A Strange Conclusion

From Financial Sense Online, Martin D. Weiss comments on what he calls

The Most Powerful Force on Earth

Share this

What? You mean a Ph.D.

What? You mean a Ph.D. doesn't actually mean you understand things outside your specialty?

I knew it was just a matter of time before people dug up the P word that was being tossed around in the 70s. I wonder how long it will be before people in the MSM are speaking approvingly of China's one child policy again. :wall:

This guy writes like a crank

This guy writes like a crank and I've never heard of his blog/whatever before. Is he more mainstream than I realize?

Michael

He refers to Malthus, yet

He refers to Malthus, yet seems to not realize he is repeating Malthus' errors.

Brad, That dsoesn't really

Brad,

That dsoesn't really make sense: global warming isn't a question of obsolescence like candlemakers. There is nothing about technological progress that implies declines in global warming and, in the absence of government policy, likely no solution to it because of coordination failure.

Well this guy should just

Well this guy should just come out and say that Julian Simon was wrong. I think Simon's work "Population, the Ultimate Resource" is still a good read. Population density is only one factor affecting human well-being. Yes, a few billion more people driving motor vehicles will cause oil prices to rise. But scarcity and high prices, such as we are seeing for oil, will stimulate innovation and the search for more efficient ways of getting around. I live in the U.S. and would not conclude that food is expensive by looking at the size of the waistlines of my fellow shoppers in the supermarket. And if gas prices are high, why are my fellow drivers on the road going so fast?

Yes, overpopulation in failed states like Haiti is probably a problem. But where states are successful it's not.

And Tony, in that same frame

And Tony, in that same frame of mind, I can think of another thing...

Sure, the third-worlders are getting automobiles. But they're also getting educations. Imagine the world we'll live in when instead of all the world's engineers coming from Europe & America, we're also drawing from 2+ billion Chinese and Indians. Imagine the rate of technological process when that many more minds realize the freedom of markets and capitalism!

I'm not worried about global warming or peak oil for the same reason people shouldn't have been worried about the candle-makers going out of business when electricity came around. Humans may create problems, but we can also fix them.

Steven, That doesn’t

Steven,

That doesn’t really make sense: global warming isn’t a question of obsolescence like candlemakers. There is nothing about technological progress that implies declines in global warming and, in the absence of government policy, likely no solution to it because of coordination failure.

How bad can global warming be if the alternative point of comparison would be successful government coordination?

Regards, Don

For the uninitiated, most

For the uninitiated, most metal bugs go off like this. Ignoring the currently overbought metals market and its time in the spotlight, doom and gloom is the only way people will listen to them. Did he ever mention lumber as an inflation hedge?

How many people were buying gold in 1998/99 @ $250 when there were many signals that the equity markets were over-valued? Buffet did - that is investing.

I like to have enough gold around that will get me out of the country. Likewise, it is good to have a stash of lower denominated bills if the power goes out and everyone else just has $20s. I put this stuff more into the "short term disaster preparedness" camp than the investing camp.

Stephen, Please define

Stephen,

Please define global warming. I'm serious! Climate change is no more worrisome than weather change. Why I say, simply because the weather changes continually and the climate is statistical weather (the weather determines the climate, not the other way around). The "normal" temperature mentioned in weather reports is a 30 year moving average (and they never mention the standard deviation!). Our weather records are simply too skimpy to be making such vast conclusions. Oh, you do know that the majority of the "warming" in the 20th Century occurred before 1950, while the bulk of the CO2 "increase" occurred after 1950 (never mind that we have evidence that both the average temperature and the average CO2 content of the atmosphere have been higher in the past than today's measurements and may higher in the future no matter what we do).