Mechanical Engineering (the magazine of ASME) has a challenging article this month about our culture of disposable goods. All of us have an energy footprint, some of which is obvious - air conditioning, gasoline, air travel. The article focuses on the more subtle energy costs of stuff. It takes energy to produce our cell phones, laptops, automobiles, and underwear. That energy cost gets spread over the life of the product, so short-lived products mean higher energy use.
In today's world, replacement is often cheaper than repair, and marketers work hard to make us want new stuff. The implications of new stuff go well beyond our own convenience, though. (See Glenn Beck's favorite online movie, The Story of Stuff for another take on this issue.) Am I willing to sacrifice my disposable lifestyle for something longer-lasting and responsible?
Maybe. Worth thinking about, at least.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Everybody's doing it
Talking about healthcare, that is.
My old friend Jacob, whom I have not talked with in person for years, wrote a nice short little healthcare post on his blog recently, prompted by a nasty head cold. I appreciate his lack of hysteria or over-partisanship. Overall, he makes sense to me.
However, the public option makes me queasy. Not because of the government taking over healthcare...they may be able to do a perfectly adequate job. I have a child covered by Medicaid and have not had any complaints. Rather, my issue is with the arguments for it.
How is adding a government competitor to the marketplace going to be "competition?" The market works when competitors are on a level playing field. The government can never be on the field with business. Government is the stadium, the rules committee, the groundskeeper, and the officials. Those things are incompatible with a simple "competitor."
The result of adding a public option as an alternative to private insurance is nearly impossible to foretell. As Thomas Sowell keeps telling me, the real effect of policy is rarely the same as the intent. So it may end up being good, but I distrust centralized decision-making enough to doubt it.
More competition makes me happy. Government competition worries me.
My old friend Jacob, whom I have not talked with in person for years, wrote a nice short little healthcare post on his blog recently, prompted by a nasty head cold. I appreciate his lack of hysteria or over-partisanship. Overall, he makes sense to me.
However, the public option makes me queasy. Not because of the government taking over healthcare...they may be able to do a perfectly adequate job. I have a child covered by Medicaid and have not had any complaints. Rather, my issue is with the arguments for it.
How is adding a government competitor to the marketplace going to be "competition?" The market works when competitors are on a level playing field. The government can never be on the field with business. Government is the stadium, the rules committee, the groundskeeper, and the officials. Those things are incompatible with a simple "competitor."
The result of adding a public option as an alternative to private insurance is nearly impossible to foretell. As Thomas Sowell keeps telling me, the real effect of policy is rarely the same as the intent. So it may end up being good, but I distrust centralized decision-making enough to doubt it.
More competition makes me happy. Government competition worries me.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The End of Empire
(Aside: Support your public library. The only reason I picked up the book is because it was free to borrow, and as a result, I am better educated than I was. If you haven't visited lately, go. Get a random book or one you've had your eye on. You'll be glad you did.)
The history was interesting, and there were a couple lessons that are easily applied today.
- Barbarians are rarely barbaric. They are usually different, and may appear barbaric to outsiders. Do not be fooled, though. When someone looks or acts differently than you do, a quick assessment of equivalence between appearance and intelligence is an easy route to disaster, for an empire or an individual.
- Buying off a blackmailer is a good way to make the blackmailer rich while doing nothing to lessen the threat to your own security.
- Good politics today can destroy the state tomorrow. Keep the big picture in mind.
- Excessive drink is a bad idea. Do you really want to risk being known for drowning in your own blood from a nosebleed experienced while passed-out drunk? Not the death a noble warrior king like Attila would have hoped for, I suppose.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
All predictions are wrong
There was a thought provoking article on the peak oil issue over at Scitizen the other day. If you have never heard of Peak Oil, it is the argument that the constantly increasing production of oil will someday reach a peak, after which point production will begin to steadily decrease. Many individual countries have experienced this phenomenon (the US being one), and the world peak is predicted to happen any time between 2012 and 2050.
A peak is a problem because demand for energy (which today means oil) is projected to increase monotonically without peaking. Increasing demand with decreasing supply leads to increasing prices and likely public outrage and government over-reaction. Chaos is probable and complete social disaster possible. Not good.
I have no facts or figures to support any of the predictions, but I do have two points to add to the Peak Oil debate and any other predictions of the future.
Read the Scitizen article and maybe a couple others that are linked on that page. Think about the issue and how you will respond, if at all. Will you buy oil futures? Start biking to work? Do not let hysteria overwhelm you, just learn, think, and act.
A peak is a problem because demand for energy (which today means oil) is projected to increase monotonically without peaking. Increasing demand with decreasing supply leads to increasing prices and likely public outrage and government over-reaction. Chaos is probable and complete social disaster possible. Not good.
I have no facts or figures to support any of the predictions, but I do have two points to add to the Peak Oil debate and any other predictions of the future.
- Forecasts have a hard time accounting for market forces. Small increases in the price of oil will drive innovative entrepeneurs to exploit technology in ways we cannot dream of, adjusting both the supply and demand sides of the equation in unknown ways (e.g. 2008 Prius sales). Therefore, forecasts are most certainly wrong.
- Forecasts do a good job forcing us to think about the future. Nearly every individual forecast is wrong. Nearly every individual forecast is possible. It is important for us each to understand the inputs and implications of predictions so that we can decide if we are willing to contribute to, or fight against, that particular possible future.
Read the Scitizen article and maybe a couple others that are linked on that page. Think about the issue and how you will respond, if at all. Will you buy oil futures? Start biking to work? Do not let hysteria overwhelm you, just learn, think, and act.
