Paul Krugman offers an explanation of Gore Derangement Syndrome
So if science says that we have a big problem that can't be solved with tax cuts or bombs -- well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor's Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of -- who else? -- George Soros.
Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.
Kevin Drum adds:
As Krugman notes, the extent to which conservatives have turned opposition to global warming science into a personal jihad against Al Gore is breathtaking. He's "hectoring." He's "lecturing us." He's "holier than thou." Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming, but as the childish campaign against Gore shows, they also oppose any effort to simply persuade people as well. Their excuse? Gore and other campaigners are hypocrites unless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero. It's the kind of argument you'd expect to hear from a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.
And I must, of course, provide an example of GDS, so here is Jules Crittenden responding to Krugman:
That's true if you (A) believe the Nobel Prize committee is the last word on anything
Crittenden than claims Gore is "making things up" because
a British court has found that his film is both partisan and contains no fewer than eleven material inaccuracies
I guess it must be British courts that are the last words on everything. (And Crittenden is wrong about the court verdict.)
There's a great comment at Drum's place:
So much aptness, so little time.
Best,
D
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119223307015357948.html
It's pure political B.S. Nothing more.
But I forget! AGW is "the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced," which is why he lives in a giant mansion and burns fossil fuels like they're going out of style. But don't forget that he offsets!
I have no opinion on this, and since realclimate is down right now, does anyone have anything to say about William Gray?
Yes, ben, RealClimate did a long time ago:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Yow. Tim links to Kevin Drum writing:
And, like clockwork, Ben wrote:
Robert, I was, like, just quoting Gore.
Second, it is a weak co-opt of the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome," which came first, and in which we saw/see multitudes of lefties losing their minds over Bush. Not just a bunch of stupid editorials mind you, but making complete asses of themselves in public, and even hurting entirely innocent people out of their anger/frustration/syndrome.
GDS is out of it's league next to BDS, sorry.
I have no opinion on this, and since realclimate is down right now, does anyone have anything to say about William Gray?
sigh. it is somewhat bizarre, how a handful of "sceptics" are keeping us buys, while 1000s of climate scientists get ignored. sigh.
on Gray, start by reading his OWN papers:
The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications
Stanley B. Goldenberg,1* Christopher W. Landsea,1 Alberto M. Mestas-Nuñez,2 William M. Gray3
The years 1995 to 2000 experienced the highest level of North Atlantic hurricane activity in the reliable record. Compared with the generally low activity of the previous 24 years (1971 to 1994), the past 6 years have seen a doubling of overall activity for the whole basin, a 2.5-fold increase in major hurricanes (>=50 meters per second), and a fivefold increase in hurricanes affecting the Caribbean. The greater activity results from simultaneous increases in North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures and decreases in vertical wind shear. Because these changes exhibit a multidecadal time scale, the present high level of hurricane activity is likely to persist for an additional ~10 to 40 years. The shift in climate calls for a reevaluation of preparedness and mitigation strategies.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;293/5529/474
the explanation he gives beyond warming is rather slim:
The Atlantic has seen a very large increase in major hurricanes during the last 11-year period of 1995-2005 (average 4.0 per year) in comparison to the prior 25-year period of 1970-1994 (average 1.5 per year).� This large increase in Atlantic major hurricanes is primarily a result of the multi-decadal increase in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) that is not directly related to global temperature increase.�� Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism.� These multi-decadal changes have also been termed the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO).�
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/nov2005/
final point:
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
which one is it: are all those scientists lazy, useless socialists, who never had to work for their money, or is there enough economic pressure on them, to make them all collectively LIE?
I think "Gore Derangement syndrome" started around the time that people started calling him "algore" and "Ozone Man."
As far as Gore's alleged hypocrisy is concerned, he can use all the wind power he wants. He can install all the solar panels he wants. He can burn all the jet fuel he wants, provided that the result is greater awareness for this issue. And he can offset the rest, provided that it is a true offset. Now, let's see the Republicans offset their wives, theirs view on the death penalty, and their past views on abortion. That's an awful lot of hail marys.
Maybe, but BKAS (Bush Kiss-Ass Syndrome) has killed more far more people, and eroded some amendments besides.
Ben, demonstrating more GDS, tried to change the subject with:
Hmmm. I bet getting pwned like that must sting.
Kevin Drum: "Gore and other campaigners are hypocrites unless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero."
If Al Gore could live in a house that has 5x the American household's electricity bill (like Bush Jr's home) instead of 20x, that would be enough. In some ways, it's the most rassuring message he could deliver. If GW was really as catastrophic as he claims, he wouldn't have such sickening level of energy usage, would he ?
Going after the messenger is a juvenile conservative tactic. The problem when you start with an a priori position that the government is evil and should never regulate anything. Then, when science comes in with strong indications there's a problem only regulation can solve, you're backed into a corner. All you can do is deny, deny, deny, and when that stops working, you heckle the prominent educator of the issue like a freaking grade-school bully. It's all sickening. Maybe to some degree Al Gore is a hypocrite; I don't particularly care. The important part is he's mostly right on the details, he's totally right on the upshot, and he's good at spreading the message. If he needs to fly around the country to spread that message, so be it. He's stopping a lot more C02 from entering the atmosphere by flying around talking about the problem then he would by sitting at home.
If GW was really as catastrophic as he claims, he wouldn't have such sickening level of energy usage, would he?
So if a doctor smokes we may conclude that smoking doesn't cause cancer? Clearly hemlock does no harm either, since Socrates was a smart guy and he could have left town if he didn't want to drink the stuff. Then again, maybe he was just sick to death of arguing with halfwits: "Gimme the goblet warden, it couldn't be worse than listening to this shite".
Jeffk (#12)... you've hit the bloody nail on the head. Excellent comment. Excellent.
I think "Gore Derangement syndrome" started around the time that people started calling him "algore" and "Ozone Man."
Don't forget "the Goracle."
Pough, thanks, Gray looks pretty dumb.
As long as we're on the topic of Krugman... Look who didn't win the Nobel Prize in Economics. I know you guys hate Luskin, but too bad, that was funny.
You're welcome. FWIW, I don't think he's dumb (in general). From what I understand, he's excellent where he's excellent. Seems like he has a bit of a crank stank, though, and his arrogance is doing him no favours.
GDS: Rightists slam a guy who wants to save the world from an awful fate.
BDS: Leftists slam a guy who wants to give the world an awful fate.
Oh yes, they're comparable.
RE: fatAlGore as hypocrite:
Krugman also recently wrote about the wingnut smear campaigns as well. He never mentioned SwiftBoating, which is certainly what happened to Gore and his energy use.
on top of
Ah, well. So many slime-machine examples, so little time.
Best,
D
oops. Preview good. Apologies.
D
Dano, you forget: "the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced"
Somehow being average just doesn't seem good enough, neither does "offsetting." Seems to me like the the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced would require some real sacrifice.
ben writes:
That's right! If Gore really believed in what he was saying, he would do something big, like donate his Nobel Prize winnings to some environmentalist group. How about giving your money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, Al?
