand?



Tom Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Bowen Island, BC

Re: Energy and politics.

[Rob Schaap]

Scary post, Gene!

And a hard winter in Europe and North America may compress much of the story
into very little time, eh?  I imagine richer Californians are on to roof
solar cells in a big way.  Is there a plan in California by which a
households' excess power is directed back into the grid, btw?  I'd imagine
this'd hardly threaten an excess production problem, so even a
megabroker-controlled utility wouldn't mind paying wholesale rates for those
bits of potential embarrassment-avoidance.  

As for the rest of your scenario, I really can't imagine Californians
letting coal power back.  Red is all but dead, but green is still big there.
 Non-compliance with Kyoto can easily be dressed up as a proud recovery of
national sovereignty on the part of a much put-upon Uncle Sam (I dare say it
already is).  And as for global warming, I imagine that'll kill
Bangladeshis, Malvinans and Tongans first.  So no problem there.  Then the
West European economies will lose the Guinea current and their economies
will ice up.  Mebbe even some short-term advantage there for US producers. 
But, yeah, whilst America might ride the first physical assaults the more
comfortably, its time will come.  As everyone else'll be well-fucked by
then, whatever they might choose to do then won't matter much.

Maybe I spend too much time on Crash-L (I do tend to see climate in this
weather everyone's having), but I can't help but feel what went on at the
Hague last month, coupled with the unprecedented primacy of 'shareholder
value' and the ascendancy of that Sahara Club posterboy, well, it all looks
like there's absolutely nothing in our institutions and dispositions capable
of responding to any of this (oil-dependence, aquifer-depletion,
soil-degradation and fisheries-disembowelment all included).  Nope.  If
anything positive is gonna transpire - and if there be time for it to
transpire, well, it'll have to take the form of some kinda overwhelming
extra-institutional groundswell.

And it ain't like anyone's in any position to spot a point-of-no-return,
either.  That point will declare itself, I fear, in the denouement itself. 
As Steven Wright reminds us, experience is something you get just after you
needed it.

He also says a fool and his money are soon partying, so I'm off for some
Vat69 and a blast of Junior Wells (it'll have to be a CD sadly; no turntable
in the shed) ... snatch it back and hold it ... somebody gotta help us, coz
we can't help ourselves ...

Sigh.

Gargling and puffing amongst the Huntsman spiders (and a stunning hawkmoth
caterpillar  - dauntingly horned at the front, fat and sleekly green all the
four centimetres to the false eyes glaring at me from atop a modest
fundament whence might issue the very tribute of which the 'Bureau of
Transport and Communications Economics Report on Diffusion of
Communications, Entertainment and Information Services' beneath it is so
deserving),
Rob.

>Let me conclude by saying that I think this is heralding a major
>political earthquake.  But I have no sense of what the place will look
>like after the first few shock waves.

RE: Re: Energy deregulation

[David Shemano]

Can't you humor me?

I am perfectly willing to be convinced that electrical utilities should be
regulated or publicly-owned.  What is the argument?  If the argument is
"deregulation is a failure -- look at California", then I want to know your
response to the arguments cited, which as you point out are obvious to any
right-leaning neophyte.  Coming from my conservative mind-set, citing the
present California energy situation as an example of the failure of
deregulation is preposterous for the reasons set forth in the articles.

I am sure there are numerous reasons for regulating or publicly-owning
utilities.  Electricity is a basic human need and we need to protect poor
people.  Conserve energy.  Democratic control over the means of production
is inherently good.  For utilities to be profitable, they need to be
monopolies or otherwise collude, and that's a bad thing.  I am sure there
are a host of others.  But if you are going to argue that the chaos in
California evidences that deregulation is empirically inefficent compared to
regulation or public ownership measured by the standards set by a market
economy, I don't see it.  Maybe you can convince me.

David Shemano




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:6578] Re: Energy deregulation


Neither of these are conservative "analyses" of the California energy
crisis.  Each is an off-the-top-of-the-head rant that could be written by
any
right-leaning neophyte.

For a REALLY conservative analysis see the work of Univ. of Chicago
economist Lester Telser.  I quite agree with his analysis that electric
power
must be regulated or publically-owned, otherwise cooperation (collusion)
among the producers is required for efficiency.  See my paper for extensive
quotes and citations.  And Professor Telser was kind enough to tell me that
I
had gotten him correctly.

Gene Coyle

David Shemano wrote:

> For those interested, enclosed are conservative analyses of the California
> energy crisis:
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=75000389
>
> and
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20001228/t000123514.html
>
> I would be interested in your critique.
>
> David Shemano

Re: Re: Energy deregulation

[Jeffrey L. Beatty]

I think David Shemano's newspapers articles deserve a more serious response
than the ones they've been getting from PEN-L listers.  Specifically, it
would be nice if Gene or Jim or someone of similar knowledge of
California's energy deregulation could comment on a couple of issues raised
by the articles.

(1)  The argument, alluded to in both articles, that environmentalists and
consumer groups are to blame for the failure of California's generation
capacity to expand.  

(2)  The argument from the LA Times piece that the deregulation law
deprived California's utilities of the efficiencies of vertical integration
and long-term contracting (there would seem to be a transaction-cost
argument for both in the case of electric utilities).

(3)  The argument from the Wall Street Journal piece that consumers, who
enjoyed fixed rates under the deregulation scheme, have no incentive to
conserve energy.

 
--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__   
If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest
common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter

RE: Re: Energy deregulation

[David Shemano]

Eugene Coyle generously forwarded to me his report prepared for the American
Public Power Association concerning the expected consequences of
deregulating the electrical power industry, which I have been able to skim.
It is very compelling and I am in agreement of much of what it says in its
analysis. (I assume we disagree on the policy conclusions.)  But again, it
has nothing to with what is going on in California.

It appears to me, based on the "conservative" articles, that the California
electical power industry remains one of the most regulated industries in the
United States.  The ability to build a power plant is heavily regulated.
The ability to set retail prices remains heavily regulated.  The ability for
power providers to negotiate contracts to purchase powers from wholesalers
is heavily regulated.  The very market established by the deregulation
scheme is heavily regulated.

Assuming all of the above is true, and all that was "deregulated" was the
limited ability of retail providers to purchase power from wholesale
providers, how in the world is California a failure of "deregulation."  Why
isn't it a failure of the ability of central planners to selectively create
and utilize markets?

I think my question concerns more of rhetoric than substance.  Is your
criticism of the "deregulation" of the California energy market truly a
belief that the chaos is attributable to the lack of central planning and
regulation, or is it mere rhetoric in order to link the idea of
"deregulation" to the chaos?  Or is the language gulf between us so great
that you and I are using the word "deregulation" in totally different ways?

David Shemano


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kelley
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:6658] Re: Energy deregulation


just for you  came off of Declan McCullagh's Politics and Technology
List,

http://reason.com/ml/ml010401.html

Re: Re: energy experts

[Eugene Coyle]

I read the LA Times article that Jim forwarded.  I almost want to
laugh at these neo-classical economists who have made money advising that
deregulation is a good idea now crying that nobody listens to them. 
People did listen to them and that's why we are in this mess.  And
their ideas for getting out of it are pathetic.
    Here's a quote from one of them, Borenstein of UC
Berkeley, from the Sacrmento Bee of a few days ago:
 

    "The solution is real-time pricing and long-term
    contracts. They're a boring solution but they'll
    work," he said.



And one of the others, Frank Wolak of Stanford, has been repeating and
repeating that long-term contracts would have avoided this whole thing. 
It is possible that long contracts would have disguised this but
would have done no more but lock us into overpaying for electricity --
but at a level where the outrage wouldn't have fed a shot at fixing this.
Gene Coyle
 
