Dispatches from the Culture Wars

2

Please tell me this story is 21 days old.

Posted by: Odie | April 22, 2009 10:37 AM

4

When this tournament is over, will they be making the area a reservation for the local tribal group? Then we'd be pretty much par for the course.

Posted by: dogmeatib | April 22, 2009 10:42 AM

6

And the "war on poverty" takes a slightly messier turn...

Posted by: phisrow | April 22, 2009 10:45 AM

8

Yikes, is DOW Chemical is stealing ideas right out of the Captain Planet evil villain handbook or something? This all sounds uncomfortably similar to the plot of "Fire Down Below" starring Steven Seagal.

Posted by: Imrryr | April 22, 2009 11:04 AM

10

Cue James Hanley to say that in his libertarian utopia this would never happen. Let me see if I can summarize properly: companies can pollute their own property with impunity - let them sit in their own messes. If they pollute others' property, well, then, other private owners can sue them.

Never mind that there is rarely any such thing as polluting only your own property. It often migrates off-property to surface waters, ground water or sediments, where it is a bitch and a half to clean up. Second, suing in such cases ends being a war of deep pockets - Dow would rather pay its attorneys than clean up. Third, property ownership is not cast in stone. Companies go out of business, declare bankrupcty... again, never mind that the same individuals who owned said bankrupt company can move along and start afresh without being responsible for the mess they left behind.

I would love to hear how these issues are addressed in your utopia, JH.

Posted by: ildi | April 22, 2009 11:13 AM

12

I now have one more example from Ed that I can show my children, and say, "...and here's where they went from stupid and selfish to evil."

I's there a version of Poe's law for businesses? Like other have said here, this sounds like something out of a cartoon. When they go from "parody" to "reality", it makes nonexistent-Baby-Jesus cry. I mean, they could strangle kittens on national TV and probably be less exaggeratedly demonic.

Posted by: Ranson | April 22, 2009 11:30 AM

14

Are you fucking kidding me? This reads like an Onion story missing it's punchline. I just can't believe it's real. It's like a Three Mile Island Easter egg hunt. The egg with the brightest glow wins a six-legged chocolate bunny! Bring the whole family.

Apart from cancer, dioxin chemicals are linked with numerous other health issues, particularly with reproduction and development. Children are especially vulnerable, where it's linked with learning disabilities, diabetes, respiratory problems, hormonal suppression and more. Yet here's an excerpt from a Saginaw News article.

Workers will remove a foot of topsoil [from the park] and replace it with new dirt, pave a gravel parking lot and possibly replace old playground equipment. Midland-based Dow Chemical Co. will pay the expense, Lee said. He did not have a cost estimate.

Work is set to start Friday, April 24, and finish by mid-July, Lee said. The park, along the Tittabawassee River at 5951 W. Michigan, will remain open to visitors for the Walleye Festival that weekend but will close the following week during the removal.

Emphasis mine. Sometimes "think of the children" really does apply. They know the park is unsafe. They know that kids are particularly vulnerable. But they also know it often take years for the problems to manifest and building a direct link back to them is all but impossible. So why should the county cancel the revenue generating festival? They'll never have to answer for it. And we can't have the major sponsor look bad by admitting their toxins have made the park unsafe. I mean, how embarrassing. So let the kids play in the polluted dirt. Let the people eat the contaminated fish. And by all means, give the leftover poison to the needy. We wouldn't want to make Dow blush.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 22, 2009 12:20 PM

16

I don't understand. Don't you have regulations for this sort of thing? Or is money more important than food? Of course, all the money in the world will not be enough when all the food is ruined.

Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | April 22, 2009 12:59 PM

18

Gingerbaker, I seem to recall hearing somewhere that someone had developed clean coal technology as well. The chemical industry, including Dow, has spent a lot of money pushing that idea that the humans have some kind of special resistance and that we should ignore the animal studies. They've also worked hard to to block EPA efforts at reassessment, studies which show they're full of crap. Having read some of the studies I find no reason to think that we have any kind of special resistance. We're simply bigger than most animals and so it takes longer for the toxin to build up.

But we have no good mechanism for shedding dioxin* and build up it does, with all the harmful effects we see in smaller animals. For a condensed summary of the recent peer reviewed research, here's a report from National Academy of Sciences. The line your feeding us is like buying into tobacco industry "studies" that show smoking is harmless. Don't you believe it.

* Women can shed dioxin by passing it on to a fetus or through breast milk. Other than that we're stuck with it.

Posted by: Abby Normal | April 22, 2009 1:29 PM

20

I'll bet Union Carbide's law firm, Shysters'R'Us, is kicking themselves in the ass for not thinking of something like this after the Bhopal "incident".

Posted by: democommie | April 22, 2009 1:47 PM

22

Abby said:

"Gingerbaker, I seem to recall hearing somewhere that someone had developed clean coal technology as well. The chemical industry, including Dow, has spent a lot of money pushing that idea that the humans have some kind of special resistance and that we should ignore the animal studies."

Please don't 'tar' [/pun] my assertions with the coal brush. The fact is that different species DO have different susceptibilities to different insults, including poisons and teratogens. Plus, I am not saying we should ignore animal studies - they are frequently all we have, since the ^%*$^% FDA won't let us directly test dioxin, for example, on people. Too bad, because, brother, would I have some recommendations!

But there a lot more than animal studies which can guide us.

"For a condensed summary of the recent peer reviewed research, here's a report from National Academy of Sciences. The line your feeding us is like buying into tobacco industry "studies" that show smoking is harmless. Don't you believe it."

I'm not giving you a 'line', and I am not from the tobacco lobby, nor the American Petrochemical Association.

Thanks for providing the link to the N.A.S. review. Have you read it? It - like many other reviews by prestigious organizations, supports my contentions, not yours.

There are precious few data points to suggest that dioxin has caused any health effects in humans besides acne in folks who had pure dioxin come in contact with their skin. The EPA after a second reassessment can not bring itself to call dioxin(s) a bona fide teratogen or even establish a solid link to human cancer epidemiology. They can't even agree whether they can properly say that dioxin is "likely to be carcinogenic" in humans.

" The committee concludes that the weight of epidemiological evidence that TCDD is a human carcinogen is not strong, but the human data available from occupational cohorts are consistent with a modest positive association between relatively high body burdens of TCDD and increased mortality from all cancers..."

and

...In general, the committee determined that the Reassessment adequately addressed the available data
on whether exposures to TCDD, other dioxins, and DLCs are likely to be significant risk factors for other
toxic end points, such as chloracne, thyroid function, liver function, diabetes, lipid disorders, and
cardiovascular diseases. In humans, the relationship between dioxin exposure and risk of individual,
clinically significant, noncancer end points remains uncertain, except for chloracne.