What a hypocrite! ben is so right about that guy...
There appear to be 4 separate issues here, all somehow associated with Al Gore, but all being issues of significant importance quite apart from any obsession with Gore:
1. Is AGW happening?
2. Is it important to pursue policies that attempt to stop AGW?
3. What are the personal actions that people should take?
4. What are the governmental policies that need to be pursued?
I take it for granted that, just like Gore says, the answers to the first two questions are "Yes" and "Yes" (respectively).
As for questions 3. and 4., Gore's rhetoric and his personal emphasis on offsets rather than on emissions reduction suggest that he thinks that AGW can be handled without significantly inconveniencing anyone. (For the rich, it may actually be an opportunity to make some money.) This significantly limits the personal and governmental actions that may be taken.
Is there any scientific reason to believe this is true?
Journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot thinks not. Can anyone point to a comprehensive plan to stop AGW without drastic changes to our lifestyle?
Daryl,
Of course. And traveling around the world, pounding the flesh, talking to world leaders and using his prominence on the world stage to educate people on the nature of the problem?
Why that's small potatoes next to living in a tent, wearing the hair shirt and subsisting on grass and tree bark.
God, what hypocrisy!
Ben - I don't have access to their archives. Did the WSJ compile such a list when Henry Kissinger won the prize in 1973 for stopping his own war?
"Ben - I don't have access to their archives. Did the WSJ compile such a list when Henry Kissinger won the prize in 1973 for stopping his own war?"
Don't know, I was only a year old. That, and did they count all the people who died in the region after the war "ended," when they gave him his "Peace" Prize. They really should call it the "Pandering" Prize, or maybe the "Sweep it all under the rug" prize. I'm sure that if some jerk managed to "end" the Iraq war, they'd award him/her the Peace Prize, even if another 200k Iraqi's died after the Peace broke out.
Krugman is correct, and the U.S. right-wing conservatives are in an astounding, across-the-board intellectual failure: science, economics, domestic and foreign policy: everything has deserted them. The Reaganoid alchemical formulary is finished. It's certainly a good thing for them, that magical fairies have PROVEN that Al Gore can't possibly be thinking about reducing the carbon footprint of his house, and that climate mitigation requires unacceptable economic consequences. Blind emotional outbursts may yet save the day!
If you want to know how intellectually devoid Republicans have become since 1970, consider that Richard Milhous Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
Truth Machine,
Good point. I have been asking myself that for quite some time. He rails on about 'Bush derangement syndrome' as if its unfounded... here we have a regime (what Gore Vidal colloquially refers to as the 'Bush-Cheney junta') that routinely violates international law, illegally invades a country in violation of the Nuremberg Code and the UN Charter, and which results in many hundreds of thousands dead and the country utterly ruined. The regime, through its National Security Strategy of 2002 claims it will rule the planet by force, and aims to achieve 'full spectrum dominance' of air, land, sea and space. When you have senior advisers like Michael Ledeen saying 'creative destruction is out middle name', exhorting the US to preventively attack other nations not 'following orders' from Crawford, Texas, (in Ledeen's own words, 'faster please' with respect to attacks on Syria and Iran), then BDS is hardly a syndrome but an honest appraisal of the criminal gang currently occupying the White House. This is not to say that the Clinton-Gore team did not also violate international law with horrific consequences (e.g. the attack on the Al-Shifa pharamceutical factory in Sudan is noteworthy, along with the attack on Serbia), but the current incumbents are clearly deranged. Its no syndrome.
Hahahaha LOL. Krugman has spent the last 7 years helping turn the Times Op-ed into a Bush hate site is now complaining about people disliking Gore? Talk about lefty projection. The guy is truly pathological as well as being a poor economist.
Never mind, judging by the way the "peace prize" is adjudicated these days this ought to get Krugman the next peace prize. You gotta laugh.
I believe in global warming. I just take issue with Gore's utter hypocrisy. Would it really be so much for a man who wants us all to fret about something he constantly labels a "crisis" to avoid private jets for a change? How about living in a more modest house? Or shedding a few pounds for Gaia? The inconvenient truth is that Gore has made a post-political career out of lecturing everyone else about things he isn't willing to do himself. Don't even get me started on the questionable carbon credit schemes he uses to justify his high consumption lifestyle. (Besides, if Gore really cared about the environment he could buy his dubious carbon credits and lead a more environmental lifestyle.) I give Ralph Nader credit: the guy may not deliver Gore's dry, pompous lectures on global warming but he actually does rely heavily on his bicycle to get around, isn't overweight, and lives in a modest house. He practices what the Goracle can only preach.
In that case, I think I'm going to get into the Goracle racket: I'll put a bumper sticker on my SUV telling people they need to shrink their carbon footprint and occasionally preach the same message to others over the internet while crank the heat up extra high this winter. I might even gain a few dozen pounds while I'm at it. Thanks for your support as I "raise awareness" about global warming, cce. I appreciate it! New liberal motto: words speak louder than actions.
What planet are you from? Ad hominem constitutes about three-quarters of all arguments I find at places like Daily Kos, tbogg or even Pharyngula. In this case, I believe questioning the messenger is a bit more justified than, say, making Asian prostitute jokes about Michelle Malkin because you disagree with her stance on immigration, for instance. After all, would you accept the weight-loss advice of a grossly obese doctor without thinking twice?
Hmmm. Interesting to see how Jc is both an AIDS denialist (over on Aetiology) and a Bush worshipper. Funny even. What next? Are you a creationist, too?
Also interesting how the Global Warming "debate" is almost entirely limited to the USA.
Of course I would.
I would additionally ask him why he thinks he himself doesn't need to lose weight, though.
Which brings us back to the topic. Have you all managed to overlook comment 19? Or do you just want to ignore it?
Ad hominem constitutes about three-quarters of all arguments I find at places like Daily Kos, tbogg or even Pharyngula.
And at wingnut sites, ad hom is mis/malused 94.244% of the time.
Best,
D
"Hmmm. Interesting to see how Jc is both an AIDS denialist (over on Aetiology)"
LOL. seeing we're into howlers.... are you still lying about having hot sex with Michelle Pfeiffer?
"and a Bush worshipper."
No I don't like Bush much as he is not my kind of right winger. But hey, at least I am the discriminating sort and choose my gods wisely. Unlike you, you old tart.
"Funny even. What next? Are you a creationist, too?"
Funny i would have thought that if Algore told you the dinosaurs roamed with amn 6,000 years ago, you would believe him. After all you believe all his other whoppers.
Also interesting how the Global Warming "debate" is almost entirely limited to the USA.
Wouldn't know, I don't live there anymore.
"he lives in a giant mansion and burns fossil fuels like they're going out of style. But don't forget that he offsets!"
This is nonsense and you've been told repeatedly why it's nonsense.
"If Al Gore could live in a house that has 5x the American household's electricity bill (like Bush Jr's home) instead of 20x"
The Gores' energy use IN THE FIRST YEAR THEY LIVED IN THEIR CURRENT HOUSE was 8 (not 20x) the average for Nashville.
