Living Car Free - Dilbert and "fungible"

I always thought I was helping reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by riding my bike to work. But according to Scott Adams of Dilbert, I'm wrong! Can anyone explain this logic better to me than Dogbert? Specifically, I'm not convinced developing countries will buy up oil that the US would save from less consumption.

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20060219.html

:D

Since I have no idea what "fungible" means, I guess I'll keep riding my bike!

The argument isn't really spelled out, but I the implicit idea that Dogbert is pushing is that, in economic terms, it doesn't make sense to distinguish between "foreign" and "domestic" oil. It's all part of the same market, and buying from one producer instead of another doesn't change the upward pressure on prices.

While that may be so, Dogbert's argument doesn't quite hit home. Reducing overall consumption will still bring prices down and lessen the political importance of the oil industry.

Reducing overall consumption will still bring prices down and lessen the political importance of the oil industry.

Yeah, that's true.

Lower prices mean everybody else can afford more oil.

Maybe I should buy lots of fuel so other people can't have it, because I want to reduce their oil dependency. Hey, it'll be a new ad slogan for hummer:

'buy a hummer, reduce foreign oil dependency*'


*that is, the dependency of foreigners on oil, not the dependency of yourself on foreign oil.

Yeah, that's true.

Lower prices mean everybody else can afford more oil.

Maybe I should buy lots of fuel so other people can't have it, because I want to reduce their oil dependency. Hey, it'll be a new ad slogan for hummer:

'buy a hummer, reduce foreign oil dependency*'


*that is, the dependency of foreigners on oil, not the dependency of yourself on foreign oil.
When we get rid of our cars and travel around by bike we make life nicer for the car people by relieving congestion and freeing up parking spaces.

When we get rid of our cars and travel around by bike we make life nicer for the car people by relieving congestion and freeing up parking spaces.
True, but most car people still believe that we slow down traffic.

I think there is some truth to it. But I bike for purely selfish reasons anyway. I would secretly kind of enjoy it if gas went over $10/gallon, even though I know it would hurt all of us, car-free included.

I always thought I was helping reduce the US dependence on foreign oil by riding my bike to work. But according to Scott Adams of Dilbert, I'm wrong! Can anyone explain this logic better to me than Dogbert? Specifically, I'm not convinced developing countries will buy up oil that the US would save from less consumption.
As a matter of fact, you are indeed reducing the US dependence on foreign oil. However small your direct impact may be, it is real. I suspect time will reveal that your tiny personal effort does more to solve the problem than most multimillion dollar government energy research programs.

I'm not certain that bicycling helps to reduce oil dependency. I'm burning steaks, and it is probably uses as much oil to produce meat as I'd need for car ride. Oil and steaks are pretty fungible, I think.

:D

Since I have no idea what "fungible" means, I guess I'll keep riding my bike!

A 'fungible' is a disposable unit of production.
Motor cars, wheat, bicycles, ice cream and you!

Jerry Brown, (Moonbeam to you neo-con republicans)
used to have a radio show where he decried the fact
that HUMAN BEINGS had become 'fungibles.' It was
his feeling, and mine that corporate america views
the worker as an expendable unit in the wheels of
production. Thus they could care less about illegal
immigration or outsourcing of jobs for the lower the
level of wages, the more dire the circumstances for
workers, the more likely they can hire them to do
dirty work for peanuts. And by doing away with health
and safety laws, and stripping the individual of his rights
to sue in the courts, they won't have to pay off for unsafe
working environments and if a few of the 'fungibles' die
well, there are plenty more where they came from.

I will now get off my soap box. :)

Ned

I knew if I waited long enough somebody would provide a definition. thanks. :)

A 'fungible' is a disposable unit of production.
Motor cars, wheat, bicycles, ice cream and you!


English is not my native language, but...

From webster.com:

Main Entry: fungible
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform -- more at FUNCTION
1 : being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation <oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities>
2 : INTERCHANGEABLE
- fun·gi·bil·i·ty /"f&n-j&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun

You're right, CTAC, fungible is not "disposable", it is "interchangable". Oil is fungible in the same way that water is: if you're going to ship 100 gallons of water from each of 10 different places, all to one destination, you might as well put it all in one 1000 gallon tank, because it's all water. Fungible means there's no distinction made between foreign oil and domestic oil. Of course, there is, so calling oil a fungible commodity is arguably inaccurate.

Roody (and others), for a generally good selection of definitions, do a Google search, i.e.:

define: fungible

Yeah, that's true.

Lower prices mean everybody else can afford more oil.

