Gadget Greed And Congo Tragedy

[nmap]

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

I agree that America should not place itself at a disadvantage when seeking natural resources.

This seems to imply that we should obtain the best materials at the lowest prices - the very opposite of the position advocated by Crow and Prendergast.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

However, I don't think that necessarily corresponds with consumer demand for the newest digital camera or cell phone. I am not lobbying for the government or military to forgo necessary items, I am advocating the idea of responsible consumerism.

Note the potential side-effect of reduced corporate profits, hence reduced tax revenue. Conservation may represent a private virtue, but it does lower growth.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

As Americans, we have decided it is an "unalienable right" to buy whatever we want, from whoever we want, whenever we want, at the price we want.

This sounds somewhat like a definition of the free market. From that perspective, perhaps we should add in a willing seller.

If we were to say that we should be able to purchase whatever we want from willing sellers, that would approach the free market ideal.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

I disagree with this. I believe in the idea that I have a responsibility to consider my purchases and the message they send. I have a responsibility to consider whether or not my unending demand for the latest and greatest contributes to the oppression of others.

Just about everything sends a message, though. And it may well contribute to some sort of unpleasantness, somewhere.

Suppose we purchase a shirt. Was it made in a foreign sweat shop? Does it then contribute to some sort of oppression of the workers - who may well be pathetically grateful for the job?

For that matter, if we enjoy a chocolate, were the beans produced by slave labor? This was quite the issue a few years ago. Now one could purchase so-called fair trade chocolate at a much higher price; but I can assure you that there is no discernible difference in taste between the two products.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

Is it a direct and quantifiable connection? Not always.

Therein lies the problem, you see. If emotion, also exhibited by the cry "But we gotta do sumpin!" rules, we can go down false paths - and those paths can, ultimately, prove counterproductive.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

But my overarching idea here is that I am not my number one priority. I serve America in the military because I believe in the idea that there is value in sacrifice. I pay a little more or pass on a purchase for that same reason. Even if it means I have decided it is someone other than an American is more important. They are still people..stupid and weak though they may be.

Sacrifice, but to what end? Sacrifice for what purpose? More pointedly still, why? The answers to these questions, perhaps not something you would care to post, may change if you reflect upon them over time.

You also contend that someone other than an American may be more important. This may well cause you to face some internal conflicts in the future.

I would ask you to consider a possibility. Most of us are used to abundance. True scarcity is, quite nearly, unimaginable to many. Please reflect on Peregrino's comments in that light. I will go further - I am, in a true and literal sense, betting on scarcity. I expect those bets to be quite profitable.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

Ultimately, I am not convinced that many of the conservation arguments would put us at a "handicap." What if we did all buy electric cars? Or had solar farms and wind mills that replaced coal? Yeah, oil and coal may last longer than some liberals want us to believe, and the developing world may use it up even more quickly than we can if given the chance.

Exactly. Per Jevon's paradox, as one group conserves, the price goes down to make usage more cost-effective for other groups. In essence, conservation cannot work.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

But wouldn't our national security actually be strengthened by a lack of reliance on so much oil?

That sort of question, which impinges on important national policy decisions, is exactly the sort that requires quantification. It is a balance.

Reduced oil imports would cut our trade deficit. That could be helpful.

On the other hand, if we have increased costs, decreased productivity, or both, then our GDP might decline. Reduced economic activity could undermine national security.

In this light, we might consider Energy Return on Energy Invested. (EROEI) Note that EROEI for corn ethanol was low or negative, and so the initiative has done poorly. I am not aware of any rigorous studies that examine the issue for wind or solar. Do we dare invest heavily in an approach that may have a fatal flaw?

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

I mean what if we could treat SWA like we often treat Africa now and we just stayed out of their piddly wars except for those tip of the spear actions now and again? Consolidation of resource needs within our own borders does not place us at a handicap.

We do not have abundant supplies of all materials. Therefore, such a policy seems to imply that consumers do without, or that they pay higher prices. This will tend to impede the economy, reduce growth, and reduce tax revenues.