Beside the fact that the Gore household is substantially larger than the average household, energy use in that year was inflated by the renovations done on the building - which included adding solar panels and installing additional insulation.
More here
32:
Yes, why do you guys not get the fact hat Gore's residential energy use is 100% renewable? Moreover, Gore's participation in the TVA's Green Power Switch program encourages more use of solar, wind and other renewable energy:
Now, ask yourself why no right wing blog or source has EVER mentioned that Gore's residential power is green and that it supports the development and availability of green power for more customers. Answering this question will get you well on your way toward understanding the anti-environmentalists' relationship with truth and honesty.
Ben,
Bill Gray is not a credible scientist anymore. He was in the past, but not now. This page will be updated soon but this is a good place to quickly get up to speed on Bill Gray: Logical Science on bill gray
Regards,
M.J. Sparrow
Mike C writes:
Fine. What do you think is the benefit to the environment of your bumper sticker and your messages to internet? What do you think is the cost to the environment of your use of carbon fuels? Which do you think is more?
Eli:
What happened? Bad day at the gas lab yesterday and decided to blame it on the non-statists? Lol. One would have to be walking around the 4th circle of Dante's hell to believe that swill. Thanks for the link it was err really informative. LOL.
Boris says:
"Now, ask yourself why no right wing blog or source has EVER mentioned that Gore's residential power is green and that it supports the development and availability of green power for more customers"
Dunno Boris, maybe because you're spinning the wrong premise. Mr. Moral Imperative only began to go green when he was caught out not living to the standards he expects of others. No surpirse there with tubby checker.
Ian:
Thanks for correcting the fact that Al's house is not an acre of living space -48,000 sq feet (average for the state is 24 hundred Sq feet)- and only 20,000 sq feet - around 1/2 an acre. That really clears the whole thing up for me. I feel more comforatbel now that Al really cares.
Have I confused you with someone? In that case, let me apologize. I'll check that later.
Oh, you're one of those types who despise everyone except maybe themselves? Sorry, then. (One such guy wrote the editorials of one of Austria's biggest newspapers for years. Incredibly grumpy person. But I digress.)
I've neither read any of his books nor watched his movie. What for? As far as I can tell from other people's comments, there's nothing new in them whatsoever. He's a popularizer, not a researcher, after all.
"And at wingnut sites, ad hom is mis/malused 94.244% of the time. Best D"
This is you being ironic , right, best D?
You must have read Eli's link suggesting how all non-statists are Stalin's kids and you're now trying to pass a joke about Eli's "stirring" missive. Are you cosmopolitan. Perhaps a rootless one? LOL.
Root and rootless have different connotations in Australia. Check it out on google for Aussie slang meaning.
I'm sure Eli is , by the sounds of things.
"Hmmm. Interesting to see how Jc is both an AIDS denialist (over on Aetiology)" LOL. seeing we're into howlers.... are you still lying about having hot sex with Michelle Pfeiffer?
Have I confused you with someone? In that case, let me apologize. I'll check that later.
I don't think i was ever suggesting AGW causes AIDS. In fact i can't ever recall ever discussing AIDS. Could have been Eli.
Eli have you been sugesting non-statists are AidS denialists?
Sorry, Jc, you didn't even post on the Aetiology thread I was thinking about. I'm still wondering how it happened, but I have confused you with someone else. Sorry again.
No problem, David.
JC and his fact-free posts ... how charming.
No, Gore signed up for Green Power Switch far before the controversy. Form the Detroit free Press:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS07/70227039
So yet another falsehood from Jc. Subject change in
3.....
2.....
Rabett's post was in response to such enlightened comments as how Gore and the IPCC "fits in with a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years." I suppose one tactic is to take the high road. Or, if that's no fun, you treat them in kind.
"The green power Gore purchased is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES's Web site."
No doubt it's also equivalent to recycling 2,326 reddish aardvarks. How exactly does one compare the purchase of "green" power with aluminum or newspaper recycling? I searched google for NES corp and found only this, which doesn't give comparisons for green power vs. aardvarks etc.
Again, in my comment above, Gore:
Is JC still peddling the snake oil, after being called out as a charlatan?
Why do we bother engaging with drivers of the clown car again? What more can we possibly show?
Best,
D
How exactly does one compare the purchase of "green" power with aluminum or newspaper recycling?
Embodied energy, Ben. You should learn about it sometime, esp before spouting off. You'll avoid looking foolish that way.
Best,
D
My energy is a 100% renewable too. We use hydroelectric. Crank up the heat.
How exactly does one compare the purchase of "green" power with aluminum or newspaper recycling?
lol. how does one compare diesel to petrol or biofuel?
btw, how does one compare a house, where people are working AND living, to one where people are living only occasionally?
just add the energy consumption of the whitehouse to the bush mansion and the comparison will become even MORE reasonable..
So I take it you would think twice. Which brings us back to my comment which you didn't apparently read.
About comment #19: I don't believe in carbon credits (as I've indicated before) and if you go to the link and you'll find this delicious tidbit:
Al Gore lecturing others not to fly private jets? That's rich.
In response to comment #19, it's time for Dano to take a lesson in elementary economics.
In other words, Gore would be doing more by setting an example for regular people (those people who cannot afford wind farms and the like) when it comes to energy consumption rather than relying on exotic energy sources that are unaffordable to all but the wealthiest in our society. But then your average liberal never has been very good at economics.
Al Gore lecturing others not to fly private jets? That's rich.
funny, why did i know, that the new subject would be private jets?
i quoted this several times now. you would look slightly LESS stupid, if you stopped bringing up that subject:
The filings, which are publicly accessible, they reveal that during the period of January of 1999 and January of 2000, Gore reimbursed five groups and corporations for 16 flights on private jets. It is two of these dates that caught our attention.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10951
so during TWO YEARS of campaigning for POTUS, Gore used a private jet SIXTEEN times!!!!!
massive, eh?
Mike C, congrats on changing the subject. Well played. Anytime you'd like to comment on why right wing blogs NEVER mention that Gore's power is green, I'd love to hear what you have to say.
Now, as to your "elementary economics" comment, where has energy declined in price due to green initiatives?
Does anyone here know anyone who, faced with a 2% decline in electricity prices, will leave their lights on or turn up their thermostat 1 deg in the winter? I'm trying to get a grasp of Mike C's concept.
In other words, those corporations and groups can take their jet flights next time making Gore look good even while he effectively does nothing for the environment. You've got love the guy!
He was running for president recently? Gore is in the race after all!
Boris is pleading ignorance of the law of supply and demand. What can you expect from a liberal? When has the supply of dirty electricity declined due to green energy?
Yes, some families might start telling their kids to shut the lights off when they exit the room. Not every family in America has the kind of money Al Gore or even Boris has. I know stuck-up white liberals like to forget that.
I think somebody at Marginal Revolution put it well:
Liberals believe only the rich should have power.
O-Pa! You're rivaling Jc for the stupidest comments on Deltoid.