Maybe I should buy lots of fuel so other people can't have it, because I want to reduce their oil dependency. Hey, it'll be a new ad slogan for hummer:

'buy a hummer, reduce foreign oil dependency*'


*that is, the dependency of foreigners on oil, not the dependency of yourself on foreign oil.
That is the argument dogbert is making. I don't know if Scott Adams is making the argument, but that's what dogbert is saying. It's actually the new reasoning being trotted out by various right-wing pundits, politicians, etc., as an argument against hybrid cars. It started in the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, where a lot of stupidest ideas that dominate the public discourse get started.

The idea is this: By using less oil you bring the price of oil down, which makes it more affordable for other to buy, therefore using up the capacity you would have been using anyway. The end result being any attempt to use less oil is at best, moot, at worst, counter-productive.

It makes sense the way all of these GOP talking-points, logic puzzles make sense in that if you don't think about it in real world terms it sounds like "common sense". ‘Well of course you have to support the war in Iraq because if you don’t you don’t support the troops and you want Saddam Hussein back in power being a bad, bad guy.’ Crap like that.

It’s utterly ridiculous, and when Dogbert uses the word “fungible” in this argument he means, essentially, there’s nothing you can do to keep oil from being used. You may not be using it, but it’s being used, so therefore it’s pointless to try not to use it.

But these sort of arguments only work if you accept the premise that the entire universe functions according the rules of modern, western economic theory rather than it just being a product of men’s minds. If I’m biking all the time because I don’t want to use oil (which I’m not, actually, I still have a car) I’m not doing so out of some large equation I think I’m affecting (well, maybe I am, but then I’m being just a tad pretentious and naïve). Rather I’m doing it because I feel it’s the right thing to do on a personal level. I want to use less oil. I want to put less carbon into the atmosphere. I want to save money, etc., etc. And that’s not pointless.

Why do a**holes have to buy BMWs and Tahoes? Because they need to. Why is it trust-fund babies and tiny men I see driving around in Hummers? Because they’re idiots.

Oil may be fungible to the point that an individual, or a minority of the population even, can’t effect it simply by opting out (and in fact I believe that’s correct), but that’s not the point of opting out so, why would that change anything?

There really aren’t any more “dollar votes” to be had in regards to many things, oil being one of them. Real change takes participation, not just opting out. So Dogbert and the WSJ are correct if you accept the underlying premise of their argument: there’s no point to doing anything unless it directly effects the boogey-man. I know biking to work doesn’t do jack squat big-picture wise, but I’m not doing it because I think it does; so there, Scott Adams.

TimJ - you rock :)

Do it for yourself. Do it for others. Just do it. (Apoligies to Nike).

A 'fungible' is a disposable unit of production.
Motor cars, wheat, bicycles, ice cream and you!

Jerry Brown, (Moonbeam to you neo-con republicans)
used to have a radio show where he decried the fact
that HUMAN BEINGS had become 'fungibles.' It was
his feeling, and mine that corporate america views
the worker as an expendable unit in the wheels of
production. Thus they could care less about illegal
immigration or outsourcing of jobs for the lower the
level of wages, the more dire the circumstances for
workers, the more likely they can hire them to do
dirty work for peanuts. And by doing away with health
and safety laws, and stripping the individual of his rights
to sue in the courts, they won't have to pay off for unsafe
working environments and if a few of the 'fungibles' die
well, there are plenty more where they came from.

I will now get off my soap box. :)

Ned



I agree(?) Brown had some pretty sound ideas. Now that California has Schwarzenegger, there are not a few Californians who regard the "Moonbeam" administration with fond nostalgia.

I'd like to know, as a matter of practise vs. theory, where was your bike(s) produced?

My Lightning Dynamics Recumbent
was manufactured in Lompoc, California.

My EZ-1 Easy Racer was designed in
California, but alas, I believe it was
assembled in China. :O(

And to get 'beyond' your assumption,
I blame the corporations and/or the
government for not doing something
about outsourcing of jobs. Certainly
the Big 3 auto companies screwed up
in the 70s (as today) by making muscle
cars and SUVs that are gashogs. And
don't tell me WE ASK FOR EM. Detriot
companies are the ones that spend BILLIONS
on advertising whatever they WANT US to buy.

I have been writing my Congressman every week
for a couple of years begging for him to sponsor
legislation that would REDEFINE what a car is in
terms of acceptable gas mileage perameters, but
between the Oil, Rubber and Car Mfgr's, that will
never happen til they get the last stink'n nickel out
of us.

