Talking Politics

[Giardiasis]

So the only reason we can't see that yours is the only true way is because we don't understand. Dogma.

Why is your definition of dogma?

This is mine: "Dogma is a concept or principle accepted as absolute truth on the basis of unquestioned acceptance of an authority's statement to that effect rather than on the basis of logical reasoning or demonstrated proof".

Your argument is like saying I'm dogmatic because I say that you don't understand mathematics when you argue that 2+2=5.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

For the thousandth time I don't argue for utopia. It doesn't exist, so what? Does that have anything whatsoever to do with the possibility of it existing? The solution you call for won't achieve the result you want, unless your goal is to impoverish people? But you don't see that because you don't understand economics.

I don't need to to know I disagree with you and your 'markets are perfect' idealism. It is human nature to try to game any system and it is especially so in high stakes large enterprise. So it is not me who is seeking to impoverish people it is the rent seekers that gravitate to the top of markets.

Mate you simply don't know what you are talking about. The only renewable power source that can provide FCAS are hydro stations, so don't try and make out as if it can be wind or solar. The safeguards you disparage are there for a reason, if the interconnector didn't trip then it risked the integrity of the rest of the system. I'm not talking about headlines, I don't get my information from the MSM, but from the actual people responsible for the security of the power system (i.e. AEMO). Perhaps you think you know more than the people that actually look at power systems for a living? It is simply a fact that fossil fuel generators have a far greater ability to provide inertia to the power system, something wind farms are currently incapable of providing the NEM. It is you that can't see through your political blindfold because you want renewables, you don't care about the costs, and you don't understand the real implications to power system security and energy prices that renewables have now wrought to the NEM.

I didn't disparage the safety features I simply pointed out that they were what caused the outages and that they are part of the whole system. Yes the people you are speaking about know far more than me. Could they design the system better? If so why isn't it better? Would it be better if there was more than one interconnector? Could the whole grid be linked? A truly National Grid so that wind stations off the northern West Aus could be generating when the wind isn't blowing in S.A?
Why is that not possible? Why should S.A. or any State be isolated? I don't know. Do you? Is anyone asking these or better questions? Engineers live to find solutions so I doubt I'm the only person asking.

Meanwhile, you continue to sing the praises of coal and bemoan the death of shitty dirty power stations on 'perfect' economic grounds but people don't breathe 'economic' air. And the relative costs of that coal fired energy are put on the never-never so we can just go on doing what we are doing and never upgrade our systems and never begin the process of integrating the next wave of small scale local generation into the grid? Cool. Progress be damned let's all drive gas guzzlers and drill for oil and dig for coal forever shall we?

I am not and have not argued for the immediate cessation of coal fired power. Just for a fair go for renewable and an end to the nonsense that coal isn't propped by huge amounts of government money and an honest assessment of just how much damage the mining and burning of coal is actually doing. Digging up huge amounts of land to burn seems ridiculous to me, call me crazy. Not building huge solar collectors or thermal solar plants on the least populated most irradiated continent on Earth also seems ludicrous to me. I'm a whack job apparently.

 

[tigersnake]

Why is your definition of dogma?

This is mine: "Dogma is a concept or principle accepted as absolute truth on the basis of unquestioned acceptance of an authority's statement to that effect rather than on the basis of logical reasoning or demonstrated proof".

Your argument is like saying I'm dogmatic because I say that you don't understand mathematics when you argue that 2+2=5.

That's dogma baby.

 

[Giardiasis]

That's dogma baby.

So that supposed to make my position invalid how exactly?

 

[AngryAnt]

I think you mean not understanding economic law and not respecting the rule of law.

You remind me of the old guard Socialists - "look, Communism is actually a fantastic system, it just hasn't been implemented correctly yet".

Get back to us when your theories actually do any good in the real world - until then we'll focus on the actual problems of the here and now.

 

[Giardiasis]

You remind me of the old guard Socialists - "look, Communism is actually a fantastic system, it just hasn't been implemented correctly yet".

Get back to us when your theories actually do any good in the real world - until then we'll focus on the actual problems of the here and now.

Communism can be demonstrated logically to be bad theory, see Mises' economic calculation argument: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

Communism didn't need to be implemented for its failings to be demonstrated, just as a private property free market social order doesn't need to be implemented to demonstrate its ability to do any good in the real world.

 

[Giardiasis]

I don't need to to know I disagree with you and your 'markets are perfect' idealism. It is human nature to try to game any system and it is especially so in high stakes large enterprise. So it is not me who is seeking to impoverish people it is the rent seekers that gravitate to the top of markets.

Again you accuse me of utopia, I'll try again, markets are not perfect! They offer the best means for achieving prosperity. You think government intervention is free from people gaming the system? It just makes the problem immeasurably worse, because now you have a monopoly on violence you can use to get what you want. Instead of focusing on servicing customers better than their competitors, corporations (and unions) now spend huge sums of money on political lobbying to beat off their competitors.