So, if energy prices drop, the parent will tell them to leave the lights on, or will they not bother telling them. What if the kids have developed the habit of turning off the lights themselves? Will they heed the market forces and eliminate said habit?
Are you beginning to see that the law of supply and demand--especially in regards to energy use--is a lot more complicated than the libertarian philosophy would have you believe?
The bitching over Gore's energy use reminds me of the original swiftboating. "Yeah... he has won 3 purple hearts [or whatever they were]... but maybe he didn't fully deserve one of them... so he's an incredible liar (against whom all the WMD stuff etc. etc. etc. pales into utter insignificance)..."
The supply would increase anyway, as does the demand. The question is whether we build more coal-fired power plants or more wind farms/solar stuff/whatever, not whether we build something or not.
When was the last time the price of electricity went down anywhere in the world? (I think there was a case in Austria a few years ago -- when they busted the cartel that the private electricity suppliers had formed right after the market was liberalized, so that the liberalization made the prices jump up, not down...)
Is that so in the USA? It is not in Austria, for example.
You have understood the principles, but you have completely failed to take the situation into account (demand rising anyway, and supply going to rise anyway).
Read the original again. I have put the important parts in boldface.
When early adopters paid $1000 for the first DVD players, they were doing nothing to take VHS players off of the market, that's why DVD players still cost $1000 and VHS players still dominate the market.
Or maybe not.
Other than the overhead of creating and maintaining a wind turbine, wind power does not create pollution. Gore can use as much of it as he wants and he is not contributing to his "carbon footprint."
The problem isn't that "too many rich people are keeping all of the alternative energy to themselves" it's "alternative energy is too expensive." It will forever remain that way until economies of scale are met (plus developing storage technologies for the reliability problem), and the price naturally comes down. That depends on early adopters (and/or government through subsidies) paying through the nose.
Such a lot of huffing and puffing about how Mr Gore lives and calling him a hypocrite for it. Actually I think he does do enough at home. I think Gore's home and how much energy it uses (leaving aside the matter of how effective offsets are for now) shows people that it isn't necessary to give up their material aspirations to successfully tackle climate change. It's certain that if Mr Gore downsized and tried for Ghandi style personal frugality it would be taken as proof that he believes they do - and he'd be criticised for it by the same people who call him a hypocrite for not. Especially criticised for it, because the myth that action on climate change is about forced frugality is one the Right likes to perpetuate and they'd love "proof" that this is Mr Gore's intent.
The notion that everyone who wants action taken are wanting to force people into downsized poverty is the Right engaging in a "we say they say" version of alarmism and doomsaying. It's a myth about Environmentalists the Right goes to lengths to perpetuate, trying to dress them in the clothes of the spitting, hissing extremists who come across as so antisocial at forest blockades and public protests. More accurately most concerned people want better technology, not less technology, and policies that will promote their rapid development and timely deployment. Most of us have a high regard for our scientists and engineers and yes, even our industrialists - and believe better technology rolled out over the next decades is not beyond them. The Right should be ashamed for perpetuating the myth that it's all too hard for them.
Mr Gore, don't give in to pressure to downsize your home, just make it more energy efficient, load the roof with solar cells and sell the excess to the grid. Show what better technology can really do.
When people's energy bills rise they will be more inclined to cut back. Yes, that's how it works. I know it's a difficult principle to understand but try to realize that not everyone's economic situation is the same as your own. The threshold at which people begin to act will vary for each household. Also consider that the energy markets are connected to the market for gasoline since oil is also used to generate domestic electricity; that means the cost of heating your home will have some relation to the price you pay at the pump. I don't know about you, but in this day and age of high gas prices, even as a college student driving a compact car, I definitely think about ways to minimize fuel consumption when the price of gas creeps up.
Leave it to a liberal to try and overturn the law of supply and demand by claiming its "more complicated." Sorry, it is really simple - Economics 101, in fact.
No, the supply would not increase anyway. The effect of a percentage of the population switching to uneconomical clean energy is to make currently available dirty energy cheaper for those who continue to use it. You might think switching to clean energy would reduce future dirty energy power plants but in the process of building more clean energy plants you are increasing the economic attractiveness of dirty energy relative to clean energy. Energy is a commodity, David, and people don't ordinarily consume it in fixed quantities. People tend to consume more energy when it's cheaper just as people tend to purchase gas guzzling vehicles when gas is cheaper. The only way around this is for alternative energy sources to be economical enough to out-compete dirty energy sources. If you want to help the environment, then you can attempt to restrict the supply of dirty energy, raising its price, and reducing its demand (such as in Cowen's proposal that people purchase a dirty energy plant and shut it down), you could tax dirty energy to the point where clean energy is cheaper, or you could invest in making alternative energy cheaper through research and development.
Someone at Marginal Revolution suggested Al Gore should be campaigning for more nuclear energy. Since nuclear power, unlike wind or solar, has potential for being economically competitive, I believe Al Gore would do far more for the environment by campaigning for nuclear power than he would trying to get individuals to cut their consumption. As some at MR also pointed out, wind and solar are not carbon-free either.
Yes, but in that case you are dealing with something that has the potential for becoming economically competitive merely through mass production. I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest solar power can become economically competitive with coal once we roll out enough of our currently existing solar cells. That is why we need more R&D in this area.
David needs to reread my response rather than highlighting his own. Let me assist:
That means while you may not know anyone who cares about a small price hike in their energy bills, they are indeed out there. The exact threshold at which people cut back is going to vary from individual to individual. Remember also that families aren't the only energy consumers. The 2% you may not give a shit about might be something the owners of a large corporation would pay attention to.
Mike C--For middle and low income households, electrical consumption is a discretionary expenditure, and is almost always conserved to allow money to be applied to other activities that have greater inelastic costs (such as commuting to work). For someone who claims that 'stuck up white liberals' forget something regarding the economic behavior of the poor, you are awfully ignorant of what constitutes the poor's typical and rational behaviors.
Mike
Middle and lower income households will tend to conserve electricity the same way they conserve gas when the prices are high and tend to conserve less when they aren't. You can claim that they don't but the fact is they do.
Mike C says:
Then:
But, you still miss the point. My question was, will people buy more electricity when prices decrease?
I understand that people use less electricity when prices increase, but I don't see how people use more when prices decrease. unless they are on a very limited income and have been keeping their thermostat uncomfortably high or low.
As far as supply and demand goes, binary thinking only gets you so far.
As for dirty energy getting too cheap. If that ever does become a problem, the government can take some of those dirty power plants offline. You know, regulation.
Yes. Just as people will purchase more fuel inefficient cars when the price of gas is low they will tend to crank the heat up more, leave lights on more, leave their computer idling more, not switch to more energy efficient products as quickly as they could (and demand more such products less), etc. I'm sure you're a more serious conservationist than most people in this country so that may seem unlikely, but it's true.
They certainly could. Of course, that will lead to overall higher energy prices as people are forced to choose between artificially expensive dirty energy and ordinarily expensive clean energy. This tends to be what conservatives and libertarians object to in part because they hate government interventions in the market as a principle and because it hits lower and middle classes the hardest. Still, you are right; it could be done.
