[net.politics.theory] Free lunches

mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/09/85)

>To be wrong is not teh same thing as to be irrational.  A great many
>people believe in a free lunch.  It is difficult to disbelieve it since
>-- 
>Laura Creighton         (note new address!)

Laura is always rational, but, as here, she is frequently wrong.
It is insufficient jsut to follow Heinlein and repeat "There's no
such thing as a free lunch" in every other posting.  There is (in
both the literal and the metaphoric sense).

We all live for free.  We obtain energy from the Sun (free), and all
we make or do is based on how we use the degradation of this energy
into heat (barring a little energy from nuclear fission).  Anything
we do with out physical bodies is based on this "free lunch."  If we
can't get enough energy, we can't do much.

We organize.  That is free.  By organizing, we can make better use of
all this free energy that the Sun gives us.  We can extract energy deposited
millions of years ago, and use it to gather rocks that can be converted
into metals.  It's free, if you can induce people to work together and
help you.

Why do you say "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"  Do you imply
that if I want to improve my circumstances in one respect, I must reduce
them equally (or more) in another respect?  That can't be true, for there
would be NO material wealth if that were the case.  Do you imply that I
must expend effort to get what I want?  Fine, but that effort represents
energy I acquired free, by eating lunch.  Do you mean money? Ah... there's
the rub.

What is money? Simply a means of coercing (or, if you like, inducing)
someone to do for or with me what she would perhaps not do otherwise.
Where does money come from? ... Yes, but I mean initially?  It was (and
remains) a substitute for barter.  I want what you have or can do more
than I want this thing or the effort I may expend doing something for you.
Money isn't wealth.  Money is a communications medium, an aid to organization.
It's only good when you can get or do something with it.

Yes, there is a free lunch.  Life as an organized society is NOT a
zero-sum game (which I suspect is closer to the meaning than are the
straw men I have been beating).  Organization itself creates wealth,
and is the only effective means of doing so on a grand scale.  It is
the flow of that free energy that gives us all our organization, whether
it be social, or just the organization of materials into our high-tech
toys.

So please, let's hear no more from the cult of Heinlein.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/16/85)

In article <1712@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>We all live for free.  We obtain energy from the Sun (free), and all
>we make or do is based on how we use the degradation of this energy
>into heat (barring a little energy from nuclear fission).  Anything
>we do with out physical bodies is based on this "free lunch."  If we
>can't get enough energy, we can't do much.
>
>We organize.  That is free.  By organizing, we can make better use of
>all this free energy that the Sun gives us.  We can extract energy deposited
>millions of years ago, and use it to gather rocks that can be converted
>into metals.  It's free, if you can induce people to work together and
>help you.
>
>Why do you say "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"  Do you imply
>that if I want to improve my circumstances in one respect, I must reduce
>them equally (or more) in another respect?  That can't be true, for there
>would be NO material wealth if that were the case.  Do you imply that I
>must expend effort to get what I want?  Fine, but that effort represents
>energy I acquired free, by eating lunch.  Do you mean money? Ah... there's
>the rub.

No doubt, many people who use that expression (TANSTAAFL) are thinking
purely in terms of money.  I prefer to think of economics in different
terms.

There's always some effort expended in acquiring our food, even if it
is only reaching up and picking an apple off a low branch.  More
commonly, somebody else picks the apple (while standing on a ladder
that somebody else built), somebody else ships the apple to the city,
somebody stacks it on the supermarket shelf, and you generally have to
go out of your way to get to that supermarket.  It's a mistake to
assume, just because the energy for the effort comes for free from the
sun, that effort is free.  Energy is not the only thing effort
consumes.  It also consumes time.  Your time is a non-renewable
resource.  (As with oil, the best you can hope for is to develop better
"methods of extraction".)
-- 
David Canzi

"Time's the only real wealth you have got" -- The Moody Blues, 22000 Days

nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/16/85)

>/* Written  8:07 pm  Oct  8, 1985 by mmt@dciem in inmet:net.politics.t */
>/* ---------- "Re: Free lunches" ---------- */
>
>>To be wrong is not teh same thing as to be irrational.  A great many
>>people believe in a free lunch.  It is difficult to disbelieve it since
>>-- 
>>Laura Creighton         (note new address!)
>
>Laura is always rational, but, as here, she is frequently wrong.
>It is insufficient jsut to follow Heinlein and repeat "There's no
>such thing as a free lunch" in every other posting.  There is (in
>both the literal and the metaphoric sense).
>
>We all live for free.  We obtain energy from the Sun (free), and all
>we make or do is based on how we use the degradation of this energy
>into heat (barring a little energy from nuclear fission).  Anything
>we do with out physical bodies is based on this "free lunch."  If we
>can't get enough energy, we can't do much.