Which means...less employment, lower wages, and a generally more austere lifestyle for all Americans.

Individuals can choose to follow that path, certainly. The problem arises when others seek to dictate behavior. Let us consider those expensive free-range chickens; some might regard the existing factory-farm arrangement as inhumane, and hence conclude that we don't need to eat much meat. Therefore, all chicken (and other meats) would be quite expensive. Those with that perspective would be pleased with the outcome. Others might not be. The same paradigm applies to purchases of electronics.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

Global warming is not an element of my argument. Intelligent consideration of the things we rely on to make it through a day is what I am after.

I don't believe I have the time or resources to get that done. If I eat a strawberry, have I contributed to the abuse of some laborer somewhere? If I purchase a shirt, does the company pursue harsh labor policies? If I do business with a company, shall I worry about some obscure subdivision doing bad things? That's too much homework. If you actually have the time and energy to do all that, then I guess I'm jealous!

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

If everyone both liberal and conservative ends up happy in the end because we reach the same end through different goals then great, all the better. Let's all get along.

We won't, you know.

Originally Posted by NoRoadtrippin

I understand this article is not about that topic so much as the linked thread is, but I think the two are at least related.

Markets are funny things. Money goes to wherever it can get the best yield. It pains me to say this, but I perceive the U.S. making some choices that will drive capital, innovation, and activity elsewhere.

Rhetorical question: How do we support our national security infrastructure if we weaken ourselves economically?

[Peregrino]

nmap - you only missed two points I would have explored. One - California is an example of the implementation of "government by responsible social consciousness" that NoRoadtrippin appears to advocate. Despite being the sixth largest economy in the world, it is in precipitous decline. The ecological costs of their "green revolution" have been transferred to the surrounding region and restrictive legislation (legislated conscience) is quickly killing what remains of the economy. Reality sucks. Two - Consumer activity, especially in cutting edge "luxury electronics" fuels research and development with spinoff that affects every aspect of our lives. Demand drives markets. The military isn't a large enough customer to maintain the current level of innovation. Thought experiment - what is the ratio of Blackberrys to Land Warrior systems? Substitute virtually any consumer electronics for a military system; for example, GPS. Another question - why are most of the US small arms currently being produced by a foreign manufacturer (FN)? The questions are related. My personal experiences in the Third World lead me to the same conclusion TR voiced. If the natives have the will, there are few problems that they can't solve for themselves with guns and training. That is the only method that guarantees even short term solutions. Suggesting that Americans restrict the purchase of cutting edge consumer electronics in hopes of modifying the behavior of African thugs bespeaks an unrealistic worldview.

[lonepine]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

nmap - you only missed two points I would have explored. One - California is an example of the implementation of "government by responsible social consciousness" that NoRoadtrippin appears to advocate. Despite being the sixth largest economy in the world, it is in precipitous decline. The ecological costs of their "green revolution" have been transferred to the surrounding region and restrictive legislation (legislated conscience) is quickly killing what remains of the economy. Reality sucks. Two - Consumer activity, especially in cutting edge "luxury electronics" fuels research and development with spinoff that affects every aspect of our lives. Demand drives markets. The military isn't a large enough customer to maintain the current level of innovation. Thought experiment - what is the ratio of Blackberrys to Land Warrior systems? Substitute virtually any consumer electronics for a military system; for example, GPS. Another question - why are most of the US small arms currently being produced by a foreign manufacturer (FN)? The questions are related. My personal experiences in the Third World lead me to the same conclusion TR voiced. If the natives have the will, there are few problems that they can't solve for themselves with guns and training. That is the only method that guarantees even short term solutions. Suggesting that Americans restrict the purchase of cutting edge consumer electronics in hopes of modifying the behavior of African thugs bespeaks an unrealistic worldview.

You're right, the article is espousing an unrealistic worldview in that it believes a boycott of certain goods will lead to change in centuries-old conflicts in Africa. The article even mentions the controversy surrounding "blood diamonds" and claims that public awareness ended diamond-related conflicts Africa - Western hubris at its best.

