Beautiful Folk singer ambigious to Austrian reference in lyrics.

I was listening to some folk music by Greg Brown on his album "Further In" and he sang something that struck a chord with me.

"We have no knowledge and so we have stuff, and stuff with no knowledge is never enough."

At first read this line could read as a lyrically beautiful critique of materialism. However on a second and third read through when you apply Hayek's theory on the use of knowledge in our society it kind of reads as if Greg Brown is a bohemian-anti-materialist who recognizes that society can't function without the use of knowledge in our society. I feel myself slipping into thinking about knowledge in terms of the individual when I read this line. If Hayek were here he would kick me back to thinking about knowledge as a dispersed diffused resource throughout our society.

Gas prices on the rise, means sunshine ahead.

It's getting to be summer soon. This means the vacation driving market is about to boom and gas prices are going up. This is good though, it represents more of an incentive to buy energy efficient technology. Especially with the present growth in this sector, it couldn't come sooner. So buckle in all you utopian-environmental-masochists you are finally getting what you've been dreaming of, we're all going to suffer together.

Please make some changes

There are a few things my friends and I have discussed as potential areas for improvement around my small Liberal Arts campus.

Firstly, we really should start charging for utilities like heating, lighting, and hot water. I know what your are going to say, something throughly whiny and Ronald Coase-y, like but lincoln..... what about the transaction cost... I don't want to hear it! I'm down here in the trenches and believe me the "transaction cost" you speak of, relating to implementing an infrastructure that would charge students for utilities, is nothing compared to the huge lump sum you would save when these spoiled-never-worked-a-day-in-their-lives students stop leaving all their toys plugged in. At least some of them will get some solid shock therapy when daddy gets the nerve to stop footing the bill (this of course will never happen, one can only pray).

Secondly, the food facility on campus is the least efficient I have ever seen in my life. They keep getting funded by our tuition and never feel the competition to improve. As a result I have to eat stale dry hotdogs on a foam white bread bun.
"What can I get for you today Lincoln?"
"Serenity, but I guess you can't help me after all."
Please give me options that can compete! Maybe then I could be eating gourmet pizza and some banging barbecue not American cheese on dehydrated egg powder. Not to say the food hasn't gotten better it really has. It is is a result of people really trying to make it better but this is not necessary. All you need to to is open the market to exterior influences. Then the food will have to be good or it will go out of business.

This list will continue.

Freegans... no no... this is worse.

In my current ploy to expose the absurdity around me I feel the need to further reference the only existing unexpendable resource know to exist, that is the parody surrounding the world view of your everyday liberal arts students (i.e. my peers).

Freegans:
This is the dumbest thing I have heard since decommodifying agriculture... maybe dumber.
let me quote from freegan.info.

"Freegans are people who employ alternative strategies for living based on limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources. Freegans embrace community, generosity, social concern, freedom, cooperation, and sharing in opposition to a society based on materialism, moral apathy, competition, conformity, and greed."

So... basically you are a drain on society and you disperse the weight of your existence onto other hard working people. Believe me your foot print isn't erased, it is just carried. Real moral of you. If you want to be a voluntary hobo, by all means go ahead, but if you want to make it into a movement that is labeled with philanthropy then I'm'a come after ya. "Making a difference" doesn't come from running into the hills. Even in something as hippie as yoga they discourage this by saying the yogi who wants to live in the Himalayas and bask in the glory of god is selfish because change comes from action taken from within the society not from a hobo on the outside.
The story I am referencing comes from the book "Autobiography of a Yogi." They don't actually mention hobo's but it's kind of the same thing.

If you want to enact change become an entrepreneur and make your business change. I am not saying people would buy your product, even yogi's would be against it, but at least you would be supporting yourself instead of piggybacking as a burden/drain on society.

Hope I didn't upset the freegan mafia of pacifist dead-weights.

Decommodifying Agriculture... dumbest idea ever.

In my daily stroll around campus today I overheard some students talking about the possibility of decommodifying of certain goods for the good of human welfare. They were saying that agriculture as a necessity should not be left to the free market to distribute, siting Switzerland as an example of a working people's agricultural sector. What a Crock!? Do they know what that would look like...? Do they think about the freedoms and property rights that would be violated? Maybe it has been too long since we have seen pictures of yards full of refrigerators with nowhere to go. The price system represents the most efficient allocation of resources. That is the reason we do not use platinum for medial things like baby toys. The society can agree upon a value based off a competitive price. Decommidifying the agricultural sector is like taking an already beaten mule (from subsidies) and locking it in a cage full of velociraptors. Maybe you don't follow my analogy, god knows I see the world a little differently that others, not everyone sees markets in terms of mules and raptors, however it is no joke to say that the environmental movement could really use a get-with-the-program shift in what we say should happen. Primitivism is not an option. We need markets.

Environmental Economist Find!