I am not saying that we should use dioxin as a sweetener for children's cereal - but it does not appear that, despite some 30-40 years of looking, that dioxins act like the Alien's molecular acid blood, either.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 22, 2009 2:41 PM

24

After reading one of Ed's comments above re: Eartha Melzer being a rising "star", if the "facts" contained in this piece were condensed from one of her reports, I fear her "star" is doomed to implode into black holedom sooner rather than later.

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Oz | April 22, 2009 3:28 PM

26

Further to Oz's post, if the walleye tournament is in the rivers, that means the walleye are on their spawning migrations (or post-spawn migrations).

Walleye are a semi-pelagic, benthic predator. That means they spend most of their time in the open waters, on or near the bottom. So in Lake Michigan, it's quite likely the only time these fish spend in the highly contaminated area in question is during the spawning season. Thus, their exposure to the contaminants in question is far less than this blog entry would make it seem.

Posted by: Jason F. | April 22, 2009 3:46 PM

28

"Posted by: Oz | April 22, 2009 2:02 PM"

let's get ready to rummmmmmble!

So Ed, you've been called out. what say ye?

Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | April 22, 2009 4:10 PM

30

ahhhhh slow to click post I was.....

Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | April 22, 2009 4:13 PM

32

Oz , i was stating the fines to the Ontario companies. Not the one polluting the Saginaw river.
Sarnia's Chemical valley also is CONSTANTLy polluting our air . here in St.Clair county michigan. we have very high amounts of breathing and Cancer problems. while studies may not show a direct link. the people in the area know the reasons for our problems.
here is a recent article from the Sarnia Observer On just one of the companies in chemical valley.
http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1532497
another from a week ago
http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1522292
and two days before that
http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1518166

of course Sarnia`s Chemical valley sits on the edge of the indian reservation. (the poorest area in Sarnia)
amd the water and AIR pollution affects US hear in ST clair county Michigan as well . so many nights the air smells Horrible and the dust and smoke are nasty as well.
i refuse to eat any fish out of the lake i always catch and release .

Posted by: Vic Vanity | April 22, 2009 4:18 PM

34

Abby

here is the wiki on the town of Seveso, Italy, which sounds quite a bit an account of the town I remembered as being in France.

Basically a huge dioxin exposure of the town which nobody even knew about for a week. 3300 animals found dead. Very little human effects found now going on 33 years later. Cancer, diabetes, birth defects all basically within normal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster

Best regards,

GB

Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 22, 2009 4:44 PM

36

Wow. Jason F. and Oz are Soooooooooo knowledgeable about dioxin levels, EPA activity and Walleye habitat and biology. Hmmmmmmm. Makes me think they might be Dow folks, either employees or friendly government folks. Just sayin'.

Posted by: democommie | April 22, 2009 5:10 PM

38

Jason F. and Oz are Soooooooooo knowledgeable about dioxin levels, EPA activity and Walleye habitat and biology.

I'm an aquatic ecologist, if that helps.

I did a bit of checking, and the Michigan DEQ lists Saginaw Bay and Saginaw River walleye under 22 inches as "safe for adults" in "unlimited amounts". So if the fish being dontated to the food banks fall into these categories, there shouldn't be problems.

I suspect like a lot of stories one reads about on blogs, there's some details that aren't being reported.

Posted by: Jason F. | April 22, 2009 5:52 PM

40

Anton

Here's the document I looked at...

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-whm-hwp-dow-fish-1_248528_7.pdf

It shows Saginaw Bay walleye under 22 inches as "safe for adults" in "unlimited amounts", and the same for Walleye from the Saginaw River.

The walleye "under 18 inches" and "once per week" guides refer to families.

But then, I always ask myself: If it's not good for women and children, how good can it be for me?

Posted by: Jason F. | April 22, 2009 7:39 PM

42

Tittabawassee River Watch

www.trwnews.net

Posted by: TRW | April 22, 2009 8:32 PM

44

Recent studies of Saginaw Bay walleye have shown that they are the only fish species (of the ones sampled) that have shown an increase in PCB levels from the mid 1970s to today (this is work done by research scientists at University of Michigan and presented at a recent conference). The study didn't look at dioxin, but it makes one wonder as to why walleye alone were the only fish species that had increases in tissue concentrations of PCBs after 30 years, and if there was some correlation with dioxin trends in those fish as well...

Posted by: Umlud | April 22, 2009 10:02 PM

46

Right because we all know how much corporations cared back in the day.

Posted by: Bachalon | April 23, 2009 1:57 AM

48

"Externalities like pollution are a market failure. Thsi has been understood by economists since Pigou in the 1930s, decades before environmentalism existed. Pollution harms people, and the government has a legitimate role in preventing people from harming each other."

So how is that going to happen with a government that is minimal?

Jason F.

And you're a disinterested third party with no affiliation with the state of MI or Dow Chemical or any group that they help to fund, direct or sponsor?

Posted by: demcommie | April 23, 2009 7:15 AM

50

James K:

There is a legitimate role for government when it comes to the environment. If the pollution is local (i.e. it pollutes what it touches, but not much more) then all the state has to do is rely on existing property rights. If someone's property is damaged, they can sue.

IANAL, however I am a Real Estate Developer, and at least in Michigan, the government's powers and obligations exceed what is presented here. People can not purchase title to property in our state, they instead purchase a warranty deed, which guarantees their right of use to the property (hedged with title insurance).

Therefore, the government has an obligation to its citizens to protect that property from what the people of Michigan perceive to be wrongful use. I assume this is to protect the rights of future property owners, protect the property values of nearby property owners, and minimize the damage from what is perceived to be contained, to damage that will eventually fail to be contained.

I understand my comment is not a direct rebutall to James K. statements, which appear to more of a libertarian argument than a current reality; however I thought I'd add my thoughts on this because I found this fascinating when I first learned of ownership v. rights issue early in my career.

Posted by: Michael Heath | April 23, 2009 9:31 AM

52

Michael, that's fascinating to learn about warranty deeds. I had no idea. So I'm curious about democommie's scenario, above. Does the warranty/title distinction make a difference in a person's responsibility for the condition of the land they buy? If there's less ownership of the property, is there any less "ownership" of its preexisting environmental problems?

Posted by: Scott Hanley | April 23, 2009 10:20 AM

54

Abby said:

"In conclusion, I'll leave with this one last quote. It's the very first line of the N.A.S. preface.

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), also called dioxin, is among the most toxic anthropogenic substance ever identified."

Yes - TCDD and congeners are very toxic compounds to other species. It just doesn't appear to be this way for humans.

Abby, I can't give your replies the time they deserve today. The band is coming over and I have to get a bunch of tabs ready for those idiots who pay attention to chords and keys and such.

Let me just say that we both can pull stuff out of these reports to bolster our arguments. We will find stuff that is full of modifiers like 'suggests' and 'gives indication'. We will find stuff that speaks of slightly increased levels of this and that and if we chase these down we will find some poorly-designed and generally unpersuasive studies. And we will find some better studies that do show small increases above background. Fine. Put these all together and what do we have, though?