However, the 'blood diamond' example raises an interesting question: Yes, a boycott of morally-questionable goods is a drop in the bucket, but if you can afford it, why not? The diamond industry - an industry that thrives off of the most artificial of demands - did not die from Kanye West writing a song about the skeletons in its closet, so I doubt that cellphone companies (selling a much more practical product) would take much of a hit in a similar situation. Again, a drop in the bucket. I am fully confident that the cellphone companies, if faced with such a boycott, would be able to adapt using all the resources of the free market available to them. Who knows? Maybe some innovation would even result.

My point is that if some lives are saved by choosing not to buy a product, then by all means go for it. Does the faux moral outrage and holier-than-thou grandstanding get old quick? Of course. Does it lull people into a false sense of realism about how global politics works? Yes. But I still think overall this sort of thing is quite benign. The idea that somehow initiatives like this "dictate behavior" gives way too much credit to the organization skills of these activist groups and too little credit to the tremendous powers of impulse of your everyday American consumer.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by lonepine

...My point is that if some lives are saved by choosing not to buy a product, then by all means go for it. .....

How many lives could be saved a year if we all stopped buying products made from corn?

Farming is a dangerous business with accidents with farm equipment, road accidents with the semi's transporting the corn and elevator explosions to name just a few.

Does the benifit of using corn out weigh the deaths caused by it's production?

How or where do you draw the line of deaths vs benifits for any product?

Should there be a line? Who draws the line? If somebody draws a line to others have to follow it.

[lonepine]

Originally Posted by Pete

How many lives could be saved a year if we all stopped buying products made from corn?

Farming is a dangerous business with accidents with farm equipment, road accidents with the semi's transporting the corn and elevator explosions to name just a few.

Does the benifit of using corn out weigh the deaths caused by it's production?

How or where do you draw the line of deaths vs benifits for any product?

Should there be a line? Who draws the line? If somebody draws a line to others have to follow it.

Far more lives would be ruined by a boycott of corn than saved, but that's beside the point. No one (to my knowledge) in the U.S. is being FORCED to buy corn, no wars are fought here over corn, no villages razed, etc.

Who draws the line? You do. It's a personal choice. Will I boycott cellphones? Well, I wasn't planning on buying a phone in the near future anyway, but I'm certainly not going to make this my personal cause. Will it affect my decisions somewhere down the road? Maybe, if I feel strongly enough about it.

That said, I see where you're going with this. It's a pretty irrational worldview. Everything and everyone has skeletons in the closet if you dig deep enough, and I'm not about to boycott everything. It's a personal, moral choice. Buy a diamond ring if you want to, if you feel like you've done the research and the pros outweigh the cons. I suppose the only line I would draw is against uninformed consumerism, people who buy and don't know, or don't want to know. That goes both ways, too. Plenty of people buy the 'fair trade/eco friendly' stuff when really many of those products are neither, feeding into the collective hysteria.

But \his article and the activist cause behind it is not forcing anyone to do anything. Sure, they may be pressuring certain groups or corporations, but I think we're all adult enough to be able to ignore it and move on if we wish. Like I said, it's pretty benign, and if it's made people pause and reconsider then that's all it needed to (and should) do.

[NoRoadtrippin]

Misters nmap, Peregrino, and lonepine, I very much appreciate your posts.

Especially yours nmap. Your knowledge on all things financial and economic is extremely educational for a young guy like myself. I will gather my thoughts and hopefully reinsert myself into this conversation shortly.

[Pete]

Oprah's actions are starving the poor.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...hmY&refer=home

Hmmmmm.

This really belongs in "South America" but it does relate to the thoughts in this thread.

[Richard]

Guess I'm starving a village in China - I check labels and won't buy anything made in China. But that has nothing to do with resources or such - I spent over two decades holding the line against those MFers and won't give them one cent of my $$ to use against us at some point in the future.

MOO, naturally.

Richard's $.02