I believe we should (a) halt immigration (b) follow Europe's lead and go nuclear (c) invest heavily in R&D for social, wind, geothermal, and other alternative power sources and energy conservation and (d) end our foreign adventures in countries like Iraq to help fund it all. (I think it was Steve Sailer who pointed out a year or two back that for the cost of this idiotic war in Iraq every family in America could have been given a Prius.)
Sorry, tommy is Mike C. I sometimes get the two monikers I use on blogs mixed up.
And just notice how much respect the right wing noise machine pays to the hairshirt wearers! Why only last week the noise machine was heard to be totally respectin' .... mmmmm my mistake apparently, do the wingnut noise makers respect anyone who's not in it for the money, not totally making out like a bandit?
People should respect the rantings of the noise machine as much as they respect a badly bred brat poking out its tongue and flinging poo ie "not too much"
RE #58 MikeC (it's time for Dano to take a lesson in elementary economics. )
My undergrad minor was in AgEcon and master's I studied UrbEcon with one of the big names in the field.
It is easy for me to say you are full of sh*t with your simpleton supply and demand cr*p.
And you change the subject because you are full of sh*t.
Best,
D
Corrected for HTML SNAFU:
RE #58 MikeC (it's time for Dano to take a lesson in elementary economics.)
My undergrad minor was in AgEcon and master's I studied UrbEcon with one of the big names in the field.
It is easy for me to say you are full of sh8t with your simpleton supply and demand cr#p.
And you change the subject because you are full of sh*t.
Best,
D
Amazing then that you learned so little.
For someone who claims to have taken so much economics, you seem remarkably contemptuous of the law of supply and demand.
I think I've been quite direct though my opponents here have wanted me to address their concerns and I have.
Best D says:
"My undergrad minor was in AgEcon and master's I studied UrbEcon with one of the big names in the field."
What the hell is urban economics? Did they teach that out of the sociolgy dept. specializing in Heterodox economics. LOL Oh I get it, it's a climate science major.
When i grow up I want to be just like you, Best D.
does anyone know know how may people Gore employs and how many of them work out of Gores home. just curios!
What you learn when you take something other than intro macro (and stop going after two weeks) is that there are plenty of drivers for behaviors that macro doesn't account for. E.g., individuals aren't strict slaves to supply and demand. See, people have habits.
And rational utility maximizers may find utility in keeping the lights off even when prices fall. Utility can be something like driving bills down further to realize more savings.
It's all very simple, and even simpletons can grasp it. See, it's a clue when commenters baldly state that individual slavish devotion to supply and demand as their rationalization; folk who do this know precious little about econ but plenty about slavish devotion to spreading ideological trope.
Best,
D
"(those people who cannot afford wind farms and the like) when it comes to energy consumption rather than relying on exotic energy sources that are unaffordable to all but the wealthiest in our society."
Funny, New Zealand, where the GDP pe5r capita is significantly lower than in the US gets about 90% of its power from those "exotic" sources I guess nobody told them how "unaffordable" that is.
"When you donate money to build a new windfarm, you don't take any of the old, polluting power offline; you increase the supply of power, reducing the price until others are encouraged to buy more carbon-emitting power."
Except that the marginal cost of generation is not the major determinant of retail power prices.
The cost of generation here is around A$0.02-0.03 for base-load coal power but the retail cost of electricity is around A$0.20 a kilowatt (IIRC).
Oh and let's not forget that retail power prices in most places are set by government regulators not the market and are generally fixed for extended periods.
But those are obviously Bad Facts.
"does anyone know know how may people Gore employs and how many of them work out of Gores home. just curios!"
The short answer is "no".
Former VPs no longer automatically get Secret Service protection but media reports suggest that since 9/11 President Bush has authorised security details for all living former VPs.
Gore probably has a full-time live-in Secret Service security detail. As a matter of policy the Secret Service doesn't reveal details of such assignments for security reasons.
We do know that Gore has several corporate directorships in addition to his duties as a former VP. That probably requires at least a couple of staff.
Tipper Gore chairs various charities.
Given the size of the house it's unlikely that they do their own housecleaning or gardening and the domestic staff may or may not live in.
The electricity use figures include not only the main house but the guest house. In the year in question the Gore's children made extended stays there.
Gore probably also hosted various foreign dignitaries (and THEIR entourages and security details).
So really we have no idea.
But hey he's fat. That much we do know.
I hate to inform Paul Krugman of reality but the right does not "hate" Al Gore. We just think he's wrong. The use of the term "hate" is simple projection by the left.
Best D
Ok, so please offer evidence that in your heterodox school of economics demand curves don't point downward for any goods or services?
What you learn when you take something other than intro macro (and stop going after two weeks) is that there are plenty of drivers for behaviors that macro doesn't account for
I did a little more than macro, boyo, did you?
Poeple generally behave rationally at least at the basic level. If two stalls are selling oranges of the same quality people would odinarily choose the cheaper stall. Of course there are other drivers to economic man. They taught you that in sociology school? Wow!
And rational utility maximizers may find utility in keeping the lights off even when prices fall. Utility can be something like driving bills down further to realize more savings.
And you're point is what exactly, that even though prices fall people will continue to use things efficiently. Jeez loiuse, ain't that something new!
It's all very simple, and even simpletons can grasp it.
I doubt it , best D. You seem to have a real problems.
See, it's a clue when commenters baldly state that individual slavish devotion to supply and demand as their rationalization; folk who do this know precious little about econ but plenty about slavish devotion to spreading ideological trope.
So using and applying useful tools like demand and supply curves is now slavish devotion to ideology is it?
Best D, economics is based on 100's of years of debate and discussion between people who are far smarter than you could even imagine.
If you think there is more to it and have found something new please offer it up and you may be offered a nobel prize. Otherwise I strongly suggest you go back to school and learn some real economics.
"Otherwise I strongly suggest you go back to school and learn some real economics."
Given your repeated abuse of Paul Krugman and the overwhelming majority of mainstream economists I suspect that the only campus teaching what you consider "real economics" would be bob Jones University.
Gouldie. Ease up old fella
Krugman is a poor economist. His new Trade Theory is Total bunk.
Wiki:
"Some economists have asked whether it might be effective for a nation to shelter infant industries until they had grown to sufficient size to compete internationally."
The only thing that ought to be sheltered is this vulgar Keynesian in a sheltered workshop for mentally disabled economcis professors who think they can pick winners by supporting what he calls "infant industries". How many times this has been discredited, Gouldiechops?
He continually bangs on about the disadvantged under the Bush presidency but fails to mentions that the poverty rate hasn't really changed since Clinton and ignores the hippo sitting on the toilet. Illegal immigration in the US which is anywhere between 9/15 million people has placed enormous downwards pressure on US unskilled and semi-skilled wages.
"Given your repeated abuse of Paul Krugman and the overwhelming majority of mainstream economists"
As though anyone sensible would take any Keynsian economist seroiusly these days.
