I will try not to link S of i to this particular debate please go on

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

Don't be slippery.

Do you agree?

Yes please post when ready I have go out for a while but yes I agree to a debate on this but I will call a halt if you do not keep to the bargain either

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

All right then (more in hope than expectation).

Firstly we are dealing with things that are extremely widely accepted in the field of economics.

There are two ways I would try to explain in the absence of any training in economics on your part. One practical, the other theoretical. Let's see where we get with the former first.

Around 2 years ago there was around 250,000 people directly employed in the construction industry in Ireland. That was not evidience of a good thing. It was not a good thing that more and more people were being employed in the construction sector. In this case we can say with a decent measure of cinfidence that it was in fact a bad thing (not simply an amiguous fact in this case).

[note that we are discussing the point that creation of jobs is not necessarily a good thing - not on its own a good measure of whether some economic development is worthwhile]

Most people would accept that intuitively. But if you can't or don't the reason can be explained.

The reason is because the output of the industry had virtually zero value towards the end of the cycle - creating things (houses etc.) for which there was no need and hence no value.

You might as well have taken the money borrowed from the banks by the developers and given it to the construction workers as wages (or a proportion of them) and not made them do anything at all - let them stay at home. No diference between that and going to the effort of building rafts of accomodation that will never be needed in places people don't want to live (now that prices are normalising). In economics terms - there was negative value added - the value of all the labour and materials that went into the industry was higher than the vlaue of what came out the other end as output.

So that is an example where saying "it will create jobs" is not a good thing.

I agree 100% so far

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

That is it.

You agree 100% that the job creation argument is of no relevance or value and is potentially very misleading.

And presumably you accept that you were wrong to use it and recant on the many times you have used it in the past and will not use it in the future.

I am obviously stupid but please tell me which stupid I am

I am stupid because the jobs created by a project are of no economic relevance
or
I am stupid because the jobs created by a new energy project are of no economic relevance because the present ones are economicly relevant
or
I am stupid because the financials of a project are relevant to the exclusion of other considerations
or
I am stupid because job creation is of no economic value
or
I am stupid because the economic relevance of the job creation in a new project has to be proven over time before it can be considered economicly relevant
or
we do not need more energy production

Help

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

__________________
"Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." Mark Twain

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” Napoléon Bonaparte

Geccko
still waiting on a reply, I would submit that an energy project would have a value throughout its lifecycle

__________________
Regards, Pat Gill
My posting name does not indicate my political views
labourure or greenure, do not have the same ding.

AQ- Are you not feeling any of the effects of the "global financial crisis" then? We are in this sh.it, as the old "business as usual" model was fueled by cheap oil. Its not that there is not plenty of oil there, there is, the critical thing, is that it is low grade, hard to take out of the ground, AND, the demand is rising very quickly, while old abundant levels are simply not there.

related infos etc at; From OIL AGE financial crisis, to sustainable communities + COP 15

This is the reality; now you can deal with it now (transition approach) or get shafted when eventually you are hit (which many feel is already now)


Hubberts secret: We are running out of oil!


Oil age in terms of Irish Stout. 1900, 2000, 2100 – Colin Cambell


We`re consuming 5 times more oil than we`re discovering

And even if we (transitioners) are wrong, the movement is building far more quality things in life; reconnecting community, learning skills, improving local economies, eating better food, connecting far deeper with nature, having nice parties, generally facing big problems with joy, laughter and humour...