While individual responsibility is important in the war
for a sustainable future for the ole EARTH, government
has an important part to play, and the yahoos in power
right now are doing everything they can to put us on a
fastrack bodsled ride to hell as far as sustainability of
both our economy and the earth is concerned.

Just my two cents,

Ned Goudy

Bringing down demand by using less oil will decrease the price for all oil, foreign and domestic. Yes, others will buy the oil that you would have bought, but at a lower price. That means less money to the terrorists.

It was really stupid of Adams to make such a basic economic error when he was making a such a snotty accusation that someone else was making a basic economic error.

Actually, since Dogbert is evil (was his tail wagging) he was probably just playing with Dilbert's mind.

This reasoning is like saying I should eat until I weight 1,000 lbs because it really doesn't matter - someone is going to be eating.

Well, those other people might have been starving - right?

Yes, we will eventually consume all the oil resources since they are finite - however, whether we choose to use this resources as a way to move huge vehicles, or to make medicines is our choice. Resources are consumed, but we can effect where they are consumed and whether that was the best idea.

. . . . Yes, we will eventually consume all the oil resources since they are finite . . . .Just to be picky, I disagree. We will never use the last barrel of oil. It will just become so expensive that no one can afford it.

Here it is in simple words:

Just because someone else will do a negative thing doesn't mean I am justified in doing it first.

It was really stupid of Adams to make such a basic economic error when he was making a such a snotty accusation that someone else was making a basic economic error.

It's a cartoon and Dogbert is a character. Dogbert 'says' a lot of innane things for a supposedly humorous effect. It is a cartoon. I would guess that Adams is actually poking fun at the beliefs put forth by Dogbert in ths cartoon.

Hey, Bill--

Thanks for pointing me toward that cartoon. As the Token Treehugger in my accounting class (a class, I might add, in which the term "fungible" has been discussed ad nauseam), I will take special delight in passing this cartoon around on Tuesday. Then my professor, the All-Knowing Dave, can address Dogbert's economic error.

It's a cartoon and Dogbert is a character. Dogbert 'says' a lot of innane things for a supposedly humorous effect. It is a cartoon. I would guess that Adams is actually poking fun at the beliefs put forth by Dogbert in ths cartoon.
From the context, I think Adams was poking fun at people who think that it matters whether we reduce demand for oil. In any case, this strip was not his best work.

Bringing down demand by using less oil will decrease the price for all oil, foreign and domestic. Yes, others will buy the oil that you would have bought, but at a lower price. That means less money to the terrorists.

It was really stupid of Adams to make such a basic economic error when he was making a such a snotty accusation that someone else was making a basic economic error.

Not necesarily, in fact, probably not. Economics don't work according to the rigid "laws" of supply and demand. "Supply and demand" themselves are mostly constructs just used to explain phenomenon, they aren't "laws" in any newtonian kind of sense. Petroleum is used to make a billion different things and there's no line direct from the producer to the consumer, so supply and demand are pretty philosophical when it comes to oil. There's private producers, state producers, a cartel, and refineries, not to mention the markets the companies, the product and derivatives all trade on. If the entire US started using 10% less oil than it does now, tomorrow, it wouldn't necessarily do anything to the price. More likely I think the corporations would see their stock prices fall some, and maybe there'd be selling out of them and oil-backed derivatives and momentum would gain and maybe the price of oil would go down, but not because of any direct demand pressure, but it would only be temporary because soon the stocks would look like bargains, etc., etc.

I actually don't know much about economics as far as rules and theory goes, but I'm interested in economic history and have been working around the biz for a few years, and one thing has become crystal clear to me- "theory" and "laws" are pretty abstract when applied to global, fungible commodities like oil or the american dollar (the most fungible commodity on the planet). There are just far, far too many layers of b.s. for a consumer or even masses of consumers to have any affect on them when voting with their dollars. The corporations really only respond to shareholder pressure and if we all wanted to change how business gets done, the best thing we could do is buy as much stock of those big oil companies as we can. For reals.

The laws of supply and demand are like an albatross around our collective necks. There's a trend on this country to think of everything in terms of commodoties bought and sold, partly because it's so efficient and logical to do so. Not so. Supply and demand are concepts people came up with to describe certain phenomenon and that's it. It's a huge mistake to think of them as part of a natural system because we tend to accept them as sacrosanct and let it rule our lives. We could be driving around in electric cars, powered by clean electricity if we told the laws of supply and demand to f-off, you know? Supply and demand is just great for widgets, but when it comes to anything important for a society, they ought to take a hike, and when it comes oil or money, they just don't apply.

sorry, I had a few minutes to kill.