Margaret Coleman wrote:
I think the energy crisis has been exacerbated by
a few things: 1) those large
companies which have refused to sink any more capital into new plants
until
they could get "super" profits in a de-regulated market.  2) the
shortage of
natural gas.  3) our insatiable appetite for electricity. 
(Can anyone explain
to me how this shortage of natural gas came about?)
Aside from that, there has already been a shortage in poorer neighborhoods
for
years.  A year and a half ago, Washington Heights lost power in
New York -- Con
Ed claimed they took just as good care of 'poor' neighborhoods (read
non-white)
as wealthy ones, but the records proved otherwise.  Then this
last summer,
there were a few power outgages in DC, but mysteriously, they lasted
the
longest in southeaast and pg county.  I was just shocked as I
sat around in my
hot, candle lit apartment, thinking about how the blacker the neighborhood,
the
longer the outage.  maggie coleman
Jim Devine wrote:
> Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / L.A. TIMES (for more, see:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010109/t02285.html
)
>
> Energy Experts Are Talking, but Who's Plugged In?
>
> Electricity: Academics say they've warned of a power crisis for years.
Now
> some are media darlings, but state officials dismiss the professors
as
> unrealistic.
>
> By JOHN M. GLIONNA, Times Staff Writer
>
> 
>
> But in the end, the economists ask, who's really listening [to these
energy
> experts]?
>
> "It's frustrating," said Stanford's Wolak. "The evidence is out there--the
> reports advocating things that could have been done long ago to keep
costs
> down. But with politicians, it has to blow up in their face. They're
not
> taking advantage of a resource. We don't have all the answers, but
we've
> been thinking about this much longer than they have."
>
> In a 1997 report for the California Energy Commission, Borenstein
and other
> researchers predicted that electricity prices would soar in a deregulated
> market unless the power plant owners were broken up into numerous
small
> firms. Otherwise, the report concluded, a few bigger companies could
> collectively mandate higher prices.
>
> "Policymakers said our findings were ridiculous," Borenstein said.
"We were
> called alarmists."
>
> In recent meetings with politicians, Borenstein and others have suggested
> establishing a real-time pricing system in which electricity prices
would
> rise during peak hours to encourage conservation. They also advocate
that
> utilities form long-term purchase contracts with power plant owners
to
> avoid having to resort to the volatile spot market.
>
> "The politicians nod and say, 'Good idea. Now I understand what I
have to
> do.' But nobody's done a thing," Borenstein said. "The politicians
are
> making trade-offs."
>
> Not so fast, say policymakers.
>
> "It's easy for academics to say higher prices are good for conservation,
> but we don't live in any hypothetical classroom or ivory tower,"
said an
> aide to a legislator close to the crisis, who spoke on the condition
that
> he not be named. "They don't have to sell their ideas to real people.
We
> live in a different world."
>
> John Roza, an aide to Sen. Steve Peace (D-Chula Vista), chief negotiator
of
> deregulation law, said not even academics are all-knowing.
>
> "Economists have always complained their counsel isn't heeded--that
if
> someone would only listen to them, things would happen," he said.
"Their
> concept of conserving power has people turning down their air conditioners
> on the hottest day of the year. Economists have a very impoverished
> understanding of human behavior."
>
> 
>
> What's most interesting about this article is that it really doesn't
say
> much more than the above about what policies UC-Berkeley's Energy
Institute
> energy experts recommend. They want to have peak rate pricing, too.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: energy experts

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

From: 


Underinvestment: The Energy Technology and R&D Policy Challenge



Margolis, Robert M., and Daniel M. Kammen. "Underinvestment: The Energy
Technology and R&D Policy Challenge." Science 285 (30 July 1999): 689-692.
This journal is available online: Science
For further information regarding this publication, contact Robert Margolis
via email


Stimulating 'Green' Technological Innovation: An Analysis of Alternative
Policy Mechanisms
Norberg-Bohm, Vicki. "Stimulating 'Green' Technological Innovation: An
Analysis of Alternative Policy Mechanisms." Policy Sciences 32 (1999):
13-38.


How many day traders reading this stuff? How many folks at Goldman Sachs?


Ian

Re: Energy deregulation & GATS

[Jim Devine]

It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current 
energy crunch, which seems to have shut pen-l down for awhile: he could 
allow electricity retail prices to rise, while allowing California 
consumers to write off electricity costs on their state income taxes this 
year. (The latter is possible because the state government is running a 
budget surplus.)  This is not the best solution, but it would work, perhaps 
to give breathing room to allow a better solution. Gene, what do you think?

At 05:49 PM 1/22/01 -0800, you wrote:

>The Globe and Mail  January
>22, 2001
>
>U.S. touts California-style power plan
>
> By Barrie McKenna
>
>SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. government is pushing California-
>style power deregulation on the rest of the world even as the state's
>controversial electricity free market experiment continues to unravel
>at home.
> Just weeks before Californians were hit with the first power
>blackouts since the Second World War, the United States was
>quietly lobbying in Geneva to convince Canada and other U.S.
>trading partners that electricity deregulation should be an integral
>part of a proposed free trade in services deal.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Energy Cost Question

[enilsson]

Michael wrote:
 
  >How soon will high energy prices lead to a strident
  >call to remove what environmental protections are left?

>From today's LA Times:

-

Pollution Rules Tighten Squeeze on Power Supply

California's already severe electricity squeeze could tighten further this 
summer if regulators don't ease up on air pollution rules, power company 
officials said Friday. ..

-

Eric

Re: Re: energy crises

[Michael Perelman]

Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology.  I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

RE: Re: energy crises

[Mark Jones]

Jim Devine wrote:
>what's wrong with the
> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time

It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
because they are not alternatives)

Mark

RE: Re: energy crises

[Charles Brown]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/00 04:30PM >>>


Jim Devine wrote:
>what's wrong with the
> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time

It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
because they are not alternatives)

)))

CB: Solar ?

Re: Re: energy crises

[Bill Burgess]

I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is undeniable that 
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of 
non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the 
outragious rate of consumption in rich countries.

For example, according to a textbook by Agnew and Knox, in 1975 worldwide 
proven reserves of crude oil were 650 billion barrels. By 1985 they had 
risen to 765 billion barrels, and by 1995 they rose to 1 trillion barrels.

Of course, the geographical distribution of oil reserves is important: 
reserves in Europe and N. America were lower in 1995 than in 1975. And, as 
has been mentioned, there are lots of 'externalities' involved, including 
the nasty sunburn I got last week, apparently partly because there are now 
more UV rays caused by ozone-depletion.

I think Hegel and Marx's distinction between barrier and limit can be 
useful when thinking about nature and capitalism - very crudely, nature is 
a barrier; workers and allies are a (potential) limit.

Bill

Re: RE: energy crises

[Bill Burgess]

Just to be clear, I was not referring to the accumulated natural production 
over millions of years (see below), but to the 'proven reserves' that are a 
function of current technology and priceand world politics.

If Mark rejects the 'official' estimates of (rising) oil reserves I quoted, 
how do we guess if there is 10 years or 1,000 years worth left? How much is 
in the Alberta tar sands?

I wrote that technology and prices can (not _will_) increase reserves 
faster than consumption; I suppose I should have added under certain 
conditions, and for a time, but I didn't realize this was necessary.

The point is that capitalism has access to more oil now than when OPEC 
shook things up in the 1970s, and real oil prices can still rise a lot 
before they reach heights that capitalism was able to stumble over without 
falling flat on its back.

Sorry, it is not abundantly clear to me why dwindling oil is a sound 
political focus for anti-capitalists.

Bill:
> > I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
> > undeniable that
> > better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
> > non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the
> > outragious rate of consumption in rich countries.

Mark:
>This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate
>these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely
>no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the
>evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear.

and, that
 >What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate
 >under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of
 >no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle
 >NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've used it
 >in 250 years.

Re: re: energy (fwd)

[md7148]

o la la.. Jay Hanson's energy list serv? never been to, but it must be
interesting. Jay is a phenomenal guy personality wise. Three basic ideas
he subscribes to in every occasion I have been to: 1) genetic roots of
authoritarianism 2)inherent destructiveness of human nature 3)
inevitability of energy crisis. 

I *love* Hobbesians when they present themselves as Marxists...

bye,

Mine


>This kind of thing is debated on Jay Hanson's list, where ex-vice
>presidents >of PV companies argue that PV's are the future and people
answer them >like >this From: Mark Boberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed Jun 28,
2000 11:02pm Subject: PV (was RE: Re: Lynch recap) 


--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Glenn Lieding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Investing today's oil-energy in manufacturing, deploying, and
> maintaining PV, in order to realize an energy return on that
> investment in the future, makes sense if the average rate of energy
> made available by the PV, multiplied by the lifespan of the PV,
> exceeds the total energy invested.

A real world test of PV viability would be for a PV manufacturer to
commit to building and operating a PV production facility using only
PV power to do it. Solarex (BPAmoco) has a plant with an impressive
all-PV roof. I sent them an Email asking whether that plant was self
sufficient. Their answer was: no, actually we are the second largest
electricity consumer in the county.

So, PV industry, if you're listening, here's the challenge:

1) Using your coolest, best, most efficient technology, build say 10
megawatts of PV panels. Acquire all the necessary mounts,trackers,
inverters, wire, batteries, controllers, etc. We won't even count the
energy required to make all this, its a freebie.

2) Find the best solar site in the World and set up your system
there.

3) Locate, lease, and set up the equipment necessary to construct a
PV plant from scratch. Select versions of all this stuff that will
run on PV electrical power (invent new versions as required - an
electric backhoe comes to mind). Use a PV powered truck, train, boat
to bring the equipment and raw materials to the site. The lease cost
of this stuff will be charged to the future PV production of the
plant
on an energy basis (ie equivalent PV panel lifetime energy
production).

4) Saw the wood, smelt the steel, burn the limestone for the cement,
crush the gravel, machine the bolts, dig the dirt,etc, etc, and erect
the building, all using the PV from your 10 megawatt system.

5) Locate, lease, and set up the equipment necessary to produce PV
panels complete (silicon production, wafer production, panel
assembly,
etc.) The lease cost for this stuff will also be charged to the
future PV production of the plant on an energy basis.

6) Operate the plant, the employee housing, the stores and utilities
supporting the employees, all from the 10 megawatt system. Don't
forget to pay the employees in scrip redeemable in PV panels.

7) Produce PV panels until "breakeven", which would be something like
10 megawatts worth (item 1) plus a bunch more (items 3, 5 and 6).

8) (Maybe) produce a bunch more "net" panels until the plant wears
out. Don't forget to subtract any panels made to replace "burnouts"
in your 10 megawatt array and PV panel scrip redemptions by the
employees (I'm guessing about one to three 100 watt panels per
employee per week).

9) Divide the number of panels produced by the number of "breakeven"
panels in item 7). If the number is say, 2.0 or more, you win. Less
than 2.0, we all lose.