Recently I have been searching for academics or leading professionals with a similar perspective to mine in the environmental field. This of course has by all means been difficult due to the overwhelmingly large lack of economic knowhow/whowhat within the environmental movement. In spite of this I have been able to locate through the complex workings of the internet one Robert Costanza. Robert has published 300 scientific articles in journals ranging from Science to Nature to even The Economist and from what I could tell, I think he has his head on his shoulders. I am currently reading his article entitled "Social traps and Environmental Policy," I'll get back to you about what I think.

transportation and the electric car.

How cool are these car?
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/02/loremo_ag_157_m.php

The use of these electric cars centralizes the conversion of energy to a power plant location rather than having it dispersed around the land in automobiles. Electricity, as a fuel source, is neat because it burns clean, and makes no noise, the down sides are that it doesn't store that well and it is still transformed from relatively emissive forms of energy like coal and oil. If you really want to be inclusive it is also necessary to point out that the production of electric cars can be wasteful to a point that it could exceed the desired result of an over all decrease in carbon emissions. I am by no means advocating a paranoid lifestyle where one should track their every action to make sure one's conscience is clean enough to go to heaven. A guilty life is just no fun, take it from the catholics.

On the other side it is justifiable to look into the indirect implications of ones buying power investment. If everyone stopped buying SUV's they really wouldn't make them. I know you don't believe me, but that's ok sometimes it is easier to believe that corporations are evil.

I feel like it is necessary to take a second to clarify what I mean by centralization of energy production and what kind of hypothetical benefits are implied to the overall improvement of human welfare. Centralizing energy productions is--for all of you Austrians--NOT moving the energy sector into anything public or planned. It simply means producing energy at a power plant and dispersing it through the grid using power lines. I know what you're saying, "Lincoln, we already do that!" You're right, we do! that's whats so cool about this. We just need to incorporate the use of transportations onto the burden of the grid. I'm getting into shady territory here with my wording. Let me clarify your concerns: the government should not play a part in funneling public demand away from filling up your tank with Chevron's best. Although, it is fair to point out that more and more people are demanding electric cars, and that is creating an indirect positive externality by centralizing energy production.

The benefits associated with energy productions are that cumulatively there would be less every converting machines therefore making it easer to have one good emissions scrubber rather than having many not so good catalytic converts and mufflers.

Future knowledge is not accessible

It is possible to make certain judgments about the resource needs of future generations, however it is not as easy to make long term estimates as to what type of technological developments lie ahead for our society. Imagine 30 years ago the idea of a network of computers providing massive job opportunities might have seemed hairy. Now imagine what the Internet would look like to someone in the 19th century. Energy innovation has been shown to occur when there is a market demand for more efficient products and when funding comes from the government; even though I am thoroughly uncomfortable with the latter, I will admit some innovation gets done even if it is done under government funding and the resources are allocated inefficiently. I cannot even imagine a developed society like ours not being able to provide necessity goods. I know this is an assumption I am making about future generations, which could work against one of my earlier premises. All the same, the idea of making a “doomsday” judgment about societies so called inevitable collapse based what we can presently conceive technologically makes the same mistake by not taking into account the propensity for future societies to develop inconceivable alternatives when and if resources become more scarce.

Here's a rolling theme for this website.

A professor of mine asked me a preparatory question for an interview. She asked me, "If you could change one thing about the 'environmental movement,' what would it be?"

Where to start!
I replied, for starters, that creating policy recommendations with an apocalyptic premise seems relatively faulty to me.

Here's some more ideas I forgot in the heat of the moment:

-Environmentalists should work to save the earth for humans not polar bears, though polar bears are nice too. "Ecocentrism" proposed by Aldo Leopold, "Sentienism" proposed by Richard Ryder and Peter Singer, or "Deep Ecology" proposed by Arne Næss, might work as a philosophical brain children but when it all boils down humans come first. Anthropocentricism is all we got: but come on, you knew this all along, after all you are a human!

-Growth is good, and we can't have environmental protection without it.

-Growth is good, and we can't have welfare with out it.

-Growth is good, and we can't have technological innovation with out it.

-Growth is good, and we can't have jobs with out it.

-Growth is good, and we can't have jobs that give us technological innovation that gives us welfare that protects the environment without it. Deal!

-Profit is good, so is money.

-Quit complaining about too many jobs going overseas and the lack of developmental humanitarian AID at the same time. Its paradoxical.

-And finally, think through the actual repercussions of whatever you demand. We call it holistic cost benefit analysis, if we are going to "save" the planet (there's that Jesus-affect again) its going to be because we thought it through.

-and for Pete's sake take a shower! Even monkeys groom.

I will refer back to this when I can think of more one-liners.

Is it too late to save ourselves?!!