Tell me you don't. Do you?
There are plenty of good economists but krugs just ain't one of them.
Gouldiechops
The problem with economics these days is that it lets in a lot of people who are very numerate but can't quite get the hang of the science as they rely on math. Too much so. In fact I would so far as to say that a good number of these highly numerate people aren't suited to it.
There is a lot of lateral type thinking that goes into economics that equations simply can't quite explain. This is becoming a real problem for the subject.
I really believe you need to think like a trader in eco, by applying lateral thinking.
Eg
Japanese bond market falls. This places pressure on japanese equities. As japan is one of the largeest lenders of caplital around the world the Aussie dollar would cop a hiding due to the tighten bias in Japan as a result of higher yields. and so on......
I bet Krugman wouldn't even think of the effect illegal immigration would have on lower skilled real wages. He really can't think like that. He would have made a decent engineer.
Best D, economics is based on 100's of years of debate and discussion between people who are far smarter than you could even imagine. If you think there is more to it and have found something new please offer it up and you may be offered a nobel prize. Otherwise I strongly suggest you go back to school and learn some real economics.
Ah.
A fetishizer.
I'm thinking I might take the time for that killfile download after all.
Best,
D
I hate to inform Paul Krugman of reality but the right does not "hate" Al Gore. We just think he's wrong. The use of the term "hate" is simple projection by the left.
yes, that is why the MAIN arguments that we heard against him during the last few days is overweight, the size of his house and his jet flying habit.
if you think he is wrong, just contradict what he says! in a peer reviewed journal, perhaps?
btw, on your site you claim that Bjorn Lomborg should have gotten the Nobel prize is bizarre at best. a comparison between the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and the IPCC is absurd.
giving the US military a peace prize in 2007, ignoring the Iraq disaster, would have been an incredibly stupid move.
http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2007/10/who-really-deserves-nobel-peace-p…
I bet Krugman wouldn't even think of the effect illegal immigration would have on lower skilled real wages. He really can't think like that. He would have made a decent engineer.
yes Jc. that is why he is a professor of economics and writing for big papers, while you can barely follow the discussion on this blog.
My energy is a 100% renewable too. We use hydroelectric. Crank up the heat.
Yes, the respect rightwingers have to those who eschew materialism is well known. Why, if Gore were to live in a sod hut and burn dung for fuel, traveling from town to town via oxcart while wearing homespun hempen clothing to spread his message, they'd all respectfully listen.
Just look at how much respect Ed Begley gets from the right for "walking the walk":
'"Living With Ed": New HGTV Show on Nightmares of Living w/an Enviro-Freak
By Debbie Schlussel
Based on USA Today's description, it sounds like the most amusing new TV show of 2007 will be "Living with Ed"--an HGTV reality show on the life of left-wing enviro-freak actor Ed Begley, Jr. and his wife, Rachelle Carson.
It looks like the show will portray how ridiculous these enviro-freaks are. And how impossible it is to live with them. And how joyless, to boot. It sounds hilarious'
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/living_with_ed.html
But "walking the walk" has never struck me as a major criteria for rightwing regard. Witness the neverending parade of crusaders for sexual morality with private lives worthy of Caligula, or staunch advocates of how heterosexual marriage is the best place for children whose daughters are part of a lesbian couple with child.
Again, the rightwing debating rules:
If you can't argue with the facts, argue about the argument. If you can't argue about the argument, argue about the arguers.
"a lot of people who are very numerate but can't quite get the hang of the science as they rely on math."
Yeah, that' the problem with science.
Too much math.
"I really believe you need to think like a trader in eco, by applying lateral thinking.
Eg
Japanese bond market falls. This places pressure on japanese equities. As japan is one of the largeest lenders of caplital around the world the Aussie dollar would cop a hiding due to the tighten bias in Japan as a result of higher yields. and so on......
I bet Krugman wouldn't even think of the effect illegal immigration would have on lower skilled real wages. He really can't think like that. He would have made a decent engineer."
You now Krugman predicted the Asian economic crisis of 1998? At the time, the vast majority of traders were engaging in group-think about the never-ending economic boom there.
Oh and you might want to reconsider your fetishising of market traders given that Keynes was hugely successful in the markets.
"I hate to inform Paul Krugman of reality but the right does not "hate" Al Gore. We just think he's wrong. The use of the term "hate" is simple projection by the left."
Don't kid yourself, yes we do. Well, not exactly "hate," but more of a strong dislike.
"Again, the rightwing debating rules: If you can't argue with the facts, argue about the argument. If you can't argue about the argument, argue about the arguers."
Oh brother. As if the left isn't just as guilty. Every group does this to some extent. Go to any gun-control blog and you'll see the same thing coming, typically, from the left.
Most science is entirely apolitical, btw, and is done well independent of the politics of the scientists. I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that AGW was latched onto by the left well before it was particularly well established, and then seemingly liberal policies were hastily rammed down our throats. Ever think the reaction of the right was just a natural reaction?
The Greens have been well known nutjobs for decades or longer, we've always had a natural reaction against them as over the top. So in this instance they may be right about something, but then Al Gore, hardly a central political figure, is the messenger? Not a good move politically. "They" should choose someone less polarizing to get their message across, if it's really so damn important. It's all well and good to say that we should just accept it because it's true, but even if so, this might not get the RESULT that having a better spokesman would.
Which is more important, Al Gore receiving his due, or the world avoiding the disaster you all say is impending? I think that finding a less polarizing spokesperson will do more good.
"I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that AGW was latched onto by the left well before it was particularly well established, and then seemingly liberal policies were hastily rammed down our throats. Ever think the reaction of the right was just a natural reaction?"
Yeah, what with Margaret Thatcher, George HW Bush and Helmut Kohl being the principal architects of the UNFACC I can see how the right would feel disempowered by the process.
No wonder they get offended when they're constantly lectured on the topic by far-left extremists like McCain; Bloomberg and Scwartzenegger.
But hey Bush now admits the mainstream scientific view is actually correct - but obviously it was the people who spent the last seven years trying ot tell him this who caused him to doubt it.
"Al Gore, hardly a central political figure,"...
Yeah just because he was VP for eight years in a highly successful and politically moderate administration and won the popular vote in 2000 doesn;pt mean his views represent more than oh... 0.0001% of the US population.
Oh and no-one "chose" Al Gore. He chose to involve himself.
You know, like John McCain - who's obviously another extreme leftie who's opinions the mainstream right reject automatically.
So what do you have to do to qualify as a mainstream figure Ben - support the death penalty for all people who practice abortion (applied retrospectively of course) and back Bob Jones University's ban on interracial dating?
Conservationists are doing quite well for being "nut jobs".
Why do conservation organizations sue the federal goverment so often?
Because we win far more often than we lose.
And we win based on SCIENCE, the foundation of laws such as the ESA, NEPA, NFMA, etc. This has caused Republican administrations from Reagan onwards all sorts of problems, as they do their best to ignore the law by lying about science.
When we catch them, we sue them, and when we sue them, typically they get their ass kicked.