This isn't really an unreasonable challenge, IF PV really has what it
takes to replace some significant portion of the hydrocarbon energy
demand.

So, how about it? Solarex? Siemens? Koyocera? Solec? Anybody?

RE: Re: RE: energy prices

[Mark Jones]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> how do you
> respond to the statistical point, Mark - that oil prices don't
> explain that much about growth rates?

Hooker doesn't succeed in arguing that. How could he? Oil prices are
arbitrary in any case, since there are huge concealed subsidies to the oil
patch and a huge military investment in securing the sealanes, oilfields
etc. Naturally Hooker doesn't even consider these issues. It is not just
that these hidden overheads almost double the posted price of oil, it's that
they represent such enormous social investments in procuring energy, which
is of course a basic input into these same activities, that the true cost of
energy is literally incalculable in any case, because there is too much
circularity. And none of this takes account of the unadmitted externalities
of the petroleum economy. Odum and others have tried to make these
calculations not in economic terms but in physical energy-input terms, as
you know, but they have not succeeded either, because they have not been
able to escape the same logical circularity.

It is more instructive and it is also feasible, to compare changes in
energy-inputs with changes in productivity over time, as Cutler and
Cleveland successfully did: what they showed is that almost all historical
improvement in productivity is associated with the change from less to more
efficient types of energy. This is why the history of capitalism has
occurred in the form of cycles in each of which one form of fossil energy
and its derivatives, is replaced by another.

What this means is that the 'ingenuity' you laud may have a role in
utilising a plentiful supply of energy, when that becomes available, but not
in making it available in the first place (that depends on accidents of
nature). Ingenuity may help in substituting one kind of energy for another
but substitutability is not infinite in the case of energy and so this idea
('infinite substitutability') does not apply to energy. Samuelson and
Adelman got it wrong. No kind of ingenuity has yet, for example, made fusion
work or made any type of renewable energy, economically viable compared to
fossil. These are the fundamentals which you ignore at your peril. This is
why your optimism is unfounded: Liebig's Law of the Minimum definitely
applies.

Incidentally, and also about ingenuity, as Alf Hornborg pointed out, the
technical ingenuity of the West did not succeed in creating 'growth' except
at the price of impoverishing the peripheries: machinery embodies entropy,
which is another thing that neither you nor Yoshie seem to take on board.
Your Panglossian optimism is based on one of the oldest, most cherished and
most pernicious of bourgeois illusions: the 'trickle-down' idea that
'prosperity' can be shared. It cannot, and on the contrary, capitalist
growth has, as Freeman points out, only increased inequality and social
injustice on a world scale. It is usual to try to counter this fact by
pointing to increased longevity etc in the Third World, but such arguments
are mendacious and cynical, and it is easy to show why.

Mark Jones

Re: Re: Energy and politics.

[Eugene Coyle]

Rob, there IS a plan in California to sell excess power back into the grid. 
It is in the law, and is called "Net metering."  The law has been
changed a couple of times but I think it is now set up so that you could
actually get cash at the end of the year if you supplied a net amount. 
This is for photovoltaics, not for other sources.  There is no talk
of solar water heating or other sensible ideas.
    In terms of coal, I agree it won't be built in California
-- but the good folks in Utah would gladly have the pollution and send
us the electricity.  Same with Wyoming and Montana.
    Gov. Davis said publically yesterday or the day before
that the State of Calif might build power plants if no other fix came along.
Tom Walker asked if high tech usage would go down with a recession. 
Yes, but maybe not by too much.  One of the big new energy hogs are
the "server hotels" -- big warehouses full of computer servers for the
internet, gobbling up power.  I'd guess those would keep sucking up
the juice, though maybe the increase in the number of servers would slow
down.  Anybody know why those have to be in California?  Or can
they be anywhere?  Why not put them in the coal fields, next to a
mine-mouth power plant, and at least save the transmission losses?
    Meanwhile the economists at the better schools tell
us to charge marginal cost and buy forward.  That will take care of
it.  In response, I am trying to write a single equation that will
solve this problem.  I keep coming up with E = MC2. 
Might work.
    Actually part of the phenomenal increase in prices
up and down the West Coast is the auction method in Calif.  Any supplier
that gets dispatched gets paid the price of the most expensive bidder that
gets dispatched.  The profits are enormous.
Gene Coyle
Rob Schaap wrote:
Scary post, Gene!
And a hard winter in Europe and North America may compress much of the
story
into very little time, eh?  I imagine richer Californians are
on to roof
solar cells in a big way.  Is there a plan in California by which
a
households' excess power is directed back into the grid, btw? 
I'd imagine
this'd hardly threaten an excess production problem, so even a
megabroker-controlled utility wouldn't mind paying wholesale rates
for those
bits of potential embarrassment-avoidance.
As for the rest of your scenario, I really can't imagine Californians
letting coal power back.  Red is all but dead, but green is still
big there.
 Non-compliance with Kyoto can easily be dressed up as a proud
recovery of
national sovereignty on the part of a much put-upon Uncle Sam (I dare
say it
already is).  And as for global warming, I imagine that'll kill
Bangladeshis, Malvinans and Tongans first.  So no problem there. 
Then the
West European economies will lose the Guinea current and their economies
will ice up.  Mebbe even some short-term advantage there for US
producers.
But, yeah, whilst America might ride the first physical assaults the
more
comfortably, its time will come.  As everyone else'll be well-fucked
by
then, whatever they might choose to do then won't matter much.
Maybe I spend too much time on Crash-L (I do tend to see climate in
this
weather everyone's having), but I can't help but feel what went on
at the
Hague last month, coupled with the unprecedented primacy of 'shareholder
value' and the ascendancy of that Sahara Club posterboy, well, it all
looks
like there's absolutely nothing in our institutions and dispositions
capable
of responding to any of this (oil-dependence, aquifer-depletion,
soil-degradation and fisheries-disembowelment all included). 
Nope.  If
anything positive is gonna transpire - and if there be time for it
to
transpire, well, it'll have to take the form of some kinda overwhelming
extra-institutional groundswell.
And it ain't like anyone's in any position to spot a point-of-no-return,
either.  That point will declare itself, I fear, in the denouement
itself.
As Steven Wright reminds us, experience is something you get just after
you
needed it.
He also says a fool and his money are soon partying, so I'm off for
some
Vat69 and a blast of Junior Wells (it'll have to be a CD sadly; no
turntable
in the shed) ... snatch it back and hold it ... somebody gotta help
us, coz
we can't help ourselves ...
Sigh.
Gargling and puffing amongst the Huntsman spiders (and a stunning hawkmoth
caterpillar  - dauntingly horned at the front, fat and sleekly
green all the
four centimetres to the false eyes glaring at me from atop a modest
fundament whence might issue the very tribute of which the 'Bureau
of
Transport and Communications Economics Report on Diffusion of
Communications, Entertainment and Information Services' beneath it
is so
deserving),
Rob.
>    Let me conclude by saying that I think this is heralding
a major
>political earthquake.  But I have no sense of what the place
will look
>like after the first few shock waves.

Re: RE: Re: Energy deregulation

[Eugene Coyle]

David, I wrote, well before the California chaos, that electric deregulation
can't work.  I have just dug up a transcript from 1994 when the then CPUC was
holding "hearings" on deregulation.  (I put hearings in quotes because they
were like many hearings, designed to provide a justification for what had
already been decided.)  I told the CPUC then that this mess would occur.  I
even used the word "mess."

Humoring you by arguing with you on the list is beyond my time allotment.

I will forward to you off list the paper I wrote about why de-reg won't and
can't work.  And it contains, as I said before, extensive quotes from a very
conservative economist explaining why "cooperation" between producers is
necessary in this sort of industry.  And HE concludes that regulation or public
ownership is necessary.

I have enjoyed telling people "I told you so" as the California chaos
unfolds, and use it as an example of what happens.  But the chaos is not the
basis of my conclusions.

Gene Coyle

David Shemano wrote:

> Can't you humor me?
>
> I am perfectly willing to be convinced that electrical utilities should be
> regulated or publicly-owned.  What is the argument?  If the argument is
> "deregulation is a failure -- look at California", then I want to know your
> response to the arguments cited, which as you point out are obvious to any
> right-leaning neophyte.  Coming from my conservative mind-set, citing the
> present California energy situation as an example of the failure of
> deregulation is preposterous for the reasons set forth in the articles.
>
> I am sure there are numerous reasons for regulating or publicly-owning
> utilities.  Electricity is a basic human need and we need to protect poor
> people.  Conserve energy.  Democratic control over the means of production
> is inherently good.  For utilities to be profitable, they need to be
> monopolies or otherwise collude, and that's a bad thing.  I am sure there
> are a host of others.  But if you are going to argue that the chaos in
> California evidences that deregulation is empirically inefficent compared to
> regulation or public ownership measured by the standards set by a market
> economy, I don't see it.  Maybe you can convince me.
>
> David Shemano
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:6578] Re: Energy deregulation
>
> Neither of these are conservative "analyses" of the California energy
> crisis.  Each is an off-the-top-of-the-head rant that could be written by
> any
> right-leaning neophyte.
>
> For a REALLY conservative analysis see the work of Univ. of Chicago
> economist Lester Telser.  I quite agree with his analysis that electric
> power
> must be regulated or publically-owned, otherwise cooperation (collusion)
> among the producers is required for efficiency.  See my paper for extensive
> quotes and citations.  And Professor Telser was kind enough to tell me that
> I
> had gotten him correctly.
>
> Gene Coyle
>
> David Shemano wrote:
>
> > For those interested, enclosed are conservative analyses of the California
> > energy crisis:
> >
> > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=75000389
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20001228/t000123514.html
> >
> > I would be interested in your critique.
> >
> > David Shemano

Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation

[Jim Devine]

>I think David Shemano's newspapers articles deserve a more serious response
>than the ones they've been getting from PEN-L listers.  Specifically, it
>would be nice if Gene or Jim or someone of similar knowledge of
>California's energy deregulation could comment on a couple of issues raised
>by the articles.

