Yep, I have a few of these to catch up on. What started as an observation by TreeHugger author Lloyd Alter that Germans were “gamifying” the use of less energy (“Germans Are Competing With Each Other to Save Energy“), my first thought was “oh, competing to see who could have a worse standard of living faster AND be proud of it?”. He did point out in his third paragraph, however, that some of the techniques were silly, stupid, and could get them killed:
The Journal also reports that Germans are boasting on social media about lowering the thermostats, wearing thermal underwear, and even “lighting outdoor grills and camping stoves in their apartments,” which is a good way to get asphyxiated. They are baking bread in the toaster and “deleting unneeded programs and apps from digital devices,” which will save zero energy.
Well, look on the bright side – after you’re dead, your energy usage goes to zero, right? Unless you want to get as fanatical as some of the THers and claim that they are STILL “consuming” carbon-based energy when the landscapers run their lawnmowers over your grave and trim around your headstone. But Lloyd also brought up my secondary heating source, wood (being primary at night and on cloudy days instead of passive solar). So one conservative wag started the ball rolling with:
Bob Baal: So will this mean fewer articles on TH about the evils of burning wood?
Enviros hate the idea of woodstoves – particulate pollution (e.g., smoke if you aren’t burning “hot”) as well as “using” the embedded carbon and releasing it back into the atmosphere as part of the process of burning it. But given that the article was being positive about it, Bob asked THE question as Lloyd generally is really down on wood as a heat source. Lloyd did say he did have another post against wood the next day but I took that opportunity by the horns…
GraniteGrok: heh!
As I bask, on a couch, in my wood stove’s gentle heat (a Vermont Casting’s Defiant, if anyone cares) with a contented smile on my face…
…as I try to forget what my electric bill is costing me.
And then we were off to the races about capitalism which was kicked off by my swipe against Eversource’s doubling of the cost of electricity (thanks ESG!). Another Commenter by the name of freedomev decided to show us his ignorance of what Capitalism is – and isn’t. So I decided it was a most proper time to “learn him some edumacation”. Note: he’s stubborn so this goes long.
And like I have advocated before, we cannot refuse an opportunity to engage in the debate, especially when we know that the other side either doesn’t know what they are talking about (this case) or you want to clear up the misconception (this case again) or create an Object Lesson (triple threat – and those of you who teach Sunday School in churches et al know what an O.L is).
So, we see that freedomev’s premise about capitalism is wrong from the get go – a perfect place in which exploit the debate. Reformatted, emphasis mine:
freedomev -> GraniteGrok
If capitalism was good you’d have a low temp Rankine closed system motor/alternator making serious power from that stove.
But where are they? We’ve had the tech 90 yrs yet you can’t buy one, a wood/waste fired CHP, a heat/cold storage unit, etc.
So there’s the fault, right of the bat – the assumption that Capitalism is bad. Simply because there isn’t a product on the market as he wants. Nobody is supplying a need that he assumes that capitalism should have already figured out. But note that an alternative economic system isn’t offered – only that Capitalism is bad.
Tag, I’m it – and showed him how he could make LOTS of money if he’d only take advantage of Capitalism’s democratization of the marketplace
GraniteGrok -> freedomev
If capitalism was good
Actually, you are proving that it works! Sounds like you have found a hole (or at least a small niche) in the HVAC marketplace, sir! Make it and they shall buy it, right?
I plead ignorance of the tech you speak of – HAS anyone tried before? If the answer is no, it isn’t capitalism that is at fault so your premise is wrong. But you may proceed!
If the answer is yes but were unable to scale it up at a prices that consumers will pay for it, capitalism still worked correctly. You do know why, right?
And we see the next untenable supposition about Capitalism:
freedomev -> GraniteGrok
Capitalism is supposed to supply what we need, we need those and they don’t so, no it doesn’t.The tech is the same as in a heat pump, just in reverse as a heat motor, dead simple.
I’m too old, not my expertise, to do that but should and needs to be available as can work from 400F stored heat generating, heating on demand, saving a lot of battery demand and runs off solar, yard, other wastes, etc.
Your explanation of capitalism is so flawed, to be laughable. As capitalism is turning out to be. While we need it, it needs to be more controlled, guided or will eat itself.