IMO, what we have is a compound that does not appear to be nearly as dangerous in humans as it is in other species. A compound that does not scream out as a known and dangerous human teratogen or carcinogen. (Remember, almost any compound can be shown to have teratogenic or carcinogenic potential if given in high enough dosages to animals)

And what we won't find are reliable evidences that dioxins have caused big problems in humans, which to me at least, is the bottom line. Considering how much of this stuff is out there, (and I don't want any of it anywhere, BTW) and considering some of the massive contamination events involving humans where we would expect to see cancers and birth defects with indisputably shockingly high levels, what we find is - unexpectedly - quite reassuring.

The EPA and other agencies, I think, are in a quandary. Everyone has been shouting about dioxins for years as being incredibly dangerous even in vanishingly small quantities. Animal models show the stuff is toxic as hell. But - we just don't see human toxicities as we would expect them. So the EPA and the NAS issue reports that build the best case they can dioxins are in fact dangerous to humans. But the reports read like they are testing alkyd paint when they should be reading like they are testing plutonium.

This is not to say that dioxins are safe compounds - they most definitely are not. The fact that they are as toxic as they are to other animals is all the reason we need to try to eliminate them from the environment. That they have estrogenic activity is also very troubling to me. And by that I mean that I have concerns that go beyond my man breasts.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 23, 2009 11:42 AM

56

Jason F.,

It shows Saginaw Bay walleye under 22 inches as "safe for adults" in "unlimited amounts", and the same for Walleye from the Saginaw River.

The walleye "under 18 inches" and "once per week" guides refer to families.

So it does. However, this document likewise defines "adults" as excluding women, except for those beyond childbearing age. Pre-menopausal women are automatically "families", by this rather odd labeling system. So both guides agree that women shouldn't eat large walleye if they're ever going to have kids...not the ideal thing for a food bank, IMO.

This guide also claims to get its information from the Family Fish Consumption Guide I linked to above, yet its recommendations are slightly different (it permits larger fish, eaten more often.) Not quite sure why that it is.

Posted by: Anton Mates | April 23, 2009 1:34 PM

60

By far the largest creator of water-borne dioxins in the US is as an unintentional byproduct of paper production, mostly during the bleaching of the wood pulp. Given that the central Michigan river valleys were host to the world's largest concentration of paper mills from 1860-1970 or so, it would be a shock if the rivers weren't heavily contaminated. Unfortunately, dioxin is fairly persistent, in general not breaking down via biological processes.

Airborne dioxins are much less of a threat today than in the past, as exposure from incinerators has been cut by over 90% since passage of the original Clean Air Act. How much of a risk remains is highly debated, as several posters have noted.

When I was very young, my family would go kayaking on the Muskegan River every summer. Buy we always stayed above the paper mills.

Posted by: kehrsam | April 23, 2009 4:52 PM

62

Cue James Hanley to say that in his libertarian utopia this would never happen.

Ildi, my apologies for missing my cue. I hadn't read the comments on this post until my wife pointed them out to me.

First, Scott Hanley and James K have basically covered the argument for me.

Second, I'm curious as to how many times I'll have to explain libertarianism to you before you stop misrepresenting it.

I have never claimed, and never will, that libertarianism will create a paradise. I only use it in comparative perspective--the current case, of which I have been aware (and outraged about, as a matter of fact) for several years is indeed bad. But let's compare private business with governments. The worst industrial accident in history, Union Carbide's gas leak in Bhopal, India, killed more than 10,000 people. That's horrifyingly bad. But the Khmer rouge killed over 2,000,000 citizens in three years--200 times more people. What's worse, they did it intentionally, not merely through negligence as Union Carbide did.

This is why democracies are good. If government is necessary, we want a democracy, because they kill a lot fewer people. But of course they're not perfect either. Is Dow's poisoning of the Saginaw River worse than the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq? That's resulted in more civilian deaths than the Union Carbide accident, too.

So given the government is necessary, and even the better type, democracies, can do things far worse than private industries do, what we libertarians really want is a constitutionally limited government, to constrain it so that it can't do those types of things.

But what is one of the few things libertarians really do want a government for? They want a legal system that will enforce respect for property rights. I agree with your point about the difficulties of suing a company with deep pockets, but there are two problems with its application to this case. First, that difficulty generally comes in when it's hard to prove where the pollution comes from, which is just as much a problem for command-and-control regulation as for civil claims. Second, this is in fact pollution of public property, not private property. Libertarians claim that it's easier for corporations to get away with polluting public property than private property--and this case does nothing to disprove that claim.

I would love to hear how these issues are addressed in your utopia, JH.

To reiterate, you continue to misrepresent my position. I don't claim libertarianism leads to utopia or paradise. I only claim that it's easy to demonstrate that governments, even democratic ones, have caused more harm than private corporations.

If the choice is between a bad situation and a terrible one, we don't need to call the bad situation paradise in order to have a rational preference for it.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 23, 2009 9:29 PM

64

Democommie,

I think the notion that the owner of the local filling station is liable for spills or tank ruptures that caused contamination years before he bought the property, while companies like Dow, Monsanto and the other major polluters escape scrutiny and penalty is just plain wrong.

Hmm, are you sure you're not a libertarian?

Posted by: James Hanley | April 23, 2009 9:53 PM

66

Bachalon,

No one here has said that. But to such a deeply insightful argument I can only say,

"Right, because governments always have the best interests of the public at heart."

Seriously, dude, you might think about using an argument that doesn't equally apply to your own preferred institution.

(Bonus points if you can you name any institution that always has the best interests of the public at heart.) Maye

Posted by: James Hanley | April 23, 2009 9:59 PM

68

I think the notion that the owner of the local filling station is liable for spills or tank ruptures that caused contamination years before he bought the property, while companies like Dow, Monsanto and the other major polluters escape scrutiny and penalty is just plain wrong.

Absolutely it's wrong, but the big companies have political connections and the little guys do not. This to me demonstrates why we need to return to limited government. In our current system, big companies give big campaign contributions to buy influence and favors in Washington, and sometimes those favors include getting off the hook for negligence. After all, why would the president or Congress pursue any action toward a company that was a huge campaign donor?

If we returned to our original form of limited government, there would be far less incentive for companies to try to buy influence in Washington because it would be understood that it is not Washington's role to favor certain companies or industries through subsidies, favorable policies, looking the other way, etc. Everything that is placed under the control of government becomes a political football to be wrangled over every election cycle. I believe that it is often pure politics that enables large companies to escape liability because politicians don't want to endanger their campaign war chests. If we got government out of the business of handing out favors, there would be far less incentive for companies to try to buy them. To get the government out of the business of handing out favors requires a return to limited government, such as what our Founders originally intended.

Posted by: mroberts | April 23, 2009 10:11 PM

70

The worst industrial accident in history, Union Carbide's gas leak in Bhopal, India, killed more than 10,000 people. That's horrifyingly bad. But the Khmer rouge killed over 2,000,000 citizens in three years--200 times more people.