I don't have time to go read the articles, so I'll answer off the top of my 
head. (So consider my answers in that light.)

>(1)  The argument, alluded to in both articles, that environmentalists and 
>consumer groups are to blame for the failure of California's generation 
>capacity to expand.

environmental restrictions can limit the ability of private businesses to 
build new generators (though I'm not sure whether they do or not, since I 
don't know the law). However, this cost has to be balanced against the 
benefit, i.e., a cleaner environment. That's not measured in GDP, but it's 
quite important.

I don't know how consumer groups have had a negative effect on the building 
of new generators, since those groups don't seem very strong in California.

Further, the new regulatory system seems have to discouraged the building 
of new capacity even more than the environmental restrictions, since it 
increased uncertainty dramatically. In addition to getting rid of assured 
profits, they also got rid of the assured market.

>(2)  The argument from the LA Times piece that the deregulation law 
>deprived California's utilities of the efficiencies of vertical 
>integration and long-term contracting (there would seem to be a 
>transaction-cost argument for both in the case of electric utilities).

As far as I can see, this is an argument in favor of the old style of 
regulation, against the new style of regulation in California. That is, 
it's an argument against what most people call "deregulation." The old 
system was based on vertical integration, long-term contracting, and 
government "normal profit" regulation. (The effort was to set price equal 
to average cost, which included "normal" profits, i.e., a rate of return 
akin to other sectors.)

>(3)  The argument from the Wall Street Journal piece that consumers, who 
>enjoyed fixed rates under the deregulation scheme, have no incentive to 
>conserve energy.

This is a return to David's original point. But that argument could be 
turned around to say that the old system could have encouraged conservation 
by using regulation to impose higher prices. It's not the fixity of the 
prices that counts on the issue of conservation, it's their level. Of 
course, under the old system if the companies had been allowed to charge 
high, conservation-encouraging, prices they would have received much higher 
profits than most firms get. That's one reason why I think the imposition 
of taxes to encourage conservation is a better idea.

The non-fixity of prices encouraged by the current system seems to mostly 
encourage instability of the price of one of the basic needs of modern 
life, which disrupts people's lives dramatically (as in recent months), 
shifting the risk from the sellers to the buyers (though currently the 
distributors are suffering, threatened with bankruptcy, since the 
flex-price regime hasn't gone all the way). Further, market prices don't 
reflect the impact on future generations (i.e., the need to conserve). 
Instead, when allowed to fluctuate freely, they reflect only momentary 
scarcity and demand.

As usual, I bow to Gene's knowledge on all these matters. I'm trying to 
glean an understanding of what's going on from his posts.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation

[Eugene Coyle]

I'll interleave my reponses:

"Jeffrey L. Beatty" wrote:

> I think David Shemano's newspapers articles deserve a more serious response
> than the ones they've been getting from PEN-L listers.  Specifically, it
> would be nice if Gene or Jim or someone of similar knowledge of
> California's energy deregulation could comment on a couple of issues raised
> by the articles.
>
> (1)  The argument, alluded to in both articles, that environmentalists and
> consumer groups are to blame for the failure of California's generation
> capacity to expand.

To the extent that it is correct that "environmentalists and
consumer groups are to blame for the failure of California's generation
capacity to expand" it still cannot be the cause of the failure of
deregulation.  To the extent that it is
correct, there is nothing new-- environmentalists, whether organized national
groups or local
activists have been as active for years, and capacity expanded.  The biggest
blow to adding capacity
was struck by Southern California Edison by appealing to FERC in the early
'90s to overthrow an auction
for the right to build new capacity.  FERC, with bizarre reasoning, killed off
dozens of plants which had
won bids to build.

>
>
> (2)  The argument from the LA Times piece that the deregulation law
> deprived California's utilities of the efficiencies of vertical integration
> and long-term contracting (there would seem to be a transaction-cost
> argument for both in the case of electric utilities).

This seems to be two points.  The first, "depriving of vertical integration"
seems to me to be an
argument FOR regulation, not against it.

The second has a little more to it.  The incumbents were quite limited in what
portion of supply they could
buy forward.  Because nobody trusted them.  But if buying forward were the
universal panacea for all our ills, why
didn't the new generators buy gas forward to keep costs down?  Why didn't
companies order new turbines forward
in anticipation of long lead times?  Why didn't they get pre-approval of new
sites?  Etc., etc.?
Buying kilowatt hours forward can smooth price fluctuations but there is less
reason to believe that it can lower the cost of electricity.

>
>
> (3)  The argument from the Wall Street Journal piece that consumers, who
> enjoyed fixed rates under the deregulation scheme, have no incentive to
> conserve energy.

I already answered this.  But I'll add one more point.  For residential
customers in California the rate design is "inverted block."  That means
that the more you use the higher the price per unit.  So on the individual
level there IS an incentive to conserve.

There are fixed prices at the movie theaters -- why don't people go twice
a day if there's "no incentive to conserve"?  This is ridiculous when viewed
in light of consumer behavior.  "Oh, my electric rates are fixed, I think I'll
leave the refrigerator door open to cool the kitchen while I'm using the
oven."  Come on!!  The rates were fixed, not the bills.

Gene  Coyle

>
>
>
> --
> Jeffrey L. Beatty
> Doctoral Student
> Department of Political Science
> The Ohio State University
> 2140 Derby Hall
> 154 North Oval Mall
> Columbus, Ohio 43210
>
> (o) 614/292-2880
> (h) 614/688-0567
>
> Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> __
> If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest
> common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter

Re: RE: Re: Energy deregulation

[Jim Devine]

David Shemano wrote that in California,
>The ability to build a power plant is heavily regulated. The ability to 
>set retail prices remains heavily regulated.  The ability for power 
>providers to negotiate contracts to purchase powers from wholesalers is 
>heavily regulated.  The very market established by the deregulation scheme 
>is heavily regulated.

This is one of the reasons why the whole rhetoric of "deregulation" should 
be junked. The advocates of the current California regulatory scheme called 
it "deregulation" when in fact the government was involved in lots of 
different ways. What it really involved was (1) the abolition of the old 
system of regulation, which by and large had been working fine, as part of 
the general "neoliberal" movement; (2) the effort to split the CA 
electricity market into different segments, with some of them being 
structured (by the government) as artificial competitive markets and others 
not, as a replacement for the old system; (2) massive lobbying and 
influence by the electric power industry to make sure that the new scheme 
served their interests, e.g., the inclusion of special fees to allow the 
power generators to recover the costs of their failed investment in nukes, 
with relatively weak lobbying by consumers and environmentalists.

This is not deregulation -- and I'm _glad_, since the nature of electric 
power generation and distribution does not fit well with _laissez-faire_ 
principles. However, the new kind of regulation might be even worse. But 
instead of experimenting yet another Milton Friedman/Maggie Thatcher scheme 
that _in practice_ works for those with the most wealth, power, and/or 
sociopathic personalities, the best idea is to go back to the old system of 
regulation or (even better) to shift over to municipality-owned power 
systems. The municipalities, counties, etc., run the water systems pretty 
well and can do so for electricity, too, if past experience (including here 
in L.A.) is any guide. Some market-type tinkering or reforming might be a 
good thing (as when municipalities sell to each other), but natural 
monopolies are natural monopolies.

Finally, I propose a moratorium on the use of the word "deregulation" on 
pen-l unless it refers to an actual shift to _laissez-faire_. (Here, 
_laissez-faire_ refers to the principles of "government hands off the 
market," not to how L.F. usually works in practice, i.e., a program that 
subsidizes business by socializing losses and privatizing profits.)

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Re: Re: energy experts

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

Have you rattled Gray 
Davis' teeth Gene?
 


  
  


Governor's Office Governor Gray DavisState 
  Capitol BuildingSacramento, CA 95814Fax: 916-445-4633[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  

  -Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eugene 
  CoyleSent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:05 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:6804] Re: Re: energy 
  expertsI read the LA Times article that Jim 
  forwarded.  I almost want to laugh at these neo-classical economists who 
  have made money advising that deregulation is a good idea now crying that 
  nobody listens to them.  People did listen to them and that's why we are 
  in this mess.  And their ideas for getting out of it are pathetic. 
      Here's a quote from one of them, Borenstein of UC 
  Berkeley, from the Sacrmento Bee of a few days ago:   
      "The solution is real-time pricing and long-term
    contracts. They're a boring solution but they'll
    work," he said.

