Roepke vs. Mises
Thursday August 16, 2007
Categories: Economics
In the new American Conservative, Caleb Stegall reviews (favorably) Bill McKibben's new book Excerpt from Caleb's excellent piece, which makes me want to run out and get the book: In 1947, two titans of 20th-century economic theory, Ludwig von Mises...
Filed Under: Bill McKibben
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
it has faltered when it comes to providing human happiness and satisfaction.
And how is that measured and against what baseline?
Looks like a book worth checking out, Rod. I'd remind everyone that Roepke's great book THE HUMANE ECONOMY is still in print and available from ISI.
An excellent point, Aaron. I, for one, have foresworn happiness until the Scientologists perfect their e-meter. It would be irresponsible, and worse inefficient, to claim happiness without a reliable and scientifically proven method of measuring this so called state of being. In fact, I'm not even sure it exists.
I, for one, have foresworn happiness until the Scientologists perfect their e-meter.
Don't skip it just because it involves a body cavity probe, it's a very enlighteneing experience.
On the question of how to measure happiness, McKibben relies on a standard poll that has been asking the same question for decades (I forget which pollster, but it's a well-known name). An excerpt on this part of the book is available via Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/reversal_of_fortune.html
I think you will find much to like, Rod. I hope you discuss it.
'it has faltered when it comes to providing human happiness and satisfaction.'
'And how is that measured and against what baseline?'
If you go to the link for the review itself, the reviewer discusses this a bit.
The Mother Jones link is a good read indeed.
Why is happiness the right metric? No, it's a serious question. Do the Gospels talk about making people happier? Does James's epistle? I see a lot about material well-being: food, cloaks &c. Not much about happiness.
Bill McKibben's new book makes some good points sure - mainly that getting more doesn't make us happy.
But the dude is none too bright. Some problems with his views:
- he preaches population control (voluntary, of course), when humans are are greatest resource and will soon be decreasing in number
- he swallows the global warming stuff like candy
- he has no real understanding of science; he, like all Malthusians before him, cannot grasp that is is knowledge that makes us wealthy, not resources. We may well solve all our energy problems via fusion or some other technology in the future.
But, he's a big-time x-country skier, so he's cool in my book. :-).
Another point, to follow up on yours, M_David. Apparently McKibben believes in the peak oil theory. For crying out loud, not even the NYT still believes in peak oil:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?ex=1187409600&en=cc885afdd803232e&ei=5070
Thanks for the post! I just placed this in cart to be ordered at a public library.
I was on the fence about it, but I think it will be a good addition to the collection--
just like Crunchy Cons :)
- he has no real understanding of science; he, like all Malthusians before him, cannot grasp that is is knowledge that makes us wealthy, not resources. We may well solve all our energy problems via fusion or some other technology in the future.
No, unless you can package God in a bottle. There are limits to human knowledge, because there are limits to nature. Manipulation of nature cannot exceed nature's potential. Blind optimism that we can solve all our energy problems is akin to the alchemist's mindset.
Peak oil is a reality--it's only a question of when. Oil is not an infinite resource.
Rod-
I think it would be fascinating to get you and Bill McKibben on a lecture tour in the US with the common unifying theme of both of your reverence for Wendell Berry. How we can unify the left and right - via Berry!
Sounds like a good read. Going to wishlist at amazon.com:).
Home vegetable plots are the most efficient means of providing food when you factor in the costs of transportation.
I'm curious if McKibben has revisited or revised his "only one child" ideology, when even much more knee-jerk left thinkers are giving pro-natalism policies a second look. Numerous studies have suggested that China's "one child" policy, where it has been followed, has produced a generational cohort that is a LOT more prone to consumerism and the mindset of instant gratification. But McKibben would not be the first polemicist to argue positions that end up cancelling each other out.
"Peak oil is a reality--it's only a question of when. Oil is not an infinite resource."
Of course, that's right. I should have been more clear. "Peak oil" theory was originally M. King Hubbert's claim that conventional oil production would peak in 1995 at 12-13 GB/yr. This didn't happen. We're now cranking along at 24 GB/yr or a bit higher of conventional production.
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas keeps revising the year in which the peak will occur farther into the future, with the peak at a higher production level. Moreover, it's only conventional production that the original theory counted, so it didn't even address oil produced from some significant other sources. E.g., tar sands and oil shale: watch Canada and some of the Rocky Mountain US in the next couple decades for a lot of that to come into production. Nor does classic peak-oil theory include oil production from deep water oil fields. (Remember Chevron's huge find in the Gulf of Mexico announced in late '06, which will increase US reserves by as much as 50%?) Oil produced from natural gas didn't count. And so forth. ASPOG now tracks the non-conventionals too, and they are part of the reason that the peak keeps receding into the future, along with improved recovery techniques for existing fields (see NYT article I linked to).