I didn't disparage the safety features I simply pointed out that they were what caused the outages and that they are part of the whole system. Yes the people you are speaking about know far more than me. Could they design the system better? If so why isn't it better? Would it be better if there was more than one interconnector? Could the whole grid be linked? A truly National Grid so that wind stations off the northern West Aus could be generating when the wind isn't blowing in S.A?
Why is that not possible? Why should S.A. or any State be isolated? I don't know. Do you? Is anyone asking these or better questions? Engineers live to find solutions so I doubt I'm the only person asking.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The sprinklers caused the room to be wet, not the person who threw a cigarette into their bin and set it alight? So let’s not worry about the cigarette then? The power system has to be designed around the inherent limitations of the vast array of equipment attached to it. When we are comparing between renewable and fossil fuel generation, one could cope with the frequency disturbance that happened last year, the other couldn’t. So yes, it was the fault of the wind turbines that SA went black. Speculating about whether or not the power system could be designed better does not remove the casual relationship between the black event and the extent of wind power penetration in SA.

Yes another interconnector with NSW for example would have reduced the risk of blackouts that wind generation has increased. You got a spare $2 billion up your sleeve? You got a few more billion to link the NEM with WA? There are entrepreneurs out there that do this every day and understand the technical considerations of power supply and transmission, capital requirements, and opportunity costs. If it hasn’t been built then there’s a fair chance it is not feasible.

States are isolated because the NEM has been designed around a zonal pricing system. SA is especially vulnerable because it relies on supply coming from other zones. However even if you had the market price settle at a single zone, then this wouldn’t change the fact that SA demand points are reliant on Heywood flows. A blackout in SA would just be the same thing as an isolated blackout in any zone. It would be like the Laverton North busbar going offline and all the loads connected to it would blackout. This wouldn’t stop the VIC market from continuing.

Meanwhile, you continue to sing the praises of coal and bemoan the death of sh!tty dirty power stations on 'perfect' economic grounds but people don't breathe 'economic' air. And the relative costs of that coal fired energy are put on the never-never so we can just go on doing what we are doing and never upgrade our systems and never begin the process of integrating the next wave of small scale local generation into the grid? Cool. Progress be damned let's all drive gas guzzlers and drill for oil and dig for coal forever shall we?

Again, I’m not arguing on “perfect” economic grounds, but optimal economic grounds. The relative costs of coal fired energy are something for people to consider when they choose their power supply. The market obviously disagrees with you on those costs, otherwise renewable power wouldn’t need huge government intervention to override the peaceful decisions people make. I’m not arguing for coal for coal’s sake, but because it makes the most economic sense, this doesn’t mean better power sources shouldn’t be looked at and allowed to compete. That’s how a properly function market works. Unfortunately due to the government intervention into the power transmission network, it makes decentralising these mechanisms difficult. That’s not the fault of the market.

I am not and have not argued for the immediate cessation of coal fired power. Just for a fair go for renewable and an end to the nonsense that coal isn't propped by huge amounts of government money and an honest assessment of just how much damage the mining and burning of coal is actually doing. Digging up huge amounts of land to burn seems ridiculous to me, call me crazy. Not building huge solar collectors or thermal solar plants on the least populated most irradiated continent on Earth also seems ludicrous to me. I'm a whack job apparently.

Seems we are in agreement, I also welcome renewable power to compete with existing supply and an end to any subsidies to fossil fuel sources. Where we disagree is that you don’t apply consistent principles. You don’t understand why coal might be better than solar because you are not an energy entrepreneur, and you do not understand the technical considerations of power generation and transmission, the capital requirements or the opportunity costs of such ventures. You don’t need to understand this; you just need to choose what power supply you want, and the market will sort out the rest.

 

[AngryAnt]

just as a private property free market social order doesn't need to be implemented to demonstrate its ability to do any good in the real world.

Yeah so I think you are underestimating the importance of what actually happens in the real world a wee bit, but ok.

 

[Giardiasis]

Yeah so I think you are underestimating the importance of what actually happens in the real world a wee bit, but ok.

Well I get that for the ideas of libertarianism to get any traction in the minds of the masses, they will need to be demonstrated in practice. However this in itself is not required to prove their validity. You don’t need to demonstrate in practice that 54+46=100, it can be demonstrated logically.

 

[AngryAnt]

The fundamental problem with this logic is that it sees humans as discrete individuals who all operate independently, and whose rights are essentially defined as property rights. The environment/planet are excluded from this logical construct so it's not sufficient to say "I own things, and if people damage those things then I can sue them for damages".