And one of the others, Frank Wolak of Stanford, has been 
  repeating and repeating that long-term contracts would have avoided this whole 
  thing.  It is possible that long contracts would have disguised 
  this but would have done no more but lock us into overpaying for 
  electricity -- but at a level where the outrage wouldn't have fed a shot at 
  fixing this. 
  Gene Coyle   
  Margaret Coleman wrote: 
  I think the energy crisis has been exacerbated by a 
few things: 1) those large companies which have refused to sink any more 
capital into new plants until they could get "super" profits in a 
de-regulated market.  2) the shortage of natural gas.  3) our 
insatiable appetite for electricity.  (Can anyone explain to me how 
this shortage of natural gas came about?) Aside from that, there has 
already been a shortage in poorer neighborhoods for years.  A year 
and a half ago, Washington Heights lost power in New York -- Con Ed 
claimed they took just as good care of 'poor' neighborhoods (read non-white) 
as wealthy ones, but the records proved otherwise.  Then this last 
summer, there were a few power outgages in DC, but mysteriously, they 
lasted the longest in southeaast and pg county.  I was just shocked 
as I sat around in my hot, candle lit apartment, thinking about how the 
blacker the neighborhood, the longer the outage.  maggie coleman 
Jim Devine wrote: 
> Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / L.A. TIMES (for more, see: > http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20010109/t02285.html 
) > > Energy Experts Are Talking, but Who's Plugged In? 
> > Electricity: Academics say they've warned of a power 
crisis for years. Now > some are media darlings, but state officials 
dismiss the professors as > unrealistic. > > By JOHN M. 
GLIONNA, Times Staff Writer > >  > 
> But in the end, the economists ask, who's really listening [to 
these energy > experts]? > > "It's frustrating," said 
Stanford's Wolak. "The evidence is out there--the > reports 
advocating things that could have been done long ago to keep costs > 
down. But with politicians, it has to blow up in their face. They're not 
> taking advantage of a resource. We don't have all the answers, but 
we've > been thinking about this much longer than they have." 
> > In a 1997 report for the California Energy Commission, 
Borenstein and other > researchers predicted that electricity prices 
would soar in a deregulated > market unless the power plant owners 
were broken up into numerous small > firms. Otherwise, the report 
concluded, a few bigger companies could > collectively mandate higher 
prices. > > "Policymakers said our findings were ridiculous," 
Borenstein said. "We were > called alarmists." > > In 
recent meetings with politicians, Borenstein and others have suggested 
> establishing a real-time pricing system in which electricity prices 
would > rise during peak hours to encourage conservation. They also 
advocate that > utilities form long-term purchase contracts with 
power plant owners to > avoid having to resort to the volatile spot 
market. > > "The politicians nod and say, 'Good idea. Now I 
understand what I have to > do.' But nobody's done a thing," 
Borenstein said. "The politicians are > making trade-offs." > 
> Not so fast, say policymakers. > > "It's easy for 
academics to say higher prices are good for conservation, > but we 
don't live in any hypothetical classroom or ivory tower," said a

RE: Re: Energy deregulation & GATS

[Max Sawicky]

problem is a lot of folks pay little or no income
tax but still pay utility bills.

mbs


It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current
energy crunch, which seems to have shut pen-l down for awhile: he could
allow electricity retail prices to rise, while allowing California
consumers to write off electricity costs on their state income taxes this
year. (The latter is possible because the state government is running a
budget surplus.)  This is not the best solution, but it would work, perhaps
to give breathing room to allow a better solution. Gene, what do you think?

At 05:49 PM 1/22/01 -0800, you wrote:

>The Globe and Mail  January
>22, 2001
>
>U.S. touts California-style power plan
>
> By Barrie McKenna
>
>SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. government is pushing California-
>style power deregulation on the rest of the world even as the state's
>controversial electricity free market experiment continues to unravel
>at home.
> Just weeks before Californians were hit with the first power
>blackouts since the Second World War, the United States was
>quietly lobbying in Geneva to convince Canada and other U.S.
>trading partners that electricity deregulation should be an integral
>part of a proposed free trade in services deal.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Energy deregulation & GATS

[Margaret Coleman]

The tax write off answer is better than no solution at all, but there are two
problems:
1.  It doesn't address the basic issues -- deregulation has caused shortages
and rampant energy price inflation.
2.  It assumes that consumer will have enough money to pay quickly escalating
costs and then wait a year to ge their money back. For the poor, especially the
elderly on fixed incomes, this may not be true.  maggie coleman

Jim Devine wrote:

> It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current
> energy crunch, which seems to have shut pen-l down for awhile: he could
> allow electricity retail prices to rise, while allowing California
> consumers to write off electricity costs on their state income taxes this
> year. (The latter is possible because the state government is running a
> budget surplus.)  This is not the best solution, but it would work, perhaps
> to give breathing room to allow a better solution. Gene, what do you think?
>
> At 05:49 PM 1/22/01 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >The Globe and Mail  January
> >22, 2001
> >
> >U.S. touts California-style power plan
> >
> > By Barrie McKenna
> >
> >SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. government is pushing California-
> >style power deregulation on the rest of the world even as the state's
> >controversial electricity free market experiment continues to unravel
> >at home.
> > Just weeks before Californians were hit with the first power
> >blackouts since the Second World War, the United States was
> >quietly lobbying in Geneva to convince Canada and other U.S.
> >trading partners that electricity deregulation should be an integral
> >part of a proposed free trade in services deal.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: energy crises

[Jim Devine]

At 11:42 AM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
>technology.  I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.

yeah, he assumed that nuclear power was a good thing. This suggests that he 
should have taken externalities into account.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: RE: Re: energy crises

[Doug Henwood]

Mark Jones wrote:

>Jim Devine wrote:
>>what's wrong with the
>>  Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
>>  crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
>alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
>because they are not alternatives)

Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what 
exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be 
around to collect.

Doug

RE: RE: Re: energy crises

[Max Sawicky]

Jim Devine wrote:
>what's wrong with the
> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time

It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
because they are not alternatives)   Mark



We're supposed to get excited about a catastrophe that
occurs one million years hence?

mbs

Re: RE: Re: energy crises

[Jim Devine]

>Jim Devine wrote:
> >what's wrong with the
> > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
>alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
>because they are not alternatives)

why should I believe you? why not solar?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: RE: Re: energy crises

[Ellen Frank]

I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs
me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is
that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy
problem facing us today, which is global warming, not
high fuel prices.  And if there are no alternatives to fossil
fuels then we (the human race, or at least civilization as
we know it) are truly fucked.  You all might want to take
a look at the latest reports on climate change.  Without a
70% (yes that's 70%) reduction in carbon dioxide 
emissions over the  next twenty (yes 20) years, we are 
on course to raise the  planet's temperature from 3 - 7 F degrees 
and the temperature of the US from 5-10 F degrees, over the 
course of the next century.  The consequences of this are 
unimaginable.  Trebling or quadrupling fuel prices, in this
context, would be a good thing.  

Ellen Frank
 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Jim Devine wrote:
>>what's wrong with the
>> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
>> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
>the
>alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
>because they are not alternatives)
>
>)))
>
>CB: Solar ?
>

Re: Re: Re: energy crises

[Eugene Coyle]

What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?

Gene Coyle

Michael Perelman wrote:

> Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
> technology.  I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901

RE: Re: Re: energy crises

[Mark Jones]

Bill Burgess wrote:

> Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
>
>
> I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
> undeniable that
> better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
> non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the
> outragious rate of consumption in rich countries.

This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate
these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely
no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the
evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear.


Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList

RE: Energy Crisis: Summing up

[Mark Jones]

 Michael Perelman wrote:

> We do not have the infrastructure in place to produce enough solar or
> wind yet.

We never will, either. There is no alternative to the petroleum economy and
it is irresponsible fantasising to suggest that there is.

Mark

Re: Re: Re: energy crises

[GBK]

But I do keep receiving messages!
This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What
is wrong?

Boris

-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47
Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re: energy crises


>Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
>technology.  I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
>
>--
>
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Chico, CA 95929
>530-898-5321
>fax 530-898-5901

RE: energy entropy + capitalist crisis

[Max Sawicky]

Several quick comments . . .

MJ:
. . . The argument that energy supply is 'infinite' derives from the
neo-classical economics concept of substitutability. . . .

I don't think this is true of neo-classical econ, namely
there is no doctrine of infinite resources that I recall
from the course in resources that I took.  (I was doing
well in it, until the finals, which coincided with the
baseball playoffs).  There are theorems about the optimal
rate of exhaustion of (exhaustible) resources.  Certainly
prices are held to inspire investment in substitutes, but
there is no guarantee that such substitutes will be found
or be feasible in the long run.  There are technical and
natural limits in play.

I suppose it is possible that in some professorial treatments,
simple optimism not unlike the sort I reflected is offered as
some kind of scientific certainty.

I wonder if anyone is familiar with Nicholas Georgescu-Rogin (sp?).
He was brought to my dept to give a seminar way back in '81 or
so and seemed to have a similar take on all this, albeit at a
very high level of mathematical abstraction.  He was of Romanian
extraction, I think, and flipped everyone out by talking about
constant, fixed, and variable capital.

mbs

Re: Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation

[phillp2]

Gene referred to a paper he had written prior to the California (and 
Alberta) debacles predicting the problems on the basis of sound 
economic analysis.  The paper would probably, therefore, respond 
to all the questions raised by Beatty.  I wonder if we could prevail 
upon Gene to post the paper on the list or if he would make it 
available electronically to all of us who are interested in persuing 
the subject.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba 

Date sent:  Sat, 30 Dec 2000 08:39:31 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:   Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:6587] Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
> As usual, I bow to Gene's knowledge on all these matters. I'm trying to 
> glean an understanding of what's going on from his posts.
> 
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
> 

Re: RE: Re: Energy deregulation & GATS

[Jim Devine]

then, make it a refundable tax credit, or lower the state sales tax further.