Oops! I left my photosynthetic symbionts in my imagination.  I don't
know about YOU, but I find it very tough to extract food energy from the
sun (other than by employing energies of my own). That this results in
a NET gain in energy for me doesn't mean I didn't pay for it.

>We organize.  That is free.  By organizing, we can make better use of
>all this free energy that the Sun gives us.  We can extract energy deposited
>millions of years ago, and use it to gather rocks that can be converted
>into metals.  It's free, if you can induce people to work together and
>help you.

It's also free if you can summon up the pure metals by staring at  the
ground hard and muttering "something for nothing.... something for
nothing", so?

>Why do you say "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"  Do you imply
>that if I want to improve my circumstances in one respect, I must reduce
>them equally (or more) in another respect?  That can't be true, for there
>would be NO material wealth if that were the case.  Do you imply that I
>must expend effort to get what I want?  Fine, but that effort represents
>energy I acquired free, by eating lunch.  Do you mean money? Ah... there's
>the rub.

Okay, Martin.  Look at it this way.  You must expend energy in order
to get energy.  The energy you got originally was given to you by 
someone else (probably parents) who themselves had to expend energy
to get it.  And so on, back to whatever dawn there was.  

So think of it this way: there was ONE free breakfast -- but there
are NO free lunches, no free dinners, and no more free breakfasts
(that we know of).  

>What is money? Simply a means of coercing (or, if you like, inducing)
>someone to do for or with me what she would perhaps not do otherwise.

I think the difference between coercion and "inducing" ("induction"
would have had the wrong connotations) is pretty important.  For example,
if someone offered me a million dollars, (or for that matter, all the
money on the planet) I doubt I'd be willing to torture a small animal
(a puppy, say) to death.  On the other hand, what to do about the gun
held against your mother's head by the person who wants you to torture?

>Where does money come from? ... Yes, but I mean initially?  It was (and
>remains) a substitute for barter.  I want what you have or can do more
>than I want this thing or the effort I may expend doing something for you.
>Money isn't wealth.  Money is a communications medium, an aid to organization.
>It's only good when you can get or do something with it.
>

A very good point about money.

>Yes, there is a free lunch.  Life as an organized society is NOT a
>zero-sum game (which I suspect is closer to the meaning than are the
>straw men I have been beating).  Organization itself creates wealth,
>and is the only effective means of doing so on a grand scale.  It is
>the flow of that free energy that gives us all our organization, whether
>it be social, or just the organization of materials into our high-tech
>toys.
>
>So please, let's hear no more from the cult of Heinlein.

I can understand your personal dislike of how Heinlein phrased things:
he's a blunt man, not willing to sugar coat anything when he's right,
and tending to be just as firm when he's wrong as when he's right.

But that doesn't excuse Heinlein-bashing -- not when he's RIGHT, and
there is STILL no such thing as a free lunch.

laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/16/85)

A little context would be useful, Martin.  But it is more fun to talk about
solar energy, of course.  In case anyone missed it, though, the Free Lunch
problem is not about energy resources.  The Free Lunch problem is about the
cherished belief that it is possible to get something for nothing.  This
belief fuels mutch of organised gambling, lotteries, and (alas) political
campaigns.

There may be nothing that one can do, (or that one wants to do) about this
shining belief.  However,  the way that politicians use this belief to
get elected is sickenning.  How many election promises come with a price
tag? 

Most don't.  The advocates of a protective tarrif just do not get around
to telling the taxpayers that they are paying taxes to support the bureacrats
who administer the tarrif.  Or that they will be paying again when they have
to pay the inflated prices. Those who could make a profit selling a new
product based on the untarriffed product are not told that they are
going to be hurt because they cannot afford it at a new rate.

The advocates of a minimum wage simply do not get around to telling you that
they are causing wide-spread unemployment among the unskilled who would be
willing to work for less money.

The advocates of socialised medicine do not tell you what studies of the
*quality* of health care have shown has happened in England and Canada.

The hidden costs simply do not get mentioned.  Often even the not-very-hidden
costs are also not mentioned.  And the relationship between the not-very-hidden
costs and my income tax next year is always unclear.

But Reagan can promise to spend more for the military, not cut the level of
support provided for the deserving poor and not raise taxes -- AND HE CAN
GET ELECTED.  Astonishing.  But it would be so nice to believe that this
is possible, and if it had a chance of working it would be such a great
thing, and politicians can't make irresponsible statements like that in
public, can they?  I really can get all of this for free....


