Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is energy, actually? (2011)

jancovici.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 286 posts

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#161

Post by mrpopo »

vixen99 wrote: post #149
mrpopo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of excessive energy consumption isn't caused by the people in poor countries though.

And who defines excessive? If you happen to be talking about CO2 emissions, the level in the UK (1% of total emissions) has been reduced to that last experienced in 1890. Aside from CO2 what's the problem with energy consumption in itself? There are plenty of people in the UK who have a financial problem in keeping warm in the winter. I see a figure of 4 million from 2016. That's not at all likely to get smaller as r…

> Aside from CO2 what's the problem with energy consumption in itself?

I agree with this entirely. Some countries managed to reduce CO2 emissions from their electricity production. However when you look at primary energy consumption, including heating, industry, transportation, no country manages to reach a low-CO2 energy profile.

> There are plenty of people in the UK who have a financial problem in keeping warm in the winter.

There are plenty of people in the UK who live in old, precarious buildings with very poor insulation. Mandatory paid-for insulation in these buildings would reduce energy consumption, CO2 emissions and increase comfort of living. That's part of the measures pushed forward by Jancovici.

> And who defines excessive?

That is, indeed the key question of our times.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#162

Post by Ma8ee »

pjc50 wrote: post #140
Ma8ee wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. Is this really true? Aren't you mixing up production growth with production? Imagine I live alone on my small farm in the middle of nowhere. I produce 20 bags of wheat every year. I eat 19 and sa…

> Or does the existence of the wheat in my barn somehow decrease the value of all other wheat in the world? If you are so remote that the wheat is guaranteed to remain off the market forever, no matter if your starving neighbour comes and offers you a fortune for it? Perhaps. Otherwise the answer has to be yes. It's not just me saying it, it was one of the more important cases the US Supreme Court heard in the 20th c…

> It's not just me saying it, it was one of the more important cases the US Supreme Court

They might be the authority on who can tax who, but I don't trust them to know how the economy "really" works.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#163

Post by saurik »

lukasLansky wrote: post #132
pmorici wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency gains from technology advances in past 20 years have masked inflation. Look at industries like houses, healthcare, and education which tech hasn’t optimized to the same extent and you see massive inflation

Inflation, using the usual definition, cannot be 'masked by technology' as technology is one of the things that legitimately determine general price level. Inflation counts and always counted general price level with effects of technology advancements taken into account. So the poster you are replying to has it right: inflation is low.

I think the argument is that technology "should have" led to a massive deflation as the price of a bunch of goods and services crashed due to automation; but, instead, that value has been being captured by a combination of people "at the top" simply making more money (hiring fewer people but keeping prices the same somehow, maybe due to supply chain oligopolies or intellectual property barriers <- this is all ancillary to the point, btw, and yet the point doesn't feel complete or honest if I don't add this first effect) and the levers that can be used to cause inflation (which I think are what people are really talking about here when they say "inflation": not the measurable result, but a specific set of deliberate causes of an upward force--whether or not the sum of all forces, in total, is up--on that measurement), the latter of which then leading to an "on average" leveling of the inflation measure where the price of things that can be automated goes down slightly (instead of dramatically) while the price of things that can't be automated goes up.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#164

Post by barry-cotter »

pjc50 wrote: post #145
new2628 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. pet theory: Inflation is way way more than zero almost everywhere (prices of services and rents reflect this), but high inflation is masked by increased supply chain efficiencies, cheapening (in some cases worsening) of products and other factors, which keep prices of physical products relatively stable.

There's a real discussion to be had here, but we have to be careful not to move the labels too much. The economics term for differential inflation in various goods is "Baumol cost disease": https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/5/4/15547364/baumol-cost-... Tremendous graph there. Basically, services that have to be provided by western labour in the west have got much more expensive, while goods that can be imported have…

> Basically, services that have to be provided by western labour in the west have got much more expensive, while goods that can be imported have got much cheaper.

This is broadly true though the bit about the West and imports is unnecessary. Manufactured goods have gotten cheaper whether imported or not in real terms, and services get more expensive in relative terms as a consequence. Some of this is probably a result of government misregulation but not all. Cosmetic surgery isn’t covered by insurance, nor is LASIK or hair loss treatment and in inflation adjusted terms prices have been basically flat for over a decade, neglecting the huge increases in quality. Education probably has similarly large inefficiencies, even outside institutions that exist only because of easily available student loans and non-existent quality control like the University of Phoenix.

