At The Register.
The New Scientist and their misunderstanding of economics.
Tags: Timmy Elsewhere
// Oct 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm
yup ,sand can make bottles or computer chips ,but it takes more total resources to make computer chips…even if you use less aand
// Oct 30, 2008 at 7:23 pm
After reading most of the comments there – I had to stop because my eyes were beginning to bleed. I get that people care about the environment; I care too! I get that people worry about the impact economic growth might have on the environment; I worry too! But in response to that I’ve bothered to go out and learn something about said environment and our economy, is it too much to friggin’ ask that others do the same?!?
// Oct 30, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Ok em, it takes much the same resources to make a 1GB of RAM, as to make a top of the range processor. One is worth a lot more than the other.
// Oct 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm
A career spent in their company has taught me that virtually no scientist understands anything about economics, but some engineers do.
// Oct 31, 2008 at 1:06 am
“A career spent in their company has taught me that virtually no scientist understands anything about economics, but some engineers do.”
For one group, their money comes from the Magic Money Tree. For the other group, their money only comes by engineering products that people want to buy. (Speaking generally, of course).
// Oct 31, 2008 at 1:07 am
“sand can make bottles or computer chips ,but it takes more total resources to make computer chips”
Hmmn. Some chips are very cheap. Cheap as bottles, as it were.
© 2006–2007 Tim Worstall — Sitemap — Cutline by Chris Pearson