At 11:55 AM 1/23/01 -0500, you wrote:
>problem is a lot of folks pay little or no income
>tax but still pay utility bills.
>
>mbs
>
>
>It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current
>energy crunch, which seems to have shut pen-l down for awhile: he could
>allow electricity retail prices to rise, while allowing California
>consumers to write off electricity costs on their state income taxes this
>year. (The latter is possible because the state government is running a
>budget surplus.)  This is not the best solution, but it would work, perhaps
>to give breathing room to allow a better solution. Gene, what do you think?
>
>At 05:49 PM 1/22/01 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >The Globe and Mail  January
> >22, 2001
> >
> >U.S. touts California-style power plan
> >
> > By Barrie McKenna
> >
> >SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. government is pushing California-
> >style power deregulation on the rest of the world even as the state's
> >controversial electricity free market experiment continues to unravel
> >at home.
> > Just weeks before Californians were hit with the first power
> >blackouts since the Second World War, the United States was
> >quietly lobbying in Geneva to convince Canada and other U.S.
> >trading partners that electricity deregulation should be an integral
> >part of a proposed free trade in services deal.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises

[Max Sawicky]

>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
the
>alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
>because they are not alternatives)

Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what
exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be
around to collect.

Doug


No problem.  Start a fund with one penny.
In only 10,000 years, at five percent interest,
it will compound to $7.8161E+209.  Longer is
more than my spreadsheet can handle.

mbs

Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises

[Jim Devine]

At 02:40 PM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
>What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
>"the market will solve the problem"?

it fits with freshman NC, though I think Nordhaus was being Schumpeterian 
-- and was open to the idea of the gov't helping the market. But then 
again, it's been 25 years since I read the paper.

Even if it is straight out of the text, we can't reject his argument out of 
hand. We have to point to the theory's flaws, as several have.

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises

[Mark Jones]

Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary,
which shows that if you sractch some pen-lers, you find a Samuelson or an
Adelman ('resources are infinite.. the planet has no need of them... oil is
a renewable resource' etc and other certifiable nonsense), the fact is that
energy is not infinite, there is no substitute for petroleum, capitalism
depends on petroleum, and when it's gone, it's gone. It's be gone very soon
indeed and some people (jncluding me) think that actually the Hubbert Peak
has already arrived, and oil production worldwide will now decline sharply.


Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20768] RE: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
> Jim Devine wrote:
> >what's wrong with the
> > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
> It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking.
> What are the
> alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
> because they are not alternatives)   Mark
>
>
>
> We're supposed to get excited about a catastrophe that
> occurs one million years hence?
>
> mbs
>
>

RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises

[Mark Jones]

Jim, much as I like you (I do, as a tireless intellectual, of a certain
sort) I don't really give a damn whether you believe me (now) or not. You
soon will do, in any case. But don't take my word, check it out yourself. PV
is not a substitute for oil. There is no substitute for oil. Anyone who says
there is is simply deluded.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine
> Sent: 27 June 2000 21:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20767] Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
>
> >Jim Devine wrote:
> > >what's wrong with the
> > > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> > > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
> >
> >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking.
> What are the
> >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
> >because they are not alternatives)
>
> why should I believe you? why not solar?
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
>

RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises

[Mark Jones]

At last, some wisdom. Yes, we are fucked. And yes, without linking the
future of fossil to to the future of greenhouse, it's impossible to make
sense of anything. We "socialists" better get our skates on. Altho actually
it's most likely already too late, so continue with your reveries and
general delirium.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ellen Frank
> Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20770] Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
> I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs
> me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is
> that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy
> problem facing us today, which is global warming, not
> high fuel prices.  And if there are no alternatives to fossil
> fuels then we (the human race, or at least civilization as
> we know it) are truly fucked.  You all might want to take
> a look at the latest reports on climate change.  Without a
> 70% (yes that's 70%) reduction in carbon dioxide
> emissions over the  next twenty (yes 20) years, we are
> on course to raise the  planet's temperature from 3 - 7 F degrees
> and the temperature of the US from 5-10 F degrees, over the
> course of the next century.  The consequences of this are
> unimaginable.  Trebling or quadrupling fuel prices, in this
> context, would be a good thing.
>
>   Ellen Frank
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Jim Devine wrote:
> >>what's wrong with the
> >> Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> >> crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
> >
> >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
> >the
> >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
> >because they are not alternatives)
> >
> >)))
> >
> >CB: Solar ?
> >
>
>

Re: RE: Re: Re: energy crises

[Brad De Long]

>Bill Burgess wrote:
>
>>  Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
>>  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
>>
>>
>>  I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
>>  undeniable that
>>  better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
>>  non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the
>>  outragious rate of consumption in rich countries.
>
>This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate
>these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely
>no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the
>evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear.
>
>Mark Jones


Ummm... Paul Ehrlich *did* lose his bet with Julian Simon. Market 
prices of non-renewable resources *have* fallen over the past quarter 
century.

Seek truth from facts...


Brad DeLong

Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises

[Michael Perelman]

Nordhaus knows more math than the freshman.

Eugene Coyle wrote:

> What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
> "the market will solve the problem"?
>
> Gene Coyle
>
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
> > technology.  I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Chico, CA 95929
> > 530-898-5321
> > fax 530-898-5901

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: RE: energy entropy + capitalist crisis

[M A Jones]

Max,
Undoubtedly baseball was the right choice.

It was Samuelson who said something about 'the planet doesn't need
resources; resources are infinite' (can't remember the exact quote, can't be
bothered to look it up. He was talking about oil + substitutability at the
time, the idiot). Morris Adelman, oil industry economist sans pareil,
wittered on about 'oil is essentially infinite, a renewable resource' etc
(can't be bothered, etc. I'm just listening to Bob Dylan: All the
authorities, they stand around and boast' etc. That seems a better idea even
than baseball. Next I'm gonna drink a bottle of non-renewable Gouts et
Couleurs (vin de pays d'Oc. Oc as you know is a country which named itself
after its favourite word, Oc, meaning Yes. This is the kind of place I want
to live. The girls are great there, of course.)

Georgescu-Roegen, Oc. I agree. This list should close down for a week while
everyone goes away and reads him,Oc?

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "Max Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:57 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20938] RE: energy entropy + capitalist crisis


> Several quick comments . . .
>
> MJ:
> . . . The argument that energy supply is 'infinite' derives from the
> neo-classical economics concept of substitutability. . . .
>
> I don't think this is true of neo-classical econ, namely
> there is no doctrine of infinite resources that I recall
> from the course in resources that I took.  (I was doing
> well in it, until the finals, which coincided with the
> baseball playoffs).  There are theorems about the optimal
> rate of exhaustion of (exhaustible) resources.  Certainly
> prices are held to inspire investment in substitutes, but
> there is no guarantee that such substitutes will be found
> or be feasible in the long run.  There are technical and
> natural limits in play.
>
> I suppose it is possible that in some professorial treatments,
> simple optimism not unlike the sort I reflected is offered as
> some kind of scientific certainty.
>
> I wonder if anyone is familiar with Nicholas Georgescu-Rogin (sp?).
> He was brought to my dept to give a seminar way back in '81 or
> so and seemed to have a similar take on all this, albeit at a
> very high level of mathematical abstraction.  He was of Romanian
> extraction, I think, and flipped everyone out by talking about
> constant, fixed, and variable capital.
>
> mbs
>
>

Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises

[M A Jones]

You have Yeltsin here? Cool.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "GBK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20935] Re: Re: Re: energy crises


But I do keep receiving messages!
This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What
is wrong?

Boris

-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47
Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re: energy crises


>Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
>technology.  I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
>
>--
>
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Chico, CA 95929
>530-898-5321
>fax 530-898-5901

Re: Re: Re: Re: energy crises

[Michael Perelman]

I think that those messages came before the changes were made.  I hope that we
are ok now.

GBK wrote:

> But I do keep receiving messages!
> This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What
> is wrong?
>
> Boris
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47
> Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re: energy crises
>
> >Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
> >technology.  I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Michael Perelman
> >Economics Department
> >California State University
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Chico, CA 95929
> >530-898-5321
> >fax 530-898-5901

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: RE: energy entropy + capitalist crisis

[Michael Perelman]

Max.  There s no doctrine of infinite resources for any specific
resource, but since substitutes always exist there is an implict
doctrine.

Max Sawicky wrote:

> I don't think this is true of neo-classical econ, namely
> there is no doctrine of infinite resources that I recall
> from the course in resources that I took.

Nicholas Georgescu-Rogen was anti-marxist, but used quite a bit of
Marx.  His important contribution was to realize that production took
place in time through using stocks.  This allowed him to make strong
statements about resources.  He was probably the first economist to use
the concepts of entropy and hysteresis.

> I wonder if anyone is familiar with Nicholas Georgescu-Rogin (sp?).
> He was brought to my dept to give a seminar way back in '81 or
> so and seemed to have a similar take on all this, albeit at a
> very high level of mathematical abstraction.  He was of Romanian
> extraction, I think, and flipped everyone out by talking about
> constant, fixed, and variable capital.
>
> mbs

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation

[Eugene Coyle]

I would send the paper to all who ask me -- off list.  It is around 125
pages, so I hesitate to just put it on the list.