The point is that this theory has had a poor level of predictive accuracy over the last 30+ years. These goal posts are getting rickety after being moved so many times.
I absolutely agree that we've got to be working hard on alternative energy sources and conservation. No argument. IJS that McKibben loses some credibility with me for relying on a theory that's fared so poorly over the course of time.
pb,
There are limits to human knowledge, because there are limits to nature. Manipulation of nature cannot exceed nature's potential. Blind optimism that we can solve all our energy problems is akin to the alchemist's mindset.
pb, you are misreading what I wrote. I'm firstmost a science guy, not an alchemist or wishful thinker. Of course there are natural limits to nature. Amen.
However, converting matter to energy (fusion) is not some pie-in-the-sky theory - the sun does it every day! And it is a reasonable guess that mankind will eventually figure out how to do this on a small scale (or something similar) which would deal with our energy woes. Right now, oil is just too cheep to fund the research - we will be looking harder at $200-300/bbl. That's a non-alchemist, scientific-based assessment.
Peak oil is a reality--it's only a question of when. Oil is not an infinite resource.
Of course: if by "peak oil", you mean that consumption exceeds what we can suck out of wells at any given time. Heck, this is nearly already here or really close (I've worked in drilling for over 10 years). That's why prices, IMO, are elevating.
But: so what? Consumption is not some hardline number. Once prices increase enough, we will cut back on energy consumption. Supply and demand. We have huge margins to play with, as we are not too efficient in America - wasteful, actually. Killing SUV's, using public transport, living closer to cities, walking/biking, cutting back on consumption - these will all just happen naturally as the market forces oil prices up. And that's assuming global warming nutcases will not shut down everything first.
In summary: techology will certainly provide new methods of energy production and conservation, if history is any guide. This reality has been the bane of guys like McKibben for 300 years. They just don't get it. They are touchy-feely liberal environmentalists, not hard-nosed science and economic guys.
>>> "Killing SUV's, using public transport, living closer to cities, walking/biking, cutting back on consumption - these will all just happen naturally as the market forces oil prices up"
M_David,
You make it sound so painless, so bloodless. Do you really fail to envision any of the darker consequences of very expensive oil?
M_David definitely doesn't get it:"if by "peak oil", you mean that consumption exceeds what we can suck out of wells at any given time."
No, peak oil is the peak in global oil production, when we're pumping as much as we can and the sum total no longer rises.
And it's not just the touchy-feely liberals who "get it." Dick Cheney gets it, that's why he invoked executive privilege about those Energy Task Force meetings. And that's why we will have a US military presence in the ME until Kingdom Come.
Cheney in 1990:
"We're there [Iraq] because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."
Cheney in 2007:
"But if you look down the road a few years and speculate about the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran, astride the world's supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world, that's a very serious prospect. And it's important that not happen."
Will,
Your "peak oil production" is the same thing as what we can suck out of the ground at any given time. That's called peak oil production.
Peak oil is when you have reached your maximum production, irregardless of your reserves. Therefore, how fast you can suck it out is indeed a factor in peak oil. The immediate problem today is that we have not drilled enough holes to get it out as fast as we are consuming it. Hence, peak oil is here, even though it is unlikely we have consumed half the world's reserves.
I log oil wells for a living. I've studied peak oil. Read dozens of books on it. I hang out with geologists, geo guys. I get it fine.
And before you freak out too much: we hit peak oil in America 50 years ago, and yet we could, through conservation, easily get by with what we produce in our own backyard right now and not import a drop. We just need to conserve and move to nuclear and some coal (natural gas is running out too). Yes, it would change our way of life. For the better.
Further evidence that M_DAvid really does not get it: "we hit peak oil in America 50 years ago, and yet we could, through conservation, easily get by with what we produce in our own backyard right now and not import a drop."
We hit PO in the states in the '70s - Hubbert got that part right. Right now, almost 2/3 of oil consumed in the US is imported. At our current rate of consumption in the US, we have about 5 years of reserves under the 50 states. If that sounds like a scenario that could be easily overcome with conservation, you really don't understand Americans.
"we hit peak oil in America 50 years ago, and yet we could, through conservation, easily get by with what we produce in our own backyard right now and not import a drop."
One other thing and I'll let this nag expire - conservation is vitally important, no argument there. It's just that Americans have become dependant on oil. Americans use 20 percent of the world's oil production, but we make up only 5 percent of the population. We are the largest oil hog at the trough. As Americans, virtually every enterprise we undertake requires oil and it's by-products gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc.
Americans could rise to the occasion IF their leaders were to tell them the truth about oil. And not one of the major contenders is talking about it. Here's why, from the real leader of the free world, Dick Cheney: "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
So for those of us who understand the need for conservation, we may have to accept that virtue is indeed its own reward, while the rest of country drives and spends just like before, egged on by BushCo and the fourth estate.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.