Real over-the-top stuff there, Ben, making the Feds obey the law.
Makes us real nutjobs.
Those evil government-funded scaremongering scientists are fighing back. Time for some science derangement syndrome, I think.
If you quote-mine: "Professor Rapley, former head of the British Antarctic Survey, told BBC News that the atmosphere over climate science was so confrontational that some scientists were reluctant to discuss uncertainties in their work for fear that they would be seized on by others anxious to discredit the whole theory of manmade climate change."
down to: Professor Rapley, former head of the British Antarctic Survey, told BBC News that the atmosphere over climate science was so confrontational that some scientists were reluctant to discuss uncertainties" that should do it. I'll claim my $10,000 from Exxon later.
'"They" should choose someone less polarizing to get their message across, if it's really so damn important. '
I'll raise the suggestion at the next meeting of the Elders of Climatology.
'"They" should choose someone less polarizing to get their message across, if it's really so damn important. '
I'll raise the suggestion at the next meeting of the Elders of Climatology.
When you send us your staff report, please provide an attachment detailing the figures and personality types that ARE NOT polarizing to Wingnuttia so we may discuss - if such a figure exists - their suitability as spokesperson.
If the list fits on anything bigger than a postcard, one-sided, in 48 pt font, the Elders will pay your travel fare to the druid realm. We will also ensure your water is poured by our most comely wood nymph.
Best,
D
Can't determine why tag closed where it did...
D
Gouldiechops says
"Oh and you might want to reconsider your fetishising of market traders given that Keynes was hugely successful in the markets."
Too right, Gouldster. if he has remained a trader he would have made a lot more money, the university endowment would have done better, the world would have been free of the hogwash he wrote and Krugs could have turned his attention to being a useful civil engineer instead of a uncivil economist.
JC suggested that Bjorn Lomborg deserved to win a Nobel Prize?! For what?! For comic-book level analyses? For believing in technological Easter bunnies? For actually believing that the dirt-poor nations of the south will ever be allowed to develop their economies outside of the Washington Consensus and its attendant free market absolutism? That the west, which has traditionally plundered these countries of their resources will ever allow them to redirect their own capital for internal development? Has Lomborg ever heard of Kissinger's notorious memo 200? Or George Kennan's Policy Planning Document 23? For that matter, has he ever read any declassified documents from US and UK government and corporate planners? These documents spell out western policy as clearly as it can be spelled out, and in virtually all I have read western policy has never been about the spreading of 'democracy' or 'social justice' or 'equity', but about promoting policies that are based on ensuring that resources in poor nations remain under the control of western investors and that the profits derived from them are repatriated. In other words, lotting. Exploitations. Somehow, Lomborg, and JC for that matter, seem to overlook these salient facts.
Jeff
Exploitation of the teeming masses was discredited as soon as Marxs published his silly "opus" (is it a fat person's thing, really?). 150 years later we still have deadenders like you skirting through its pages thinking you found paradise on earth. It's comical if its wasn't so pathetic.
No one these days forces anyone to sell their products in the open market at prices below market price.
I never proposed Lomborg, but what a great idea!
By God, seriously, I never realized people sill skulked around with those ideas of yours. Who brainwashed you?
JC, The developed world exports luxury goods to the south for the most part, and we get their resources at poverty prices. China decided to avoid that route and buy machinery to develop its economy and the result is not what US planners would have expected or wanted. Your market price scenario is pure and utter gobbledegook. But now you're also saying that pretty much of the corporate and political establishment in the west doesn't believe in plundering resources from the south - without having read a word they say. Unlike you, I have spent some time going over planning documents and their intention is spelled out pretty clearly - and it ain't got naught to do with alleviating poverty in the south. By contrast, indpendent nationalism - originally packaged as communism for public consumption - is seen as a threat to the way we in the west do business, because our industries depend on resources that are in short supply under our own land masses. The economies of the developed world are utterly dependent on externalities -in other words by reaching beyond our borders and taking what we want and by keeping these nations poor. The Congo in Africa is rich in resources but is one of the poorest nations on Earth. Thirty-two companies control the resource-base in the Congo, and all are based in G-8 countries. Profits are repatriated. The New York Times lauded the 1953 coup that overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and warned that Iran learned that any nation that goes rampant with 'independent nationalism' - in other words, resource-rich nations that attempt to redirect the profits of their resources towards internal development - will be taught similar lessons.
What the hell do you think Kennan was talking about in 1948 with his stated argument that the United States government should aim to "Maintain this disparity [in the division of wealth between the have's and have not's] without threat to our national security". Or when Kissinger said that the stated aim of US policy should be "Depopulation of third world countries" because the "US economy will need an ever-increasing amount of resources from abroad, especially from less developed countries". These sentiments - and many others by similarly influential planners and government people in the US, UK etc. that I have read but which you, Lomborg etc. do not have a clue about, go to the heart of western economic policy intentions. Economists like Patrick Bond and Samir Amin have spelled this out in their published work. Brainwashed? Who is brainwashed? I place more stock in those who have been highly influential in formulating policy, like Kennan, Brezinski, Kissiger etc. than you, JC.
Before I get you your silly canard, Jeff, let me post a recent review on Krugs book by a Harvard prof. It isn't pretty as nothing ever is about the Krug man.
By EDWARD GLAESER
Human knowledge is produced by intellectual combat that exposes weak premises and faulty conclusions to withering challenge. We are often improved more by our ideological enemies than by our friends, because our enemies push us hardest. In that spirit, I welcome the publication of Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" (W.W. Norton, 352 pages, $25.95). The book espouses a world-view that is in many ways diametrically opposed to my own, but the process of intellectually disagreeing with Mr. Krugman fired my own passion for liberty more than the rhetoric of any current GOP presidential candidate does.
Mr. Krugman has written a sweeping political history of the past 135 years from a stridently liberal Democratic viewpoint. In Krugman's worldview, noble Democratic progressives have long battled a conspiracy of Republican knaves who are themselves the pawns of selfish plutocrats.
He advances his viewpoint not by misstating facts but by omitting those parts of the past that make history messier. He expresses outrage that Democrat Samuel Tilden "essentially had the electoral vote stolen" in 1876, but does not mention that Tilden's Southern victories were achieved through the violent suppression of black votes by Democratic henchmen and the Ku Klux Klan. He derides Barry Goldwater for his long-standing support of Joseph McCarthy, but does not seem disturbed that John F. Kennedy also chose not to censure "Tailgunner Joe." We read a great deal about Nixon's Southern strategy and implicit Republican appeals to racism after 1964, but little about the explicit Democratic strategy of race hatred that was the norm among many of leading Democratic legislators such as Theodore Bilbo. But while Mr. Krugman's prose is one-sided, his two major themes are correct. His first theme is that the Democratic party has long battled inequality. His second theme is that Republicans have done a lot of dubious things in their quest for political dominance.
http://www.nysun.com/article/64281
You'll be glad you did.
It's remarkable how much smarter a thread becomes when you subtract Jc from it.
Heavy criticism, indeed, JC ...