But Cost Disease is the inevitable product of economic growth. The more capital you have the more labor will be paid because Money is just less valuable to you when you have lots and labour vice versa.

A long report on Baumol’s cost disease in the US context and internationally.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/helland-tabarrok_why-a...

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#165

Post by chkaloon »

Ma8ee wrote: post #158
chkaloon wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your growing pile of wheat incurs increasing storage and maintenance costs over time. This will be measured as positive growth, and if growth is 0 in the overall system, by definition it needs to be negative in some other locality.

> Your growing pile of wheat incurs increasing storage and maintenance costs over time. That is quite neglible. The barn will stand there wether there's any wheat in it or not.

Eventually you will need another barn

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#166

Post by macspoofing »

deergomoo wrote: post #23
hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

I've long been of the opinion that the public trading of companies is directly responsible for much of the social injustice we see in the West. As soon as there's a fiduciary duty to maximise ROI, morals go out the window. If you as an officer resist, the collective of shareholders will replace you with someone who will make more money. There's a dissolution of responsibility that comes with the distributed nature of…

>I've long been of the opinion that the public trading of companies is directly responsible for much of the social injustice we see in the West.

Based on what? And in contrast to what?

I suspect we differ in our fundamental ideological assumptions, especially if you subscribe or are friendly to Marxism - because I completely fail to connect Apple (or GE, or some publicly traded mid-size company) to any sort of 'social injustice'.

>As soon as there's a fiduciary duty to maximize ROI, morals go out the window.

No, they don't. Certainly, if you're a widget company, the focus is on making the best widgets within your constraints (and not solving homelessness) but that's as nefarious as a saying a carpenter doesn't have morals because he focuses on carpetry.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#167

Post by syshum »

TwoHeadedBeast wrote: post #133
syshum wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent, Food, Gas, Utilities are the biggest drivers for personal cost of living increases, these do not have price cuts due to technology. All 4 of the big household expenses are increasing at a rate of 7-20% depending on where you live

Where are food prices going up? I can't say I've noticed it where I live.

Then you are not accurately tracking your food costs by unit of measure. Nor tracking pricing at restaurants.

I have seen a combination of both Shrink and Price increases. The cost of eating lunch at my favorite restaurants has steadily increased, and the Average price per unit for normal groceries has increased on a weekly basis. Even if your bill remains the same, that 32oz Ketchup is now probably 28oz

Looking at some commodity index's Beef is about 2x the price it was in 2009, Bananas are about 40% higher than 2009, Milk over 2x higher than it was in 2009.

So I really do not understand what data you are looking at that shows food prices are not going up? Both Empirically and Anecdotally my food costs are increasing

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#168

Post by ryanmercer »

koheripbal wrote: post #57
heavenlyblue wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you really vote with public amazon shares?

Yes. Shareholder receive voting packets in the mail, or can exercise their votes online at their brokerage website.

But how many of the shares of any major company are owned by funds with other companies doing the voting for thousands or millions of investors?

Every single cent I have in the market is via index funds.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#169

Post by macspoofing »

hliyan wrote: post #40
deergomoo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've long been of the opinion that the public trading of companies is directly responsible for much of the social injustice we see in the West. As soon as there's a fiduciary duty to maximise ROI, morals go out the window. If you as an officer resist, the collective of shareholders will replace you with someone who will make more money. There's a dissolution of responsibility that comes with the distributed nature of…

I have had the following thought: what if we institute a rule where any shareholder who exercises his right to vote must hold his stock for at least 2 years?

You can but to fix what problem exactly? There are downsides and unintended consequences for constraining liquidity. It isn't a free lunch, especially given that I'm not sure what the problem is.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#170

Post by ckastner »

seirl wrote: post #94
ckastner wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kind of amusing that this idea is posted here on Hacker News, the center of people seeking jobs and companies that are the definition of growth. But that's the good kind of growth, you see? I'm being sarcastic, of course. The ironic (and to me: annoying) thing about the really vocal moralists is that the concept of self-reflection seems to be entirely foreign to them. The problem is always with other people, and th…

It is the good kind of growth, the dematerialization of the economy is a major factor in the lower energy elasticity in developed countries...

What dematerialization? Facebook's entire business model is advertising, in other words: getting you to buy things. It used to be Google's and Amazon's entire business model, too, until they diversified into cloud services.

It's the exact opposite of dematerialization.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not at all against these things. On the contrary. My point is that among those people most vocal in demanding (sometimes radical) change from others, I frequently see a complete lack of self-reflection.

Post reply on HN