I'll try to respond, but only briefly, to Beatty's questions, sometime this
weekend.

Gene

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Gene referred to a paper he had written prior to the California (and
> Alberta) debacles predicting the problems on the basis of sound
> economic analysis.  The paper would probably, therefore, respond
> to all the questions raised by Beatty.  I wonder if we could prevail
> upon Gene to post the paper on the list or if he would make it
> available electronically to all of us who are interested in persuing
> the subject.
>
> Paul Phillips,
> Economics,
> University of Manitoba
>
> Date sent:  Sat, 30 Dec 2000 08:39:31 -0800
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From:   Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:[PEN-L:6587] Re: Re: Re: Energy deregulation
> Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > As usual, I bow to Gene's knowledge on all these matters. I'm trying to
> > glean an understanding of what's going on from his posts.
> >
> > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
> >

Re: Re: RE: Re: Energy deregulation & GATS

[Eugene Coyle]

Just quickly:  Jim, are you proposing to funnel public money to the utilities
by them charging customers higher prices and then the customers get re-imbursed
out of the state treasury?  Utilities get more money, customers come out even,
but taxpayers pay?

Not very appealing to me.  For twenty-five years we've had national and
states giving money to low income people to offset the utility bills.  I've
never like that, either.  Just keeps the political temperature down while
paying utilities top dollar, doesn't it?

Gene

Jim Devine wrote:

> then, make it a refundable tax credit, or lower the state sales tax further.
>
> At 11:55 AM 1/23/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >problem is a lot of folks pay little or no income
> >tax but still pay utility bills.
> >
> >mbs
> >
> >
> >It seems to me that Governor Gray Davis has a easy solution to the current
> >energy crunch, which seems to have shut pen-l down for awhile: he could
> >allow electricity retail prices to rise, while allowing California
> >consumers to write off electricity costs on their state income taxes this
> >year. (The latter is possible because the state government is running a
> >budget surplus.)  This is not the best solution, but it would work, perhaps
> >to give breathing room to allow a better solution. Gene, what do you think?
> >
> >At 05:49 PM 1/22/01 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > >The Globe and Mail  January
> > >22, 2001
> > >
> > >U.S. touts California-style power plan
> > >
> > > By Barrie McKenna
> > >
> > >SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. government is pushing California-
> > >style power deregulation on the rest of the world even as the state's
> > >controversial electricity free market experiment continues to unravel
> > >at home.
> > > Just weeks before Californians were hit with the first power
> > >blackouts since the Second World War, the United States was
> > >quietly lobbying in Geneva to convince Canada and other U.S.
> > >trading partners that electricity deregulation should be an integral
> > >part of a proposed free trade in services deal.
> >
> >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises

[Mark Jones]

What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate
under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of
no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle
NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've used it
in 250 years. Human civilisation depends completely on it. There are no
alternatives which will allow you to enjoy the same material standards, or
your children (certainly). They will live in an energy-poor slow-cooker of a
planet.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: 27 June 2000 22:05
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20771] RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
>
> >It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
> the
> >alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
> >because they are not alternatives)
>
> Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what
> exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be
> around to collect.
>
> Doug
>
>
> No problem.  Start a fund with one penny.
> In only 10,000 years, at five percent interest,
> it will compound to $7.8161E+209.  Longer is
> more than my spreadsheet can handle.
>
> mbs
>
>

Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises

[Max Sawicky]

> Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your
sang-froid, the point I was
> making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to
the contrary,


You're doing a good job.

This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note.
By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do
anything
about it.  Until it does, nobody except some e-mail
listers is moved to even talk about it.

Higher prices can stretch out the period over which
a resource is exhausted, and spur technology, but
I take your point that there are natural and technical
limits to the rate at which one can escape scarcities.
So escape is not guaranteed.

I just don't believe it.  When fossil fuels become
sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into
developing alternatives.  There will be a lot of money
to be made, coordination problems aside.  To me
that's more likely than green consciousness leading
to revolution.

And you should have tasted the chicken I barbecued
this past week-end . . .

mbs

Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: energy crises

[M A Jones]

Brad deLong wrote:
> Ummm

Brad, you may end being known as the man who put the 'um' in 
'dumb'. Do you suppose Simon's bet with Ehrlich is safe ground for you 
to stand on? You too, simply have no idea what the issue is.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList

Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Energy deregulation & GATS

[Jim Devine]

At 07:53 PM 01/23/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Just quickly:  Jim, are you proposing

I'm not really proposing anything, since I have zero impact in Sacramento. 
I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. Looking at policy options 
(especially those that aren't pursued) can be revealing.

>to funnel public money to the utilities by them charging customers higher 
>prices and then the customers get re-imbursed out of the state 
>treasury?  Utilities get more money, customers come out even, but 
>taxpayers pay?

the last part ("taxpayers pay") doesn't work, since the proposal was for 
the money to come out of the budget surplus.

I don't like the idea of allowing the utilities to charge higher prices, 
however, since it doesn't seem like a real solution. It would only 
encourage similar "reforms" in other states & provinces & countries.

Gene, do you think that public generation of power can kick in fast enough 
to deal with the problem? or what?

Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine

Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises

[M A Jones]

Max Sawicky wrote:

> I just don't believe it.  When fossil fuels become
> sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into
> developing alternatives.  There will be a lot of money
> to be made, coordination problems aside.  To me
> that's more likely than green consciousness leading
> to revolution

No, there will be no such massive efforts as you suppose because the
material basis for making such efforts will have disappeared. No, there will
be no money to be made, but there will be signs of severe social and
historical stresses in all countries including the overpopulated,
third-worldised US whose Ogallala aquifer will just be running out when the
population hits its first half billion. Your hopes are false.

The time to do something is obviously now, not later. You should make this
the central issue of your work and life because the fact of this crisis
simplify falsifies and empties of worth the kinds of worthy but now
pointless social policy things you do do. It's hard to accept, I know, and
much easier to make a flip joke about barbecues, turn your back on the
problem and get on with your life while you can; but this option is already
not as easy as it was, because there is so much more evidence now than there
was even two years ago, when I last rattled the pen-L bars, and Doug
produced a tame petroleum economist to prove me wrong (where he, Doug?
Changed specialty?).

And in 2 years time when the evidence is incontrovertible enough to be
finally getting thru even to economists, self-appointed wonks and
marginal pundits, a moment will come when you will all be talking about
nothing else, but in reality nothing will change because you will still be
being led by the ideological nose thru the wastelands of broadsheet and NGO
'policy analysis' and CNN gibberish about 'the energy crisis'. The results
will be to amplify dsaster, and to set a minus sign against your life's
work.
You want that Max? The US state and polity cannot be saved, it will be
destroyed, and the question is only what comes after.

Hiding from the clear evidence of energy crisis and whistling in the dark
that you 'just don't believe it' does  not show manly scepticism, only
undimmed ability to avoid the real nitty-gritty.

Mark

On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy

[Carrol Cox]

M A Jones wrote:

> Rod, I'd be happy to debate you but metaphysical assertions about 'infinite
> energy' which are easily + demonstrably untrue, are not a basis for debate.
> So yes, quit this silly non-debate.

Mark, I agree with this in substance, but much of my caterwauling at you
and Lou both on Pen-L and on Marxism has been aimed at those features
of your argument that, themselves tending to be metaphysical, encourage
metaphysics in reply.

Revolutions (peaceful or violent) have never been really majority affairs --
rather they have represented the majority of the population active (itself
usually a minority) at a given time. But if you and Lou are pretty much right
in your arguments on global warming and energy (and remember, that
has been my premise all along), then the kind of changes necessary are
going to require rather more massive public support than is usually needed
in the early stages of a revolutionary regime. So unless you really do agree
with Hans Ehrbar on the need for an elitist putsch to stop global warming,
you had  better give some thought to how that mass support can be
(beginning now) marshalled -- and my prediction is that without the support
of a number of people holding the views you are now attacking rather
extravagantly, that movement is not going to come into existence.

We don't need Heartfield and the Sparts. We do need Jose and Nestor
and, yes, even Rod.

Carrol

On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy

[Hans Ehrbar]

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:45 -0500, Carrol Cox
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> So unless you really do agree with Hans Ehrbar on the need
> for an elitist putsch to stop global warming, you had
> better give some thought to how that mass support can be
> (beginning now) marshalled


It is not my view that an elitist putsch can stop global
warming.  On the contrary, only those who experience the
exploitation and oppression of capitalism by their own body
and soul every day are able to put up the consistent fight
against capitalism that is needed.  An appeal to the
intellect that the world is burning will not change the
members of PEN-L or any other email list into the devoted,
disciplined, selfless fighters which are able to overturn
the system.  Thinking that it can or that it ought to is
idealism.  Such fighters exist today, capitalism creates
lots of them every day with its cruelty, but in the leading
industrial countries they will always be in a minority.  We
intellectuals have to join the organizations of these
committed workers and help them write a consistent programme
how to avoid ecological catastrophe by a world wide
proletarian revolution, and establish a minority
dictatorship which will carry out this programme with
Stalinist methods.