The review you seem to think skewers Krugman says, in essence, that Krugman skimmed over messy details but got the big picture right.
"Marxs published his silly 'opus'"
I can't be the first to propose an extension to Godwin's Law, involving climate change and Marx.
"Heavy criticism, indeed, JC ...
The review you seem to think skewers Krugman says, in essence, that Krugman skimmed over messy details but got the big picture right."
Gee, doesn't that ring a bell...
And I'd like to thank JC for the daily chuckle of his supporting his argument by posting a review which not only doesn't support his argument in the "big picture", but is written by someone who he apparently respects, a leading scholar of... urban economics.
"What the hell is urban economics? Did they teach that out of the sociolgy dept. specializing in Heterodox economics. LOL Oh I get it, it's a climate science major."
-JC, of course.
An inconvenient bell, at that! :)
Z
Stop being a denialist, Jeff is a trot. Are you always this pathetically blind.
A review that is heavy on crticism for what it left out is now a strong endorsement? Z, you are such a denialist.
Were you in the same urban eco classes as Best D?
Since the reviewer represents himself as being an ideological enemy of Krugman, the fact that he concludes that Krugman's two major themes in the book are correct is a much stronger endorsement than one would expect. The review, while not a "strong endorsement", is a positive one, something that seems to have gone right over your pointy little head.
No Hoggise, you ding bat partisan. The reviewer makes the honest assetion that disagrees with Krug man. He also asserts that Krug man is essentially correct with the points he makes. He ALSO asserts correctly that Krug Man is being dishonest by omission. Kinda like you Hoggsie. Kinda what you are doing here. In other words the reviewer crticises Krug man because of really important bits he left out as it makes the whole thing an incomplete story.
I know being honest is hard for you , but do try.
Now go away and next time try to take the honest fork in he road. You'll feel better about it. Jeesh.
Unfortunately for you, there are adults reading this thread who don't suffer from your reading comprehension disability.
That, dear clown, as AGREEMENT, not DISAGREEMENT.
He makes no such assertion. He states that Krugman's presentation is one-sided, not dishonest.
Quit putting words in the reviewer's mouth.
Hoggise being a partisan hack to the extent that it makes one seem stupid is not a good look, even for someone as limited as you.
Here's where we learn the reviewer is going to try and be fair with Krug man despite ideological differences.
We are often improved more by our ideological enemies than by our friends, because our enemies push us hardest. In that spirit, I welcome the publication of Paul Krugman'
Then we read this:
He advances his viewpoint not by misstating facts but by omitting those parts of the past that make history messier.
Then there's this:
He expresses outrage that Democrat Samuel Tilden "essentially had the electoral vote stolen" in 1876, but does not mention that Tilden's Southern victories were achieved through the violent suppression of black votes by Democratic henchmen and the Ku Klux Klan.
And this:
He derides Barry Goldwater for his long-standing support of Joseph McCarthy, but does not seem disturbed that John F. Kennedy also chose not to censure "Tailgunner Joe
And this :
We read a great deal about Nixon's Southern strategy and implicit Republican appeals to racism after 1964, but little about the explicit Democratic strategy of race hatred that was the norm among many of leading Democratic legislators such as Theodore Bilbo.
Does he say Krug man's themes are correct? Yes he does here:
We read a great deal about Nixon's Southern strategy and implicit Republican appeals to racism after 1964, but little about the explicit Democratic strategy of race hatred that was the norm among many of leading Democratic legislators such as Theodore Bilbo.
We then read the reviewer's criticism that Krug man's blind political ideology makes him an economic illiterate (my assertion)
Mr. Krugman is also right that equality -- if it comes at no cost -- is surely a good thing. But the price of equality can be the loss of economic productivity and, more importantly, of freedom.
And then there is this:
Corruption has been part of the Democratic party since Aaron Burr turned Tammany Hall into a political machine and used his political clout to get banking privileges for the Manhattan Water Company. Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson contains hundreds of pages indicting one of the last century's most important Democrats. And it would be hard to argue that Jimmy Carter was a model of presidential competence.
Hoggise are you this incompetent
I appreciate that the ever-increasing bold boy cites - as an authority - an Urban Economist that he is incapable of understanding after he accuses my economics education of being substandard.
I can, until I install the killfile, count on moronitude as a source of amusement.
Keep up your ululating fetishization, son. For all of us. Humor is the spice of life, and you are a neverending font of it.
Best,
D
Yes, your assertion. As I said, quit putting words into the reviewer's mouth.
Let me put some words into your mouth - apparently you, like the reviewer, believe that equality before the law is a bad thing if there's an economic cost.
That equality before the law is not, of and by itself, a worthy principle.
That racism is OK if it preserves economic productivity. That ending racism is NOT OK if it removes one's freedom to discriminate based on race ...
"We are often improved more by our ideological enemies than by our friends, because our enemies push us hardest."
JC: this is not addressed to you.
I appreciate that the ever-increasing bold boy cites - as an authority - an Urban Economist that he is incapable of understanding after he accuses my economics education of being substandard.
reading the wiki entry simply is funny:
Glaeser has made substantial contributions to the empirical study of urban economics. In particular, his work examining the historical evolution of economic hubs like Boston and New York City has had major influence on both economics and urban geography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Glaeser
question of the day: will Jc simply dissapear from this topic, or will he reduce himself to stupid two line remarks, that do not address those issues from the past?
in #79 Jc posts:
In # 108 he C&Ps a book review somewhat critical (though not as much as he thinks) of Krugman by Edward Glaeser, whom he notes is "a Harvard Professor," arguing from authority as usual. Oops -- Edward Glaeser is the Director of NBER's Urban Economics Working Group. See Petard: hoist upon.
Hoggsie
are you upset because I suggested Krug man is an economic illiterate?
Best D,
You keep threatening to install a killfile...
Reminds me of an amusing series shown in Australia. A teacher resigns but continues to haunt the school he taught at because can't really leave. Do it and stop talking about it, Mr. Urban Economist (cowboy)
ah i see, Jc chose option 2:
or will he reduce himself to stupid two line remarks, that do not address those issues from the past?
that he DARES to mention UrbanEco is quite startling though.
i fear embarrassment is not for him.
Pieter B
Here's another review, by another academic suggesting what i have always maintained.That unless one accepts free and open markets they can't really call themsleves an economist.
This was in the NYTimes Sunday book review no less.
I'm gobsmacked. Is this the paper Krug man writes for? Help me out here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/books/review/Kennedy-t.html?pagewante…
Too bad the reviewer [couldn't manage to quote correctly](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/10/ah-stanfords-da.html).
Tim, Did you read Delong's scribbling? He contradicts himself in saying walter's citation doesn't agree with Kennedy. It does here:
Francis Amasa Walker, the first president of the American Economic Association, who wrote that laissez-faire "was not made the test of economic orthodoxy, merely. It was used to decide whether a man were an economist at all."
I think Brad was in his dressing gown again and wasn't fully awake.
That's twofer now. Somehow I think Paul's book will only do well around the Upper Westside of Manhattan.