Someone asked me today “is it too late to save ourselves” in reference to pending environmental doom, and I caught myself wanting to slip into a usual explanation of how being “saved” isn’t the correct jargon for how we should approach the problem. However, after a second consideration of the question I realized that it was not too plagued with environmental extremist bias. After all it is fair to ask if we can survive at present course.
The extremist environmentalism comes in when we start to determine who'll be our savior. Presently, it is the tendency of our society to look for a single figure to pull us to safety. I call this the Jesus affect. Often times this is manifested in a call for unnecessary policy from our politicians, or similarly unnecessary organizations acting as social welfare nets. All in all this movement towards a populist leader shows a lack of trust in market-based methods to solve our problems, which I would argue to have the highest propensity to be our actual savior. We are no longer in a monarchy!! The king isn’t going to save us!! Become an entrepreneur; that’s where “change” will really come from!! (and no it is not too late.)

Interest vs. Self-benefit.

My friends and I were spending time together earlier today, and I was explaining a festival that exists in Northern California to celebrate the spring and the blossom of the mustard in the fields. Mostly it is a festival for already rich people to make tons off of really rich people who secretly want to be cultured and think they know something about wine. Go on basking in your hippie rich vacuum nor cal one of these days reality really will come knocking; it’ll probably be your children that get effected when they don’t know how to find a job.

Anyway I was telling my friends about this festival and they were giving me their deflection faces (basically ignoring me, but from time to time dropping a word or two). I have a feeling close friends do this to other people who try to hang out with them but obviously aren’t on their level as friends. Also people who are really weird get this done to them a lot, i.e. Beloit College Students. My friends shifted into their own conversation and I walked off mid-sentence. A moment or two passed and I heard one of them shout from the other room, “Sorry Lincoln!”

When I came back I told them that I was chill, and that they didn’t have to be sorry. Fortunately, for my own self-happiness I knew when people weren’t interested in what I had to say and I could walk off and be fine with it.

Topically this just looks like normal interactions but if one were to dig deeper there are some underlining economic principals and a little chicken-and-the-egg action as well.

From a theoretical economic approach (and believe me when I tell you this, I know of no literature relating to this subject) what comes first interest or self-benefit? I would have said that interest is based on self-benefit. Are people interested in things because they get benefit from them? If so, from a purely utilitarian perspective much of academia should not exist. What fuels interest? Why are we tickled by some topics while that same topic might seem as boring as shit to another individual? For example, environmentalism and economics. I’m interested in environmentalism and most sociology topics make me want to stick a pencil in my eye I get so bored, even the ones that relate to environmentalism. Why is that?

Hayek you beautiful man, you did it again!

Here is the opening paragraph from the article mentioned in the posting below--"Why I am not a Conservative." And wow, Hayek hits it on the spot:
"At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known – perhaps more appropriately – as conservatism."

new discovery

my father is always telling me about new discoveries that scientist are coming up with concerning the pending environmental destruction of the world, or how certain mushrooms can heal you. A lot of me is in love with this quality of his but more and more of me has come to detest his lack of objective perspective when it comes to reputable sources.
so with that in mind I wish to bring up a new discovery I have just come across, although my new discovery is of an article that has been in existence for a while and truthfully I haven't read it yet. However just from the title and the author I am itching to wrap my mind around it.
drum roll...
"Why I am not a conservative"
F.A. Hayek
I'll let you know what I think after I've read it.

Oil desparity, now-or-later

As the price of crude continues to climb it is necessary to ask the question whether or not we are in a situation of oil disparity or does the price of gas have more to do with Middle Eastern politics. We saw int he 1970's oil crisis the price of crude sky rocketed but as politics cooled down we continued to produce more oil than ever before and prices dropped for nearly two decades. Currently they are on the rise again as well as political unrest.
As an objective economist it is necessary to determine the true cause of our present surge in the price of oil. Maybe once we determine whether or not we are immediately running out of oil it will be easier to make long term decisions about energy saving policies that have unnecessarily high costs with minimal long term return.

what causes innovation?

here's an interesting question.
recently I have been working with a firm in Beloit where we are developing a new product that would cut the heating bill for a building. It is a purely structural adaption that would work into a roof system and passively preheat the air, using solar energy, before it gets to the heater. In the course of patent research we have taken it has come to my attention that the number of patents related to this product was significantly greater during the late 70's and decreased steadily through the 80's and 90's. I can think of two likely causes for the spike of environmental innovation in the 70's and the steady decline through the 80's and 90. One being the price of energy during the oil crisis created and demand for a more fuel efficient lifestyle, and the other being that there was heavy governmental funding during those time periods.
Which of these causes greater environmental innovation? If governmental funding for innovation causes a rapid response, what effect does it have on longer term innovation? Determining how money is allocated is important but at the same time it must be stressed that it may not always be optimal to provide funding at all. Allowing for a competitive free market, as Hayek would say, provides a situation where the optimal allocation of resources achieved based on a price value which is determined by the market.

Welcome!

Welcome to polar bears and astronauts. this is my first blog as well as my first posting. So I am a little excited.

I wanted to create a blog that I could express some of my day to day experiences at the liberal arts college and provide a platform with which to express my perspective.

I am an environmental economist with a developing Austrian perspective. Free market approaches to environmentalism fascinate me. I hope to address developmental questions that value environmental conservation as well as the hard fact that human welfare is intrinsically entwined with consistent economic growth.