The reality of course is far more complex - we live on a planet where societies, economies and ecosystems are linked in an a highly complex fashion. Impacts and negative effects caused by, say a factory producing greenhouse gases in China on the environment in Australia are definite but there are complex causal chains that link these things that are not demonstrable in a strict legal sense. Even if I could say "I own the air, or the water, or the climate - you have damaged these things and impacted on my economic well-being". I'd have to sue every factory in China performing these activities, calculating the scale of damage caused by each. Not practical. And even if I could, and you they all pay me $X, the environment and climate are still *smile*ed. And every individual in Australia affected by these practices would have to do the same.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that we can have economies and ways of living that don't impact on the planet in one way or another, and appeal to property rights does not and will never cut it in this regard.

 

[Giardiasis]

The fundamental problem with this logic is that it sees humans as discrete individuals who all operate independently, and whose rights are essentially defined as property rights. The environment/planet are excluded from this logical construct so it's not sufficient to say "I own things, and if people damage those things then I can sue them for damages".

The reality of course is far more complex - we live on a planet where societies, economies and ecosystems are linked in an a highly complex fashion. Impacts and negative effects caused by, say a factory producing greenhouse gases in China on the environment in Australia are definite but there are complex causal chains that link these things that are not demonstrable in a strict legal sense. Even if I could say "I own the air, or the water, or the climate - you have damaged these things and impacted on my economic well-being". I'd have to sue every factory in China performing these activities, calculating the scale of damage caused by each. Not practical. And even if I could, and you they all pay me $X, the environment and climate are still *smile*ed. And every individual in Australia affected by these practices would have to do the same.

The environment/planet is not excluded, they are crucial to understanding how acting man operates. He does not act in a vacuum, but within a society and he uses the means at his disposal to achieve ends. Your description of the legal implications of CC is a good one, except you wouldn’t have to sue every factory. If you managed to win a big case, then the others would have to factor in the added risk to their operations. Marginal factories would likely close, proposed projects will likely be canned. If the science is so rock solid, this should be easy enough to sell to the public, who can then change their demand profiles. This works fine in libertarian earth, but what about if the CO2 emitters were all in communist regimes for example where private property rights are not respected? Well you either go to war, attempt to negotiate, or refuse to trade. However the refuse to trade component should not be compelled on private property owners within libertarian territories. It is up to individuals to decide if they are being harmed, they can’t decide for others.

Now you might kick and scream because you think you are being harmed, but if others do not think they are being harmed or think the benefits outweigh the harm, then too bad.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that we can have economies and ways of living that don't impact on the planet in one way or another, and appeal to property rights does not and will never cut it in this regard.

I’m not arguing that man doesn’t affect the planet, but it is up to individuals to decide to what extent, and what they are going to do about it as individuals. When you say private property doesn’t cut it, basically you think this because the majority of other people disagree with you; hence your only option is to argue for compulsion to bend others to your will.

 

[tigersnake]

If the science is so rock solid, this should be easy enough to sell to the public, who can then change their demand profiles.

so simple!

It is amazing to me personally that any intelligent preson would convince themselves of this. But there it is.

Here is the thing, power and politics. It has influence on selling the message. But don't take my word for it, pick up any book on politics and the media. Oh that's right you only read libertarian blogs. My mistake.

 

[Giardiasis]

so simple!

It is amazing to me personally that any intelligent preson would convince themselves of this. But there it is.

Here is the thing, power and politics. It has influence on selling the message. But don't take my word for it, pick up any book on politics and the media. Oh that's right you only read libertarian blogs. My mistake.

Oh coz it can't be that the science isn't rock solid could it? Has to be dem big oil corporations and fat cats being all corporationy and all.

 

[tigersnake]

Oh coz it can't be that the science isn't rock solid could it? Has to be dem big oil corporations and fat cats being all corporationy and all.

nailed it. You may not believe this, but there are some idiots out there who think oil corporations don't throw their weight around politically. I know, its whacky, but they're out there.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The environment/planet is not excluded, they are crucial to understanding how acting man operates. He does not act in a vacuum, but within a society and he uses the means at his disposal to achieve ends.

Where did this society come from? Your model of individuals acting in their own self interest is not a society.

 

[Giardiasis]

Where did this society come from? Your model of individuals acting in their own self interest is not a society.

Acting in your self interest doesn't mean isolationism, but partaking in the division of labour. Otherwise I'd just go live as a hermit instead of arguing for free trade and volunteerism.

 

[Giardiasis]

nailed it. You may not believe this, but there are some idiots out there who think oil corporations don't throw their weight around politically. I know, its whacky, but they're out there.

I think you'll find I've already made that point. Interesting how many oil companies have jumped on board the CO2 tax/ETS bandwagon, big corporations love regulations.

 

[josey]

nailed it. You may not believe this, but there are some idiots out there who think oil corporations don't throw their weight around politically. I know, its whacky, but they're out there.