Is there a gold medal for totally inappropriate and irrelevant comparisons?

If we returned to our original form of limited government, there would be far less incentive for companies to try to buy influence in Washington because it would be understood that it is not Washington's role to favor certain companies or industries through subsidies, favorable policies, looking the other way, etc.

If we returned to our original form of limited government, companies would be able to rip off the people and rape the land with absolute impunity, just like they did under our original form of limited government. How, exactly, would that be an improvement? A better solution would be for people to organize themselves, elect honest lawmakers, and counter the companies' influence over the regulatory process.

(Oh, and was there really no corruption in the US before government started trying to regulate business?)

See, folks, it's not Hanley's job to pretend libertarianism will lead to utopia; that's mroberts' job.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 23, 2009 10:34 PM

72

Raging Bee,

You claim it's an irrelevant comparison, but you fail to explain why. I think it's quite relevant that the worst corporate murder of innocents pales in comparison to a democratic government's murder of innocents.

And while I can't believe I'm defending mroberts (don't get used to it m), you've seriously misrepresented his argument. I'm going to call you on it because you always throw a hissy fit when you think someone has misrepresented you, yet you're doing the same thing (talk about pots and kettles...).

Mroberts was talking about how large corporations get better treatment than small businesses, a line I'd expect you to agree with. He was not arguing that there should be no rule of law, so that anyone could just rape the earth,--he was arguing for the equal application of the law to both large and small corporations.

You really are an incredibly shitty person. You constantly whine about people misinterpreting you, yet you do it over and over. If you've got even an ounce of integrity you'll own up and admit you misinterpreted mroberts in just the same way you bitch about people misrepresenting you.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 23, 2009 10:50 PM

74

democommie:

So how is that going to happen with a government that is minimal?

I'm all for the government having the power to do the things I think are legitimate roles for the government. You shrink a government by reducing the number of laws it enforces, not by reducing its ability to enforce the laws there still are.

c-serpent:

Sure they can. As someone pointed out in an earlier comment, this becomes a deep-pocket issue in which corporations almost always have much deeper pockets than individuals. An individual can sue but it is unlikely that an individual will be able to fund the lawsuit long enough to get a payoff and it is even less likely that said payoff will have any deterrent effect on the company.

In the case of localised pollution (and I only consider liability sufficient for localised pollution problems). It should be fairly easy to determine who did what to whom. That would make a lawsuit difficult to lose, the most likely scenario is out of court settlement. If this is not the case then I would suggest judicial reform is a top priority. And if the payoff doesn't deter the polluter that doesn't matter too much as long as the property owner is duly compensated. In any case the polluter will be paying the price for their actions.

Raging Bee:

So yes, he was indeed arguing for less rule of law. That's what "limited government" means, innit?

No. There is a very large difference between law and rule of law. The term rule of law refers to the principle that laws should be evenly and consistently applied. It is entirely unrelated to what is actually legal or illegal.

libertarian economic ideology has been a failure

Of course, this is why Singapore and New Zealand are such wastelands. And what kind of libertarian economic ideology are we talking about here? Friedman-Hayek? Rothbard? Rand? Libertarianism is one of the most fractious ideologies out there. Its not enough to sling labels around you have to get to specifics.

the movement is ruled by loonies and corporate shills

If "rule" here refers to the public face of libertarianism then I agree. But the problem is that unless you belong to the political duopoly you only get airtime if you are nuts. That's why people insisted on calling Milton Friedman a conservative, the thought that he didn't fit into the existing framework made pundits' heads hurt.

The Communist idealists had to reconcile themselves to the failure of their precious ideology, and now it's the libertarians' turn.

Find me a group of reasonably libertarian country (and no the US doesn't qualify) that failed as systematically and spectacularly as the communist countries did and we'll talk. What I see is a bunch of mixed economies that lost a few years of growth. Its not exactly the end of the world.

Posted by: James K | April 24, 2009 1:58 AM

76

DIngoJack

Incomes for Kiwis are about 25% of Australian incomes.

I think not, perhaps you mean 25% less?

Growth in GDP for NZ has been negative for sometime too.

Only for the past couple of quarters, i.e. when we got hit by the collateral damage of the US banking system. And New Zealand's unemployment rate has be quite low (about 3%) for several years. Given that we are a tiny country at the ass end of the planet with no mineral resources to speak of, I'd say that's doing pretty well. Especially when the Rogernomics reforms were only half-completed.

Our labour productivity remains low (hence the slow growth) but since there are no known policy instruments for improving labour productivity, I'm not sure what more government involvement would accomplish.

The one thing we could probably do with more of is infrastructure investment, but since the Resource Management Act was introduced in 1991, that's really hard to do.

Oh, and Muldoon was right about one thing: Every kiwi that leaves for Australia raises the average IQ of both countries ;)

Posted by: James K | April 24, 2009 5:33 AM

78

Raging Bee,

YOU failed to explain why such a comparison is relevant here.

Let's see, the debate concerns, in large part, the relevant merits of corporations and government. I think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how a comparison of how bad corporations and governmens can be is relevant.

No, he was explicitly arguing that diminishing government's power (his words: "If we returned to our original form of limited government...") would give companies less need to unduly influence government. So yes, he was indeed arguing for less rule of law. That's what "limited government" means, innit?

Wow, you have really crossed over the line her. You are either the dumbest person ever to write on this blog or you are a congenital liar.

"less government" means anything except less rule of law. It can mean a government without the power to go to war so easily. It can mean a government that doesn't provide corporate welfare. It can mean a government that doesn't imprison its citizens for smoking pot. It can mean a government that doesn't own 93% of Nevada. It can mean a government where cops don't falsify warrants.

But the one thing that libertarians absolutely want from government is rule of law. So the one thing that the catch phrase "less government" cannot mean, never does mean, is precisely the one thing you said it means.

So once again you have demonstrated that you don't know jack shit about libertarianism.

Teh stupid! It burns!

Posted by: James Hanley | April 24, 2009 8:24 AM

80

Shit. mroberts is back. fuck. If only we had corporations run by married heterosexuals and operated on the gold standard, everything would be jake!

James Hanley:

No, I'm not libertarian (but I've slept with one). What I was getting, at in my clumsy way, was that the little guy gets stuck with cleaning up someone else's mess, while the big guy gets stuck with cleaning up no one's mess--including his own.

James K.:

Are you familiar with W.R.Grace & Co.? They have been sued in civil cases by numerous plaintiffs and the U.S. Government. Their pockets are quite deep, they always have enough left over from their legal defenses to make some hefty political contributions (primarily to the G.O.P.).

The problem isn't government, the problem is people. Some people are not honest, sometimes (far too often) they get elected by people who are lazy and incurious. The answer is not less government, but greater participation by people in their government.

