Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970213080433.00727124@ilhawaii.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:04:38 -1000 From: "Jay Hanson mailto:mailto:j@qmail.com" <j@QMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: The economics of ignorance and distortion. To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
At 08:16 PM 2/12/97 -0500, Steve Eskow wrote:>Your folks have failed to do that, time and time again. (Do they smoke? I
>know you're against tobacco, and capitalism.)
Before you become too aroused about the failed predictions (actually scenarios except for Ehrlich's bet with Simon) of "my folks", you might want to take a look at the zillions of failed "predictions" (not scenarios) made by "your folks" (economists) on worldwide television ALL DAY LONG.
"I think this stock is going to go up . . ." "I think this stock is goin to go down . . ." "The FED is going to raise . . . "We think the CPI . . .
Etc. When it comes to "predictions", no one makes as many failed predictions as "your folks". Why the double standard?
>Are you really saying that the estimate of 100 years from The Club of Rome is
>not a prediction, but only "arithmetic"?
These extrapolations are "business as usual" scenarios.
They show us that bad things will happen to us if one or more of the of the variables do not change. Given this information, we supposedly sentient beings are given the choice of either waiting for "luck" (or the Easter Bunny) to make the bad things go away, OR intentionally working to avoid them.
I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. I am in favor of a society that intentionally works to make the bad things go away.
>Ehrlich extrapolates differently than Simon. They bet on their
>extrapolations. Ehrlich's predictions that we will run out of stuff and/or
>have to spend inflated sums to get dwindling supplies turns out to be
>completely wrong; Simon's predictions that we will have an abundance of the
>stuff, and it will be cheap turns out to be right.
Ehrlich's big mistake was in assuming that the market price of a commodity was directly related to the amount of that commodity left in the ground. Obviously, it isn't.
Ehrlich has learned his lesson and challenged Simon to another bet. Simon has refused to accept this latest bet. http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page27.htm#JULIAN_SIMON'S_BET
>Do you know that Jay Forrester no longer himself believes he was right in his
>modelling of the "nonrenewable resource" issue in The Limits of Growth, has
>apologized and admitted to the huge errors there, and no longer talks about
>nonrenewable resources? If I can document that statement, will you feature it
>on your Web site?
Yes. Tell me where I can find the quotes.
>After living with the drug problem all these years, I'd be in favor of taking
>the profits out of drugs by decriminalizing them. Would you support that?
Yes.
>And after reviewing the evidence on tobacco I would join with you in favoring
>the total prohibition in this country of growing and selling tobacco,
No, not prohibition. However, I am for banning ALL commercial brainwashing.
>So, based on yur evidence I'll join with you in calling for a ban on tobacco.
>Based on my evidence, will you withdraw your support from The Club of Rome?
If Forrester has specific criticisms, then I will post them. After all, I already post Herman Khan's opinion here along with the COR's. http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page25.htm
Forrester probably regrets ever getting involved because of the "hatchet job" done on his work by the media. Indeed, folks like Baily are still at it.
For the past several years, my life's goal has been to first study the social and physical systems that govern our world, and then try to reduce human suffering through education.
Jay -- http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/