.

Dear Nick,

.

I'm sorry but Turiel's demonstration is about as clear as mud to me.

I admit I may be a bit too obtuse to understand so do not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong.

It seems to me that you rightly point out: " ... some of the assumptions on which the first graph is based are held up for critical examination. The last graph paints a very different picture to the first, and supports the conclusion."

Agreed. But how do we get from the first graph to the last?

Turiel explains, right from the outset, how to get from one to the other:

"The forecasts of the IEA (the first graph) contain certain elements which are at the very least “slightly optimistic” ..."

He then operates a certain number of corrections which he considers necessary.

But, not only does he "correct" the forecasts, he also "corrects" the past.

He "corrects" all the figures, right from the start, in the year 2000. Does this mean that Turiel is looking at "forecasts" for the year 2000 in 2013 (13 years later)?

His article was published on Feb 5, 2013.

It leaves me with the unpleasant impression that Turiel has slapped his mathematical model on the IEA's figures indiscriminately, not bothering to check what the supply actually was going back to the year 2000.

Surely it must now be known, including by the IEA, if the petroleum supply in the year 2000 was 78 p/qw (as in the first graph) or 62 p/qw as in the last graph.

How can we be any more confident in Turiel's last graph and conclusions than the first graph of the IEA?

If you have any ideas on the question, I should be happy to hear them.

.

.

Dear Nick,

.

Thank you for the link to the article on "Prosperity" in Wikipedia.

I see that the reference indicated in the article as the definition of "prosperity" is that of Random House, Inc. 09 & Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. February 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2009, which indicates as follows:

"a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune."

I am quite happy to accept that definition.

But, is that not capitalism?

.

Banjo Paterson.

"But, is that not capitalism?"

One would hope that one's level of "prosperity" was sustainable.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

As I pointed out in my last post to Squeers, mankind has been storing food and supplies and other things ever since the hunter-gatherers became sedentary during the Neolithic Age, 12 000 years ago. They were the first humans to practice capitalism on a large scale.

As we all know, hoarding food in times of surplus for times when food is less plentiful is common practice among many other animal species as well.

There is nothing wrong with that. It's what I call "good" capitalism. I cannot see why this type of "prosperity" should not be sustainable. It is the "bad" capitalism which is not.

It is "bad capitalism which is destroying the eco-system.

I save some food in my cupboards. I keep some wine in my "cave" in the basement. I also have a savings account at the post office for which the (French) government fixes an interest rate each year to compensate for inflation.

Apart from that, I own nothing of any value: no house, no car, no jewellery ...

Rightly or wrongly, I consider myself a "good" capitalist.

"Good" capitalist behaviour is simply responsible, prudent behaviour:

Jean de Lafontaine put it nicely when he said, nearly 400 years ago:

The cricket had sung her song
all summer long
but found her victuals too few
when the north wind blew.
Nowhere could she espy
a single morsel of worm or fly.

Her neighbor, the ant, might,
she thought, help her in her plight,
and she begged her for a little grain
till summer would come back again.

“By next August I’ll repay both
Interest and principal; animal’s oath.”

Now, the ant may have a fault or two
But lending is not something she will do.
She asked what the cricket did in summer.

“By night and day, to any comer
I sang whenever I had the chance.”

“You sang, did you? That’s nice. Now dance.”

.

.

The Role of the Philanthropic Sector in Addressing Homelessness in Australia

.

An interesting research paper has just been published on philanthropy and homelessness in Australia.

Principal donations 2009-2010:

Welfare - $51 million
Cultural organisations - $26 million
Research - $25 million
International affaires - $23 million
Education - $26 million
Health - $19 million
Environment - $13 million
After that, the numbers drop dramatically.

The report notes:

" There is a trend to market solutions to social and economic problems and devolution of responsibility for many social ‘issues’ to non-government and quasi-government organisations, as well as to individuals themselves; demonstrating the "roll-back" and "roll-out" features of neoliberalism and the shift from the discourse of structural inequality to individual responsibility."

Here is the link:

https://homelessnessclearinghouse.govspace.gov.au/files/2012/12/Report-1-Beyond-Charity-Literature-Review-Sept-2012.pdf

.

.

Sorry, ... Education is $21 million.

.