Posted by: demoocommie | April 24, 2009 8:40 AM

82

I would also note that most libertarians believe government has a legitimate role to play in preventing/regulating negative market externalities. Since pollution is a negative externality, Dow's actions would be no more welcome in a libertarian's ideal world than it is in our current world.

The Communist idealists had to reconcile themselves to the failure of their precious ideology, and now it's the libertarians' turn.

This is really a pretty silly statement. As James K notes, please show us a group of libertarian countries, all of which have spectacularly failed. A major difference between Marxism and Libertarianism is their basic assumptions. Marxism had a number of innacurate bases (such as a misunderstanding of the labor theory of value), the most important of which was the perfectability of mankind. Libertarianism, in contrast, is based on an empirically well-founded assumption, the corruptibility of government.

maybe you should tell me which branch of "libertarianism" I should be paying attention to -- and, most importantly IMO, how much clout that branch has within the "fractious" movement as a whole

Well, I've previously tried to direct you to the libertarian theorists you should read, but you intelligently insisted that all you really needed to know was what the uneducated ranters were saying, so no answer to this question will dent your determination to remain ignorant. As to the second part of your question, if you determine the value of someone's ideas only as a measure of how many other people are listening, then you are most exceptionally shallow.

You've ignored most of my points, misrepresented the rest (as you just misrepresented both mroberts' assertion and my response to it),

There you go again. You want to whine that you've been misrepresented, while vigorously denying that you grossly perverted mroberts' point. Tell you what, if I can discipline myself, I'm going to refrain from arguing with you anymore. With your gross dishonesty there's just no point.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 24, 2009 8:49 AM

84

As James K notes, please show us a group of libertarian countries, all of which have spectacularly failed.

I could point to the USA, easily the most "libertarian" regime ever created, which has been moving AWAY from libertarianism (in economics and business regulation at least) ever since Jefferson retired. Ever ask yourself why this is so, if libertarianism is such a wonderful set of ideas?

Well, I've previously tried to direct you to the libertarian theorists you should read...

I could direct you to Communist theorists, but both have the same problem, which you failed to address: if the movement as a whole doesn't follow the theorists, then the theorists are that much less relevant. The Republicans don't suck because their "theorists" are bad; they suck because they're dominated by bigots, loonies and scumbags, and the "theorists" are nothing but window-dressing.

As to the second part of your question, if you determine the value of someone's ideas only as a measure of how many other people are listening, then you are most exceptionally shallow.

Could you please rephrase or clarify that statement? I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure here.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 24, 2009 9:15 AM

86

Wow. The DEC in New York has a large fish hatchery that feeds Lake Ontario. I went to see the chinook spawning one year and watched them throw huge salmon into trash bins one after another after the eggs/milt were removed, tens of hundreds of pounds of salmon. I was told they were going into a secure landfill, because they were too toxic to donate to food banks or even to compost. Doesn't Dow have to get some type of clearance for these activities?

Posted by: Carlie | April 24, 2009 9:46 AM

88

Ildie,

OK, all reasonable questions. I'll go through them one by one and try to answer as fully as possible without making this the longest blog comment ever. ;)

I'm curious as to how many times I'll have to explain libertarianism to you before you stop misrepresenting it. . You really like accusing people of that, don't you?

If someone writes, "this is how I understand it, is that correct?" I won't accuse them of misrepresenting things. But when people make false characterizations of libertarianism as factual statements, I will call it a misrepresentation. I don't "like" accusing people of that. I'd be quite happy if people simply didn't do it, so no such accusation was necessary. And it's not really a defensible practice--we can't carry on an intelligent discussion if we are basing arguments on false claims.

That's why I made a point of summarizing what I thought was your position re. the Cuyahoga River pollution. It shouldn't be too hard to correct if it's wrong.

I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here, so I'm not sure what to correct (if correction is needed), but my position on the Cuyahoga River pollution (which is the same as my position on Dow's Saginaw and Tittabawasee Rivers pollution is that corporations are more likely to dump their filth on the public's property than on others' private property.

You are an educator, right?

Yes, but a very irascible one who hates to have to repeat the same point to students multiple times. (I know it's necessary, so I do it. I just do it grudgingly and irascibly).

You love to say, well THAT'S not my version of libertarianism, but you seem oddly shy about being pinned down.

I respectfully disagree. I believe I point out places where I personally don't go as far as some other libertarians, and in those cases I don't say that my version is the true libertarianism. Now when someone claims that the rantings of some yahoo with a Ron Paul sign in their yard is what libertarianism is really about, I do point out that neither the speaker nor, probably, the yahoo is familiar with the writings of libertarian theorists. Certainly I will say, without shame, that those yahoos are not my type of libertarian, and I frequently don't share their version of libertarianism. But then I'm better read than they are, so I'm more in agreement with other well-educated libertarians.

but you seem oddly shy about being pinned down.

Please give an example? I can't really rebut this in the abstract.

BTW, re. my use of the word "utopia," you were the one who said that your market scenarios were based on a platonic ideal. It's pretty ironic, then that you criticize communism for failing for essentially the same reason.

I understand your point, which comes from lack of thoroughness on my part. In economics, the theory of the pure free market rests on certain ideals that can never be satisfied in the real world. The failure of those ideals to be met results in market failures.
The presence of market failures means markets aren't perfect. Two points are relevant here. First, perfection is a louy measure for judging anything, as there are no perfect human institutions. So the important question is "how badly" do markets fail. I think that's the question on which you and I would probably disagree, and such disagreement would be legitimate.

Second, market failures may justify government intervention. That is, if the government intervention can counteract the market failure it will be justified. If the government intervention will make things worse, then it is not justified. In the present case, the pollution is a massive market failure caused by lack of property rights. This justifies government intervention. (What form that intervention should take is obviously open to debate.)

The real key issue is, given that markets are imperfect (that real markets are not utopian) and government is imperfect (also not utopian), how much of each should we have? I argue that despite their imperfections, markets have great advantages over government. They are more voluntary and less coercive; they don't result in as much killing and torture; they don't support uncompetitive businesses at public expense. But that doesn't mean there should be no government, just no more than necessary to counteract markets' imperfections.

I would also note that most libertarians believe government has a legitimate role to play in preventing/regulating negative market externalities.
Ok, magic word, preventing. In your previous venom-laden "explanation" of how pollution to the Cuyahoga would have been avoided under your libertarian model, you only mentioned letting owners sit in their own pollution, or suing by other owners for pollution that affects their property. So, spit it out, man, what kind of prevention is your limited government allowed?

Quite simply, in a libertarian’s preferred system, government would prevent people (or corporations) from harming others, but not from harming themselves. So the corporation that would pollute only its own property is harming only itself, and the government would not step in. The corporation that pollutes others’ property is harming them, so the government would step in. (Or, more precisely, the libertarian would prefer that the government be brought in by the harmed citizen, through a civil suit in the courts. Anticipating the criticism that some, particularly poorer or less educated, citizens wouldn’t be able to do this, I would say the government could then choose to step in on their behalf. Some libertarians would disagree, saying it’s the harmed citizen’s own fault if they don’t go to court, but I personally wouldn’t agree.)