I was talking to a senior federal politician who likened the current oil lobbyists to that of the cigarette lobbyists of days gone by. Apparently they are everywhere and at the moment their influence is huge.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Again you accuse me of utopia, I'll try again, markets are not perfect! They offer the best means for achieving prosperity. You think government intervention is free from people gaming the system? It just makes the problem immeasurably worse, because now you have a monopoly on violence you can use to get what you want. Instead of focusing on servicing customers better than their competitors, corporations (and unions) now spend huge sums of money on political lobbying to beat off their competitors.

I agree that is what the system has morphed into in the last almost half-century. I am as you know unconvinced on the real world possibility of perfect markets. I know think you aren't advocating that but as soon your market is open to corruption it fails to be better than the corrupt system we now have. That is why I keep returning to the charge of perfect markets with homo-economicus making perfect decisions and acting in consistent and logical ways.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The sprinklers caused the room to be wet, not the person who threw a cigarette into their bin and set it alight? So let’s not worry about the cigarette then? The power system has to be designed around the inherent limitations of the vast array of equipment attached to it. When we are comparing between renewable and fossil fuel generation, one could cope with the frequency disturbance that happened last year, the other couldn’t. So yes, it was the fault of the wind turbines that SA went black. Speculating about whether or not the power system could be designed better does not remove the casual relationship between the black event and the extent of wind power penetration in SA.

The current system was designed and improved based on fossil fuel generation so of course it looks as though only that type of generation works within the system. It is circular reasoning of a sort. It is not that the more variable generation of renewables can't work it is that they don't work in a system designed around coal/oil/gas/nuclear. That is a an engineering challenge. It sounds as though some corners were cut in S.A.

Yes another interconnector with NSW for example would have reduced the risk of blackouts that wind generation has increased. You got a spare $2 billion up your sleeve? You got a few more billion to link the NEM with WA? There are entrepreneurs out there that do this every day and understand the technical considerations of power supply and transmission, capital requirements, and opportunity costs. If it hasn’t been built then there’s a fair chance it is not feasible.

Agreed, hence why you need government intervention. "Entrepreneurs" (perhaps Musk excepted) don't go for capital spending and long pay-offs on the scale needed.

States are isolated because the NEM has been designed around a zonal pricing system. SA is especially vulnerable because it relies on supply coming from other zones. However even if you had the market price settle at a single zone, then this wouldn’t change the fact that SA demand points are reliant on Heywood flows. A blackout in SA would just be the same thing as an isolated blackout in any zone. It would be like the Laverton North busbar going offline and all the loads connected to it would blackout. This wouldn’t stop the VIC market from continuing.

Yes the system is the way it is because, the system is the way it is.

Again, I’m not arguing on “perfect” economic grounds, but optimal economic grounds. The relative costs of coal fired energy are something for people to consider when they choose their power supply. The market obviously disagrees with you on those costs, otherwise renewable power wouldn’t need huge government intervention to override the peaceful decisions people make. I’m not arguing for coal for coal’s sake, but because it makes the most economic sense, this doesn’t mean better power sources shouldn’t be looked at and allowed to compete. That’s how a properly function market works. Unfortunately due to the government intervention into the power transmission network, it makes decentralising these mechanisms difficult. That’s not the fault of the market.

I don't think the current system works but I don't think private individuals or corporations would be better at making sure a system is equitable, it rhymes with profitable but that's where the similarity ends.

Seems we are in agreement, I also welcome renewable power to compete with existing supply and an end to any subsidies to fossil fuel sources. Where we disagree is that you don’t apply consistent principles. You don’t understand why coal might be better than solar because you are not an energy entrepreneur, and you do not understand the technical considerations of power generation and transmission, the capital requirements or the opportunity costs of such ventures.

Where we disagree is what we see as "better". Homo-economicus sees only cost/benefit but discounts environmental costs. Homo-economicus is unconcerned about the damage done and costs incurred that won't hit the balance sheet till long after he's dead. That is where we disagree. I get that loosely speaking coal looks cheaper I just think that is because some of the costs are hidden.

You don’t need to understand this; you just need to choose what power supply you want, and the market will sort out the rest.

Come on Gia you are talking about an individual making a "choice" about large scale power generation. This is equivalent to telling an employee at a multi-national that they have equal power to their boss when negotiating their employment contract. This is a nonsense. This is why a 'market' for this type of infrastructure doesn't work.

 

[WesternTiger]

This has nonthing to do with CC it is basic economics and law. If the science is proven like you claim, then harmed persons should have no problem proving as such in a court of law. But of course they can't because your claim about CC being proven is false.

Ah! So this is just like the unfounded claims that wind turbines case health issues? Doesn't stop the Libs trotting it out when it suits however....