Sunday, September 30, 2012

Molyneux Again

A friend emails:
Molyneux...oh my

Check out this post from his facebook page...
Smartphones great for the environment...every time someone's using an iPhone 5 to access the net they're using 1/68th the energy of a desktop PC and 1/25th that of a notebook. Similarly when one watches a video on a phone instead of on a full-sized HDTV and set top box, 1/123rd, (i.e., a greater than 99% energy saving) or plays a game instead of using an X-Box Console + a TV, 1/198th the amount of energy. 
So even if things in the world worked out so that every human owned and used a smartphone or tablet (up from approximately a fifth with computing/internet access today?), the energy savings would be enormous, and likely the single easiest, most feasible way to cut the world's energy budget significantly - and quickly - and with more positive tradeoffs than negative ones in the content consumption experiences for most tasks done with all these devices most of the time.
 You were right on in your interview.
This displays the fundamental lack of understanding of economics by Molyneux that was at the core of my interview questions to him.

First, there is Molneux's leftist type concern for the "world energy budget".  There is no "energy budget" any more than there is a lumber budget, coffee budget, iron budget or oatmeal budget. There are supplies of these products, which can increase or decrease depending upon prices, but to call these supplies "budgets," suggests A. a fixed amount and B. something that needs to be managed at some national level.

Anyone who understands free markets, would not for a minute be concerned with the amount of energy that is used by various consumer products. Prices will simply dictate limitations of use of products.. For example, gold is a perfectly functional metal that could be used in the construction of bridges. It is not because gold is valued more as jewelry and as a safe non-inflationary alternate medium of exchange. This is reflected in its price. There is no need for any thinking about a "gold budget." The price of gold provides the knowledge to bridge builders that gold should not be used in the building of bridges.

In the same way, it is economic ignorance to be thinking about an "energy budget." Prices will signal to us how energy sensitive our products need to be. That plenty of people use  full-sized HD television sets and X-Box Consoles + a TV, suggests that the energy used for these products is not prohibitive for most.  Moyneux's concern about a "world energy budget" belongs up there with the concern for the "world jock strap" budget. It's a complete central planning notion that results from the failure to understand how prices signal uses and production.

20 comments:

  1. You mean Molineux isn't a Rothbard or a Mises??? Shock! Hang him from the highest tree! (You guys are way too full of yourselves.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said it Wenzel didn't. I guess pointing out someone else's mistakes is now the same as hanging someone from a tree. Oooooookay.

      Delete
    2. "You guys are way too full of yourselves."

      So are Molyneux cultists like yourself.

      Delete
  2. RW, nowhere in his post does he suggest a government mandated phone/tablet program, he is merely reflecting on the unintended benefits of the emergence of phones and tablets as the main platform for media consumption.

    Furthermore, as someone who understands free markets, you should understand that the benefits of what Molyneux is describing would likely be a) resources employed in the energy sector will be freed up for other purposes, b) energy prices will fall due to reduced demand, or c) both. So what is so terrible about that?

    There's a difference between constructively criticizing other libertarians and just being a tool...

    ReplyDelete
  3. He copy-pasted the text from somewhere on the Internet, but you can't tell because he didn't put a citation. He does this a lot. I can't seem to paste the link here, but if you do a google search for the first two lines of the quote you will find the original source. Therefore it is a bit silly to attack him for this particular viewpoint, but I would take him to task for not citing references.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Wenzel, I love your work here, thanks for the prolific writing and outstanding insight. I have my own philosophical differences with Mr. Molyneaux, but this latest critique seems to be grasping. Stef is no economist, but does exclusively advocate voluntary transactions, which is pure capitalism. As a reasonable man, I know the utilitarian value of free markets to every consumer. Yet what makes liberty the morally correct mechanism of society is the absence of coercion, the result of which is prosperity via cost benefit. If you believe him to be advocating some form of collectivism, give a listen to http://youtu.be/i1JcUBx2dxU , or http://youtu.be/hxjwBZjADiM , where Stefan corrects obvious collective fallacies of the Zeitgeist and Venus Project idealists. He does a great job of dispelling utopian socialism, or, as Molyneax states; "Marxism with robots".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, you're right! It's post #129, written by bigpics, on this page:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1456199&page=6

    Molyneux has never been one of my heroes, but if he were, I'd be shocked to discover this. I mean, what kind of person reprints/reposts other people's work without citing them?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once again Wenzel is wasting his time trying to denigrate a philosophical ally with whom he has about 99.9% agreement. Not too mention this whole attack is on a strawman. Brilliant.

    Personally, I think the order to take down Molyneux has been handed down by the pro-Christian powers at Mises and LRC, and Wenzel is on board with that agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Waaah, the Christians are attacking us poor atheists!"

      Please. Bad logic is bad logic.

      Ignoring the non-believers at both like Walter Block and not discounting the very serious associated Christians that are friendly with Molyneux - Bob Murphy, Jeff Tucker, and Stephan Kinsella come to mind - I'll chalk this up to another bout of the "Mises/LRC atheist persecution fallacy."

      Delete
    2. It's not just about attacking libertarian atheists. It's about attacking libertarian atheists who attack theism. THOSE are the people that LRC, Mises Institute, and lapdog Wenzel are going after. It isn't bad logic, you're just in denial.

      Delete
  7. I think you are off base on this one. Molyneux is an anarchist, and I doubt that when he says "world energy budget" that he is suggesting some sort of centrally planned budget for the world's energy. Instead it seems much more likely that he is just using that term to refer to the sum of all used energy in a time period, and is just pointing out the benefits of technology in terms of energy usage. Maybe "world energy budget" isn't a clear enough term, but I can't understand why you think it would imply anything like what you are bringing up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Personally, I think the order to take down Molyneux has been handed down by the pro-Christian powers at Mises and LRC, and Wenzel is on board with that agenda." Anonymous 10/01/2012 6:02 AM

    I agree that Molyneux has a lot to offer the freedom movement but I don't think Rockwell/Mises are behind any Christian attack. Rothbard wasn't Christian, Block is a self described atheist, Butler Shafer is agnostic. Yeah, there are several Christians in his stable of writers but enough non believers to make me think there is no religious litmus test to be part of the Rothbard/Mises philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rothbard didn't and Block doesn't attack theism, so they are left alone.

      Delete
    2. And Lew is also an avowed atheist, as we're Mises and Rothbard. Christian conspiracy from Mises and LRC......pleasssssse!

      Delete
  9. You have a bizarre fetish with this guy. Jim Rogers comes on (who I love) and says something very questionable and you just move on. Yet you reach and reach to find something wrong with this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wenzel, are you one of those people who constantly needs enemies and when you don't have one you go and look for one? Come on...

    ReplyDelete
  11. A very strange post - he was just putting something up online that he found interesting on FACEBOOK.

    What's your problem with this exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The general point here seems to be pro-market: the market is delivering fancy gadgets that people want and those gadgets are becoming more efficient whether people directly value energy efficiency or not. This demonstrates the efficiency of the market, despite consumers wanting more and more.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why all the attacks on Wenzel? I don't have a cemented opinion on plagiarism, but it certainly is worthy to point out if someone regularly practices it.

    As for those who say information cant be owned? That belief is ridiculous in this case. There is a huge difference between that and presenting someone elses work as your own by copying and pasting it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Because Molyneux likes and supports genocide in a fluffy way.

    ReplyDelete