Another objection, one that has been brought up at least twice in this thread, is that pollution doesn’t tend to stay put, that it’s hard to keep it only on the corporation’s land. Agreed, and that simply means that government intervention is then absolutely legitimate. If in reality this occurs in almost every example of pollution, then government is legitimated in all those cases.

Finally, RB has addressed this, and I have to agree: I would expand the corruptibility and the potential for abuse to any human organization, whether it is government or a private corporation. (Hence my Blackwater example. Of course, now you've explained that one; it's not corporations but the free market you love.)

I absolutely agree with you on this. I regularly tell my students that there are no perfect institutions. Humans are imperfect, so it is impossible for us to create any non-corruptible organizations, and that absolutely includes corporations. What libertarians believe is that competition among corporations tends to discipline their worst tendencies, because those that abuse their customers will have fewer repeat customers. Maybe we’re right, maybe not, but most educated libertarians believe that, rather than believing that businessmen are noble. (I can’t speak for the uneducated ones, but I do get a sense there are some that take the latter line. I’ll stand on the side of RB and you on that one, however, those folks are wrong.) And, back to externalities, the pressures of competition will cause corporations to foist costs off on others by dumping their shit on public lands and waterways if they can get away with it—but government is absolutely legitimated in those cases.

But I think we have to apply that corruptibility argument equally to corporations and governments, and see how bad it can get with each. That was the point of my comparison of Union Carbide’s Bhopal accident—the worst private industry accident in history—with how bad government can get. One thing governments do very very well is mobilize resources, and when they direct those resources to killing, they kill people very very well. No private organization that I’m familiar with has ever managed to mobilize killing resources as well as government has. And Blackwater is a good case in point—Blackwater did not engage in a private market transaction to engage in the bad things they did; It was a government that paid them to do it.

Someone up above mentioned bananas. I agree, 100%, that the banana corporations acted badly in the Caribbean. I would also point out that they only succeeded in what they did because they got government support. This is the kind of thing that drives libertarians, as well as liberals, crazy. Where libertarians and liberals differ is that liberals think that kind of government badness is preventable, whereas libertarians think it is more or less inevitable. The world would be a better place if liberals were correct, but I honestly don’t think they are. Still, that’s a legitimate point of disagreement.

There is a hard on for the free market because in a free market corporations are disciplined by competition.
I would love to see evidence for this being an emprically well-founded assumption. Or, is this another platonic ideal

There is empirical support for this. But keep in mind the United States does not have many true free markets—we have many regulations that subsidize companies and protect companies from competition, so those companies are not disciplined by competition; how could they be disciplined by it if they’re protected from it?

But here’s an example I often give my students. When I bought a new car some years ago, I took it to a tire shop to rotate the tires. They could tell from the brand of tires that I had not bought them at their store. I ask the students how much they think the company charged me for the tire rotation. Students almost never get the right answer, but the correct answer is that they didn’t charge me anything at all. It was free because they knew I would need tires some day, and they wanted me to come to them at that time.

As another example, I had a student who worked at the returns counter at Target. Target will take almost anything back, even if it’s obviously used, even if you didn’t buy it at their store. Why? To keep customers shopping there.

Or take the computer industry. What has happened with personal computers over the last 20 years? They have continuously increased in quality and come down in price. If there was no competition, they could keep prices high and not bother improving the product.

Or take the auto industry. In the ‘70s it was a moment to brag about if your car made it to 100,000 miles. Back then the Big Three were protected from foreign competition. Nowadays, with ferocious competition in the auto market, it’s a moment to complain bitterly about if your car doesn’t make it to 100,000.

That is what I mean by being disciplined by the market.

Obviously you can easily come up with counter-examples. E.g., Enron. But the market is a human institution, so it also is imperfect. It’s not that these bad things never happen. It’s just that free markets overall work better than regulated markets. Consider the telecom industry. When Ma Bell had a monopoly (granted by the government—other companies were legally prohibited from competing with her), long distance was expense and technological advances were rare. Since the telecom industry was deregulated, look at what competition has brought us? The modern miracles of telecommunications technology was brought to us by competitive markets, not by a heavily regulated market.

I hope that explains my positions more clearly.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 24, 2009 2:16 PM

90

James Hanley said:

"Since the telecom industry was deregulated, look at what competition has brought us? The modern miracles of telecommunications technology was brought to us by competitive markets, not by a heavily regulated market."

I'm agree with you about competitive market, but....

To a seller all industries are the same and there's no difference between selling shoes, cars, misiles, bombs, medicine, food. They're all items and represent money which is the reason the seller exists.

But for the rest of the world that's just not true.

So is easy to give an example using an Industry that is not as (don't know how to say it) dangerous in terms of death, life, health. ¿But what about the polluting industries?.

By the way: Safety belt had to be imposed by goverment.

Posted by: Hector | April 24, 2009 5:47 PM

92

Now when someone claims that the rantings of some yahoo with a Ron Paul sign in their yard is what libertarianism is really about, I do point out that neither the speaker nor, probably, the yahoo is familiar with the writings of libertarian theorists.

You're sounding like heddle, who thinks of a church in terms of its official written doctrines, without regard to what the members actually say or do. And the fallacy is the same: people like Ron Paul, not the theorists, got the votes, either for public office or for party leadership; therefore people like Ron Paul, not the theorists, are the ones who, ipso facto, "represent" the majority of those who voted. Whether or not you were part of that majority is another issue.

Besides, you know as well as I do how extremist politics really works: many of the people who vote for the third-party candidate do so without even asking what he stands for or what his party's theorists have to say. And when you vote for a party, you vote for its nominees, not its theorists (unless of course the theorists ARE the nominees -- is that the case?); and if the party wins, it's the nominees who will be doing the actual policy-making. If the nominees and the constituent interest-groups don't give a shit what the theorists have to say, then the theorists are irrelevant, just like those "platforms" voted out by the major parties' national conventions.

Agreed, and that simply means that government intervention is then absolutely legitimate. If in reality this occurs in almost every example of pollution, then government is legitimated in all those cases.

This is exactly what "big-government liberals" have been saying all along -- and libertarians used to trash those same "big-government liberals" with the worst slanders I ever heard up until Bush Jr. Libertarian opposition to environmental regs wasn't just ideological, it was religious and fanatical, even to the extent of painting "tree-huggers" as Pagans out to destroy Christian progressive civilization as we know it and bring us all back to the Dark Ages. This is why I tend not to trust this recent complete one-eighty on the part of "left-libertarians:" not because it's wrong, or because the left-libs are insincere, but because I really can't believe the libertarian movement as a whole has changed that radically. Also, if I want to support this perfectly reasonable position, I'll support the liberals who were for it all along. They come with less loony baggage.