You will be surprised how many liberals with support such a
proletarian-based movement once it is big enough.  Therefore
my advice is: join any proletarian communist party, whether
it be the Worker's World Party (my personal favorite at the
moment), the CPUSA, the SWP, etc., whatever, and help them
reach more workers or improve their theory.  For those who
cannot function in such an environment, an alternative might
be to use your computer skills to build a new internet-based
international which combines all these scattered proletarian
organizations.  Sven Buttler and Jim Hillier's
marxist-leninist-list is working in this direction.  Or use
your computer skills to write the software for a
computer-based planned economy, which could then perhaps be
adopted by countries like Cuba, using Cockshott and Cottrell's
"Towards a New Socialism" as the starting point.  Whatever you
do, think big.  Stop diddling around.



I am appending a message I sent to the bhaskar list on June 12
which explains more of the theory behind this.


Hans Ehrbar.



> Sunday morning I sent the following message to Louis Proyect's
> marxism list and to leninist-international.  I think it might
> also be of interest to the Bhaskar list, since it was
> inspired by RB in at least two respects:
> 
> 
> (1) Bhaskars criticism of Marx that he, following Hegel, put
> too much emphasis on internal, at the expense of external
> contradictions (the ecological limits of the earth are an
> external contradiction of capitalism, and Marx's dictum in
> the preface that "the problem itself arises only when the
> material conditions for its solution are already present or
> are at least in the course of formation" is only valid for
> internal, not for external contradictions).
> 
> 
> (2) Bhaskar's repudiation of the fact-value distinction
> which encourages me to say here that only those who truly
> hate the capitalist system have a correct grasp of its
> reality.
> 
> 
> I have not yet received any responses for this posting on
> the other two lists.  Something tells me that I might get a
> response on this list here.
> 
> 
> > Capitalism makes profits by the exploitation of labor.
> > Those who create all the surplus value, on which capital
> > depends in order to function, see their lives reduced to
> > drudgery, without enough time or money to care for their
> > children, without access to proper medical care, see their
> > neighborhoods blighted, their youth terrorized by police,
> > denied their life chances and a decent education, driven
> > into drugs.  Every day they are reminded of the contempt the
> > system has for their lives and everything that is dear to
> > them.  These people get to the point where every molecule in
> > their body hates the system.  They are also the ones that
> > can overturn the system, because capital needs them,
> > organizes them, teaches them hard work and discipline, and
> > at the same time makes implacable enemies out of them.  They
> > are willing to face bullets and torture and their own deaths
> > and continue fighting after 1000 defeats.  This is what it
> > takes to overturn the system.  This is the vanguard which
> > needs to organize itself world wide, even if they are a
> > minority in countries like the USA.
> > 
> > Capitalism also silently destroys the ecosphere.  This side
> > effect is worse than the human suffering of the workers,
> > because it threatens to end all human civilization.  It
> > alarms lots of people of all classes, their numbers will
> > eventually be greater than the minority I just talked about,
> > and it drives some of them to heroic deeds.  But being an
> > external contradiction, it is not experienced by millions on
> > t

RE: On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy

[Max Sawicky]

HE: . . .   We intellectuals have to join the organizations of these
committed workers and help them write a consistent programme
how to avoid ecological catastrophe by a world wide
proletarian revolution, and establish a minority
dictatorship which will carry out this programme with
Stalinist methods.

You will be surprised how many liberals with support such a
proletarian-based movement once it is big enough.  . . .

[mbs]
When it's big enough, will we have a choice?

HE: . . . Therefore
my advice is: join any proletarian communist party, whether
it be the Worker's World Party (my personal favorite at the
moment), the CPUSA, the SWP, etc., whatever, . . .

[mbs] WWP does great banners, but my favorite is
the Naxalbari (CPI-M).  They came into villages
and cut off landlords heads.

HE:  . . .  Or use
your computer skills to write the software for a
computer-based planned economy, . . .

[mbs] I've already done this.  Unfortunately we
will have to limit ourselves to the production
of nuts and apples.

HE:   . .  Whatever you
do, think big.  Stop diddling around.

Word.

mbs

Re: On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy

[M A Jones]

Hans, do Hillier/Buttler have some secret parallel list where they hold the
*real* discussion, as  opposed to the vacuous imbecilism of their
front-organisation, the marxist-leninist-take-me-for-an-idiot-list?

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "Hans Ehrbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:57 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20939] On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy


>
> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:45 -0500, Carrol Cox
> >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > So unless you really do agree with Hans Ehrbar on the need
> > for an elitist putsch to stop global warming, you had
> > better give some thought to how that mass support can be
> > (beginning now) marshalled
>
>
> It is not my view that an elitist putsch can stop global
> warming.  On the contrary, only those who experience the
> exploitation and oppression of capitalism by their own body
> and soul every day are able to put up the consistent fight
> against capitalism that is needed.  An appeal to the
> intellect that the world is burning will not change the
> members of PEN-L or any other email list into the devoted,
> disciplined, selfless fighters which are able to overturn
> the system.  Thinking that it can or that it ought to is
> idealism.  Such fighters exist today, capitalism creates
> lots of them every day with its cruelty, but in the leading
> industrial countries they will always be in a minority.  We
> intellectuals have to join the organizations of these
> committed workers and help them write a consistent programme
> how to avoid ecological catastrophe by a world wide
> proletarian revolution, and establish a minority
> dictatorship which will carry out this programme with
> Stalinist methods.
>
> You will be surprised how many liberals with support such a
> proletarian-based movement once it is big enough.  Therefore
> my advice is: join any proletarian communist party, whether
> it be the Worker's World Party (my personal favorite at the
> moment), the CPUSA, the SWP, etc., whatever, and help them
> reach more workers or improve their theory.  For those who
> cannot function in such an environment, an alternative might
> be to use your computer skills to build a new internet-based
> international which combines all these scattered proletarian
> organizations.  Sven Buttler and Jim Hillier's
> marxist-leninist-list is working in this direction.  Or use
> your computer skills to write the software for a
> computer-based planned economy, which could then perhaps be
> adopted by countries like Cuba, using Cockshott and Cottrell's
> "Towards a New Socialism" as the starting point.  Whatever you
> do, think big.  Stop diddling around.
>
>
>
> I am appending a message I sent to the bhaskar list on June 12
> which explains more of the theory behind this.
>
>
> Hans Ehrbar.
>
>
>
> > Sunday morning I sent the following message to Louis Proyect's
> > marxism list and to leninist-international.  I think it might
> > also be of interest to the Bhaskar list, since it was
> > inspired by RB in at least two respects:
> >
> >
> > (1) Bhaskars criticism of Marx that he, following Hegel, put
> > too much emphasis on internal, at the expense of external
> > contradictions (the ecological limits of the earth are an
> > external contradiction of capitalism, and Marx's dictum in
> > the preface that "the problem itself arises only when the
> > material conditions for its solution are already present or
> > are at least in the course of formation" is only valid for
> > internal, not for external contradictions).
> >
> >
> > (2) Bhaskar's repudiation of the fact-value distinction
> > which encourages me to say here that only those who truly
> > hate the capitalist system have a correct grasp of its
> > reality.
> >
> >
> > I have not yet received any responses for this posting on
> > the other two lists.  Something tells me that I might get a
> > response on this list here.
> >
> >
> > > Capitalism makes profits by the exploitation of labor.
> > > Those who create all the surplus value, on which capital
> > > depends in order to function, see their lives reduced to
> > > drudgery, without enough time or money to care for their
> > > children, without access to proper medical care, see their
> > > neighborhoods blighted, their youth terrorized by police,
> > > denied their life chances and a decent education, driven
> > > into drugs.  Every day they ar

Re: RE: On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy

[Anthony DCosta]

Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development   Fax: (253) 692-5718 
University of WashingtonBox Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxx

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Max Sawicky wrote:

> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 11:51:23 -0400
> From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20946] RE: On Mark to Rod, was Re: Re: re: energy
> 
> HE: . . .   We intellectuals have to join the organizations of these
> committed workers and help them write a consistent programme
> how to avoid ecological catastrophe by a world wide
> proletarian revolution, and establish a minority
> dictatorship which will carry out this programme with
> Stalinist methods.
> 
> You will be surprised how many liberals with support such a
> proletarian-based movement once it is big enough.  . . .
> 
> [mbs]
> When it's big enough, will we have a choice?
> 
> HE: . . . Therefore
> my advice is: join any proletarian communist party, whether
> it be the Worker's World Party (my personal favorite at the
> moment), the CPUSA, the SWP, etc., whatever, . . .
> 
> [mbs] WWP does great banners, but my favorite is
> the Naxalbari (CPI-M).  They came into villages
> and cut off landlords heads.


It is not CPI-M, it is CPI-ML (marxists leninists).  CPI-M is the ruling
party of the state of West Bengal, now for two decades.  Naxalbari, a
village in north Bengal is the site of adhibasis (ancient peoples) or
tribals.  It is not surprising, given the massive exploitation that took
place, that tools for cultivation would be used for annhilating the class
enemy.


> 
> HE:  . . .  Or use
> your computer skills to write the software for a
> computer-based planned economy, . . .
> 
> [mbs] I've already done this.  Unfortunately we
> will have to limit ourselves to the production
> of nuts and apples.
> 
> HE:   . .  Whatever you
> do, think big.  Stop diddling around.
> 
> Word.
> 
> mbs
> 
>