How the hell do you deal with economics like this?

Victor Anderson -who has a long history as an environmental economist – presented the first paper on whether it is possible to measure the value of natural capital, or not. I think it is fair to say that it was concluded that it is not, and even more strongly that it may not even be desirable to do so. That might only encourage its use, which is not just undesirable but simply contrary to all our interests now.

If something doesn’t have a value then it’s valueless. Meaning that people don’t preserve it……

17 comments on “How the hell do you deal with economics like this?

  1. Well, ok. But if you tried to value all of the pictures in the National Gallery you might be able to come up with a figure for insurance purposes, and presumably they have to.

    But if all of those pictures were stolen one night, surely their value would plummet given the difficulty of disposing of such a haul.

    There’s a range of values?

  2. There is also “priceless” that indicates that the value of something falls outside of economic reasoning

  3. Echoing @MiM:

    I’m not selling my daughter, so she doesn’t have a price, but that doesn’t mean she’s without value.

  4. So the argument is: we don’t want to measure the value of something as that might produce evidence that goes against my preconceptions of what it should be valued as?

  5. Antonio Machado wrote “todo necio confunde valor y precio” (stupid people confuse value and price) but I don’t think he could conceive of the Spud. He doesn’t appear to understand that if you don’t value something, you will tend not to take care of it. My daughter has a collection of soft toys, none of which cost much but each has sentimental value to her. I wouldn’t want to try to take them away from her.

    Spud and Victor don’t appear to know about what happened in the USSR. The only value placed on natural resources was what tangible benefit they gave the people. Hence all those despoiled landscapes littered with lumps of reinforced concrete. Is that what Spud wants?

  6. I wonder if his parents agonised

    We’re going to have to do something about Richard – he’s not right

  7. Spud, like every other green painted socialist just wants power and says anything he thinks will aid him getting it……

  8. Oscar Wilde had it covered with this quote: “People today know the price of everything, but the value of nothing”.

  9. If something has a value that’s impossible and even undesirable to measure, how do you design an entire new accounting system around it?

    Asking for a friend

  10. ‘If something doesn’t have a value then it’s valueless. Meaning that people don’t preserve it……’

    Note the cheetah under CITES I. Sport hunted trophies can’t be imported into Western countries, so the cheetah hunting industry is dead. So they have no value to African farmers. Two different friends hunting in Africa were asked by farmers to shoot the damn cheetahs. They are now just livestock killing nuisances.

    The Madison Ave National Geographic reader types think they have saved the cheetah; they have condemned it.

  11. “Spud, like every other green painted socialist just wants power and says anything he thinks will aid him getting it……”

    Succinctly said.

    Lefties don’t care about anything but their agenda. They’ll embrace anything/anyone to disrupt the culture, needing to break cultural hegemony. The disparate groups they support are clueless that the Left couldn’t care less about them and are just cynically exploiting them.

  12. I can’t help notice that Richard has yet to give us his global target ranges for CO2, CO2e and CO2eq (along with the justification for those ranges). I think it would only be fair that he come up with amounts for each measure that the population of Britain is responsible for.

    If we are in the throes of a global warming catastrophe, achieving carbon neutrality is more palliative care than anything else. There must be reductions, and those reductions need to be based on some sort achievable target.

  13. Lots of nuclear power stations would make a significant difference but, in order to keep the racket going, we are only allowed to use solutions that don’t work.

  14. ‘but simply contrary to all our interests now.’

    More Bourbonesque bs from the great Tuber. Not so much ‘l’etat c’est moi’ as ‘Tout le monde, ‘c’est moi’

    And people in the past have denied he has totalitarian instincts? One thing’s for certain, with this kind of outlook, he could certainly have been at Dachau, albeit probably not in the capacity he imagines….

  15. To answer the question posed Tim, I can quote from a man familiar with the delusions of the Hard Left – sums up the Tuber nicely.

    ‘Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one. At one time it had been a sign of madness to believe that the Earth goes round the Sun; today, to believe the past is inalterable. He might be alone in holding that belief, and if alone, then a lunatic. But the thought of being a lunatic did not greatly trouble him; the horror was that he might also be wrong’

  16. “There must be reductions, and those reductions need to be based on some sort achievable target.”

    Why? Since ‘climate change’ can’t be measured, why should reductions be measured?

    The achievable target is Western Civilization dies. The rest is silly reasons why we should accept our death.

  17. it was concluded that it is not, and even more strongly that it may not even be desirable to do so. That might only encourage its use, which is not just undesirable but simply contrary to all our interests now.

    Translation – I haven’t had quite enough time to say on Twitter and my blog that I invented it, so talk it down for the time being.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.