This is the kind of thing that drives libertarians, as well as liberals, crazy. Where libertarians and liberals differ is that liberals think that kind of government badness is preventable, whereas libertarians think it is more or less inevitable.

And the liberals are right on this one: concerted political action can indeed induce our government to police the badness more thoroughly than they would if left only to the influence of corporate interests. Not get rid of it altogether, but minimize it.

But keep in mind the United States does not have many true free markets—we have many regulations that subsidize companies and protect companies from competition, so those companies are not disciplined by competition; how could they be disciplined by it if they’re protected from it?

This generalization is useless unless you can provide specific examples in specific areas of business activity. I'm not saying there aren't any such examples; I'm just saying we have to keep the discourse grounded in real-world specifics, and not just ASSUME it's happening everywhere and support or oppose a policy based on an unsupported assumption. Without specific references, this generalization sounds like a trumped-up excuse to deregulate business regardless of what's really going on.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 24, 2009 6:58 PM

94

Oh, and WRT the extent to which Marx is discussed in economics, I think it's relevant that many econ professors and economists think of their field of study as separate from politics, which they consider "externalities;" while Marx explicitly linked the two and referred to "political economy." This is why economists tend to talk about Marx less than political scientists, who are ALWAYS forced to consider politics and economists together.

Furthermore, I consider this separation of politics from economics a major fallacy of free-market capitalist thinking. Economics and politics always affect each other, every day, and the actual fundamentals of any economy -- money, banking and property rights -- are created and enforced by government. This is why Marx's discussions of the "relations of production" and the dynamics of class struggle are so important in analyzing world events.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 24, 2009 7:21 PM

96

As a matter of fact, I teach Marx in my political economy class. But Marx wasn't the first political economist. Hume, Smith, Malthus, and Ricardo were all political economists. Marx was working--consciously--within their tradition, constructing an internal critique rather than an external critique. The problem, however, was Marx's labor theory of value, the astoundingly silly idea that there was no value input from from organizational skills or from ingenuity in general. Instead, the guy who comes up with an idea and exert his skills in bringing it to fruition has stolen from the laborers, because the whole value of the product comes solely from their efforts.

Mr. Bee wants specific examples of businesses being subsidized and protected from competition? The real question is where to start?

• Archer Daniels Midland receives vast subsides from the government, primarily in subsidies for ethanol. James Bovard has a thorough critique of ADM's corporate subsidies that is enlightening, but infuriating reading.

Despite NAFTA and the WTO, the U.S. still has a tariff on sugar imports, which keeps sugar prices much higher for Americans than it is on the world market. Who benefits? ADM, again, as the higher sugar prices make their high fructose corn syrup sweetner more cost competitive. Also a handful of sugar cane growers in Louisiana and Florida, who otherwise couldn't successfully compete. To make thing worse, the Florida sugar cane growers are damaging the Everglades--so you and I get to subsidize the destruction of the Everglades.

Raisin growers in California are required by law to sell their grapes to a central processor. That's why we see advertisements for "California" raisins, instead of Bob's raisins and Joe's raisins. To sell their crops directly to the public, or even directly to some other distributor, is flatly illegal.

Blue Diamond Nuts is also a California cartel, mandated by law.

Cable TV in most markets is a legally protected monopoly--it is illegal for another cable company to come in and compete with them. (Thank god for Direct TV, which can't be kept out!)

I used to drive a taxicab, and I can tell you that the legally mandated fares are not to protect the consumer, but to protect the cabbie from having to engage in price competition. I've played that game as a cab rider before: If there's a line of cabs I can usually find one willing to take a lower fare to get the business, but all the others will be really pissed off. I'm alway amazed that people still believe regulation of cab fares is "consumer" protection. It ain't--it's supplier protection.

Does anyone remember George Bush's steel tariffs? They were solely for the purpose of protecting a few failing steel companies from competition. (NUCOR steel, wildly profitable, proved that the steel industry didn't need protection.) The higher steel prices destroyed more jobs than were saved by raising prices in steel-using industries (automotive, appliance, construction, etc.)

In 2007, the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese paper.

American agriculture as a whole is based on subsidies. This artificialy raises the value of farmland, making it impossible for young would-be farmers to buy land, consequently causing U.S. agriculture to become corporatized. (It also helps keep Africa poor, by destroying a potentially huge export market.)

The New England Dairy Compact keeps an artificially high price floor on milk, to keep New England dairy farmers from having to engage in price competition with each other. Who loses? Poor kids whose parents can't afford as much milk and cheese for them, and the U.S. taxpayer, who foots the bill for the purchase of close to 1/3 of U.S. produced non-fat dried milk, most of which simply gets stored in caves and warehouses.

The Export-Import Bank spends $700 million a year of taxpayer money to subsidize foreign purchasers of U.S. goods.

The fossil fuel industry receives billions per year in subsidies (The U.S. Climate Emergency Council estimates $32 billion over 5 years.)

Lawyers enjoy a legalized cartel in most states. In Arizona, IIRC, you can practice law without having passed the bar (but of course you can't falsely claim to have passed it). Those folks tend to do very simple routine stuff, at lower prices than qualified lawyers, while passing clients onto real lawyers for the serious legal stuff. The bar might seem like an important test, but every lawyer I've ever asked (and I've asked a lot) denies that it weeds out those who would be bad lawyers. It's about limiting the number of lawyers (although, maybe that's not such a bad thing in itself....)

I have a friend who's a dentist in California. The California dental boards are a three day exam in which you have to successfully perform a certain number of procedures. Doesn't seem so bad, right? But if you cannot find enough patients to complete all the procedures, you not only fail, but you can never try again unless you go through dental school again. This protects California dentists from having too much competition.

There's some real world examples. I must admit, given that liberals complain about corporate welfare just as much as libertarians, I'm a little surprised to find a liberal asking for examples. But I'm happy to provide them.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 24, 2009 10:16 PM

98

By the way: Safety belt had to be imposed by goverment.

Not true. Google "seat belt history," and you'll get multiple hits Seatbelts became optional euqipment in some U.S. car models in the 1950s, and were standard (in the front seat) of most U.S. models by the mid '60s, because consumers were demanding them. The U.S. law mandating them was passed in 1971 and took effect in 1973.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 24, 2009 10:38 PM

100

Politics however is just mostly alpha male posturing and is as edifying as watching chimpanzees throwing poo at each other.

But not nearly as much fun!

Posted by: James Hanley | April 24, 2009 10:45 PM

102

The problem, however, was Marx's labor theory of value, the astoundingly silly idea that there was no value input from from organizational skills or from ingenuity in general. Instead, the guy who comes up with an idea and exert his skills in bringing it to fruition has stolen from the laborers, because the whole value of the product comes solely from their efforts.

The solution is to recognize that the idea-guy's idea -- and the organizer's efforts -- also constitute "work" of a sort, just like that of a skilled worker using his skill and judgment as well as his hands. So the labor theory of value still stands: everything from salt to gold ore is valuable AFTER someone does the work (skilled and/or unskilled) necessary to make it into a useful form and deliver it to those who need it. Okay, Marx himself may not have said this, but it's a real solution that plugs a hole in a workable theory.