Yeah, we’ve all seen what top-down “guided” economies have accomplished and ended up doing. crashing and burning. But yet again, another opportunity:
GraniteGrok -> freedomev
You have a wrong headed idea of capitalism. Yes, capitalism serves people. This best economic system that has ever been devised (letting people choose for themselves) does supply a lot of things that people want and need.What it ISN’T is a sorcerer’s box that automatically conjures up new products out of thin air. It DOES provide, however, the ability for someone to think of a new product, design it, manufacture it, market it, and hopefully sell it.
The marketplace (i.e., consumers) will decide if it is a product they want. For instance, the cell phone. Today, few people would be willing to do without it. However, the patent office is full of ideas that consumers went “never mind, don’t want it”.
That’s not a FAILURE of the market, that’s the market saying “we don’t want or need it” in sufficient numbers to make it worth someone’s time, effort, and capital to carry onward with it.
There are a lot of things that people, like yourself, complain that “capitalism” doesn’t provide. What you are really saying is “I hate it when others won’t waste their time, effort, and capital to give me what I want or what I think they should be doing for me”.
…but should and needs to be available
That’s merely an opinion – it’s not capitalism. It would be if you got past your idea that you’re too “old”, get off your duff, and get it down. Or persuade someone else to do it – and help them.
“Guided economies”. Yeah, that’s worked out EVAH! so well over the last century and a half. Again, look up the Great Mind Fallacy to see why.
Note in his response he wants others to make economic decisions for him without his input. And a third bad assumption of capitalism – in totally missing my admonition above that individuals make the decisions on their own. He just can’t give up the notion that because a product he wants doesn’t exist, it proves that Capitalism is a failure (absolute nonsense). And look at the “THEY” part – another false assumption:
freedomev -> GraniteGrok
Guided corporations that is for sure. They promised capitalism would provide and doesn’t come anywhere near right. They force you to take what they give for them.
And when that is poisoning people, oil wars for profit, needs to end.
And no one is forcing anyone to take anything. The marketplace offers; it cannot “force” as he is implying. Again, the socialist/communist influence among the Eco-Socialists. And this is where I really wind up:
GraniteGrok -> freedomev
WHO said capitalism promised anything.Remember, the base principle/action of capitalism is this – a voluntary exchange in which each person believes they are receiving a better value than what they are giving.
Example: I am willing to buy your widget because I believe your widget is worth more to me than the money I would give you to pay for it. You, on the other hand, believe my money is a better value for you than your widget does for you.
That’s it. That’s capitalism at its basic level.
Look at the base elements:
– I have money
– You have a product.A match happens.
Or not as in I like your widget but not at the price you want. I can counter offer your price. You can either accept or not. If not and no exchange of values happen.
NOTHING is ever sure – there is RISK in capitalism of either not having sufficient money (I can’t buy a Rolls even though I need a car) or no one wants your product.
Strictly an economic decision.
Yes, the gubbmint gets in the way of this basic transaction – sometimes helpful, often not helpful. YMWV.
Other systems are both economic AND political in nature and often, the political is primary (your “guiding”).
How can some far away bureaucrat know what is best for either you or me in our transaction? Govt only creates friction in that transaction and often gets details wrong.
And that last question never got answered.
This debate is needful for all of us to have, do, and win. Too often, those on the Left have an ill-composed idea of what Capitalism is and how it works. Their view is ALWAYS top-down like their view of how our Government should be functioning (e.g., Feds rule over the States that rule over localities) starting with corporations. We need to switch the field of debate to a bottom up one – that Individuals are primary in this.
FreedomEV believes that the “faceless ‘they’ of Capitalism” is always top down and trying to force consumers to buy the things THEY tell them to. We need to make the case that it is individual consumers that are in charge – and should be. We should ALWAYS fight the urge to conflate and intertwine the idea that Government and Capitalism should always be the same.
After all, that’s what socialism and communism do, just as Islam does the same thing with Government and Religion.
Capitalism is the only economic system that is free from either (or should be). It DOES require Individual Freedom to be successful – but it also expands that Individual Freedom as well by putting MORE decision making into the hands of Individuals.