-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa

dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (10/17/85)

From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
>>To be wrong is not teh same thing as to be irrational.  A great many
>>people believe in a free lunch.  It is difficult to disbelieve it since
>>-- 
>>Laura Creighton         (note new address!)

>Laura is always rational, but, as here, she is frequently wrong.
>It is insufficient jsut to follow Heinlein and repeat "There's no
>such thing as a free lunch" in every other posting.  There is (in
>both the literal and the metaphoric sense).
>
>We all live for free.  We obtain energy from the Sun (free), and all
>we make or do is based on how we use the degradation of this energy
>into heat (barring a little energy from nuclear fission).  Anything
>we do with out physical bodies is based on this "free lunch."  If we
>can't get enough energy, we can't do much.

Martin, there are a lot of steps between the Sun and, say, the food
on your table.  For you to have that food *required* somebody to till
the earth, plant the seed, keep the pests away, clean the stables. It
*required* someone to build the implements that allow the farmer to
grow the food.  It *required* someone to transport the food, and someone
to manufacture the vehicles for the transportation, and someone to get
the raw materials for the manufacture and someone to get the fuel, and
on, and on, and ... It all came at the expense of the surroundings and
of somebody's blood, sweat, and tears.  IT WAS NOT FREE!

>We organize.  That is free.  By organizing, we can make better use of
>all this free energy that the Sun gives us.  We can extract energy deposited
>millions of years ago, and use it to gather rocks that can be converted
>into metals. 

No.  It is not free.  Even energy deposits had to come from somewhere.
Besides, extracting it and gathering rocks requires an expenditure of
mechanical energy (manual labor).

>It's free, if you can induce people to work together and
>help you.

It does not matter whether you work together or alone; it must come at
somebody's expense.

>Why do you say "There's no such thing as a free lunch?"  Do you imply
>that if I want to improve my circumstances in one respect, I must reduce
>them equally (or more) in another respect?  That can't be true, for there
>would be NO material wealth if that were the case.  Do you imply that I
>must expend effort to get what I want?  Fine, but that effort represents
>energy I acquired free, by eating lunch.  Do you mean money? Ah... there's
>the rub.

Generating wealth is not like creating energy, but more like generating
electrticity.  People who generate all they use, whether they need it or
not, are not using what someone else generated.  People who generate less
than they use, no matter how badly they need it, *must* be using what
someone else generated.  In either case, it cannot be merely claimed; it
all must come at the expense of somebody.  If anybody does not generate
wealth equivilant to what they consume, they are, by definition, parasites.

>Yes, there is a free lunch.  Life as an organized society is NOT a
>zero-sum game (which I suspect is closer to the meaning than are the
>straw men I have been beating).  Organization itself creates wealth,
>and is the only effective means of doing so on a grand scale.  It is
>the flow of that free energy that gives us all our organization, whether
>it be social, or just the organization of materials into our high-tech
>toys.

Organizing does not create wealth.  In *any* given system, you cannot get
more energy (wealth) out of it than what went into it.  Organizing something
may make it more efficient, but even the organizing process consumes energy
(wealth).
>
>So please, let's hear no more from the cult of Heinlein.
>-- 

However painful this may be to you, I will scream it from the hilltops if
necessary --- THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!

>Martin Taylor

David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo

mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (10/18/85)

In article <1712@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:
>
>We organize.  That is free.  By organizing, we can make better use of
>all this free energy that the Sun gives us.  We can extract energy deposited
>millions of years ago, and use it to gather rocks that can be converted
>into metals.  It's free, if you can induce people to work together and
>help you.

>
>Yes, there is a free lunch.  Life as an organized society is NOT a
>zero-sum game (which I suspect is closer to the meaning than are the
>straw men I have been beating).  Organization itself creates wealth,
>and is the only effective means of doing so on a grand scale.  It is
>
>Martin Taylor


The expression "There is no such thing as a free lunch." is a simple
statement expressing a simple truth: everything has a cost.  These
costs are both a direct cost and an opportunity cost.  
For example, trade between individuals has both transaction and
information costs.  But this is beside the point since the quote has
very little to do with the benefits of trade, etc.

The quote is almost always used in the context of government
expenditures.  If a government gives money to an individual it is
obviously only paying one individual with the money it has taken from
a different individual.  Since modern politics today is essentially 
special interest groups each fighting for money from the government it
is important to remember that nothing is free.

Also, what does Bob Heinlein have to do with this?

-- 

Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

UUCP	ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!mvs