(It does need to be admitted that Marx's analysis was probably colored by hatred of the moneyed classes and desire to foment a revolution that would free the working classes from oppression. But if we recognize and correct for this agenda, his theories become much more workable.)

The Marxists dialectic is the closest to useful thing Marx had but it's still no good. Marx's model assumed exactly two classes, with an insurmountable power imbalance (barring civil war).

That's what the class situation in Europe looked like in Marx's time. The class relationship has changed, and got more complex, since then, but the basic theory remains useful, as long as we have a clear picture of class relations.

Hanley: thanks for the examples. As I said, I didn't doubt that such things happened, I just needed something more than a general statement. Also, the problems you mention are not ignored by "mainstream" thought; in fact, nothing you have said about them need be found in a new ideology, but can be found in the nuts-and-bolts debates between big-government liberals and small-government conservatives. So, too, can workable (if politically unpalatable) alternative policies.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 24, 2009 11:17 PM

104

Hanley: There's allot wrong with Marx's theory of economics, first being the silly Hegelian insistence that a cohesive "force" or "system" drives human history, but I don't think the thing you point to is part of it. Marx's idea seemed to be that the innovator would be the producer in a "perfect" "communist" society; that the division of labor needed to be abolished because it alienated the workman from his work, and in doing so, allowed others to profit from it more than him.

Yes, in his analysis of class interaction in industrial systems he focuses much ire on the organizational classes, but this is something separate from his theory of economics, and besides, it has little to do with the position of innovators at all. Marx made it rather clear that when he was discussing the owners and capitalist classes, he was discussing those who profit from labor without putting in any labor into the actual product.

Posted by: Julian | April 24, 2009 11:42 PM

106

From an economic standpoint the labor theory of value is not even wrong. "Value" is a subjective concept. It's true that labor influences prices, but labor is only one input among potentially many (even neglecting demand side influences).

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 25, 2009 12:26 AM

108

democommie:

But you're somehow going to change the country to have it run by Libertarian principles? Are you serious about this?

I don't need to change the minds of a whole country, just the minds of the handful of people who actually make the decisions. In my country, Rogernomics happened because of just a couple of people at the top deciding to do it. You don't change a society by convincing the great mass of the people. Persuasion is hard, especially when most people have no reason to care. You influence the decision-makers, they change society and everyone else catches up over time.

Julian:

Stupid political beliefs are not the result of a feeling of helplessness; they are the result of intellectual laziness, of a refusal to look at the prejudices inculcated by one's upbringing critically.

Yes, and that laziness persists because being lazy is easier than thinking and when it comes to politics thinking doesn't get you anywhere. What effect would one more informed voter have on an election? None. So why go to all the effort to become informed? A classic collective action problem.

Its no different than religion, people believe what makes them feel good instead of what is true because it doesn't cost them anything. Those of us who seek the truth of things are the exception and we always will be.

Raging Bee:
The labour theory of value is wrong because it looks at the wrong end of the process. The value of a good doesn't depend on the effort put into it, but rather the pleasure and avoidance of pain that can be derived from the good. Labour is necessary, but it doesn't actually produce the value. You can spend a lot of labour digging holes and filling them up, but that doesn't create value.

Posted by: James K | April 25, 2009 1:43 AM

110

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/onlineextras/story.html?id=b7a1b935-2acd-4f19-8132-a85e2fce9763

This is about regulating herbal remedies (Not all "natural" is safe)

This is an example of how regulating can affect business but protect consumers. I'd like to point to Blake post which is very similar to my own opinion on the subject.

Posted by: hector | April 25, 2009 5:09 AM

112

James K.

Okay, now I'll call "bullshit". You say on the one hand that it's impossible (or near enough to make the exercise futile) to change the American electorate into a critically thinking entity. Otoh, YOU, are goint to change the minds of the folks who actually make the decisions. Good luck with that.

Posted by: democommie | April 25, 2009 7:49 AM

114

Raging Bee,

The solution is to recognize that the idea-guy's idea -- and the organizer's efforts -- also constitute "work" of a sort...it's a real solution that plugs a hole in a workable theory.

No, it's a solution that destroys the theory. Marx's theory depends on exploitation of labor--the owners stealing some of the value produced by the laborer. If the owners' work is labor, too, then their's no exploitation, hence no class conflict, hence no dialectic.

Tyler and James K. Yes, value is subjective. But the product/service that is subjectively valued is itself produced by humans, so I think it's reasonable to talk about who creates that value.

Democommie,

Your comments about businesses being held down by da man?

What? I thought I was writing about businesses being propped up by da man.

Aren't most of those examples due to state laws? How would having a federal government run by libertarian principles change those laws?

I want a libertarian country from top to bottom. Well, actually I would allow municipalities to be as communistic as they want, as long as exit was easy. As a libertarian, I wouldn't deny people the right to choose to live communally, so long as they could not force others to do so against their will. That is probably not a standard libertarian belief, but it's mine.

Hector, yes, seatbelts were first developed by European manufacturers (I believe Saab was the first to make thems standard). But the rest of your point doesn't follow. If they were optional equipment on only a few U.S. models in the '50s, and standard on most U.S. models in the '60s, your argument that they weren't wanted by consumers and would probably have disappeared is an argument that the trend would have reversed. Such a strong claim needs strong evidence, of which you provide none. The fact remains that the governent mandated them after they were standard on cars.

However, that's not an argument that no regulation is ever necessary. You read too much into what was a factual claim. But I will argue that I don't think regulations to protect people from themselves are necessary. However I fully support mandatory child-seat laws, because the children aren't able to make their own choices.

Democommie (and the same point to Raging Bee), The failure of either the public or policymakers to adopt one's position is an insufficient reason to shift from one's position. If one's only interest is influence, then perhaps one should shift. But if one's interest is in holding to what one believes is intellectually correct, then shifting due to lack of influence is the act of a coward. This doesn't mean that our views are right-it just means that your argument for dropping them is non-germane.

Besides, many of the decision-makers that James K might try to persuade are bureaucrats, not subject to electoral constraints. So they are at least potentially more persuadable than politicians who must satisfy the public.

Julian, I agree that voting provides a sense of fairness. I strenuously disagree that voting's value is in allowing us to express our opinion. We use the secret ballot, after all, which means that we expressly believe people have a right to vote without publicly expressing their opinion. And debate on blogs is a far better way to express one's opinion--my opinions have been far more clearly and thoroughly expressed here than in any vote I have cast.

Consequently, James K is right that one more informed voter will not have an effect in an election. It is a mathematical matter. Your argument that

because they were educated, mobilized, and through debate came to agreement, all those single votes have an impact.

doesn't really track logically. It's like collecting pennies to help a poor child have an important operation. You still have to educate and mobilize people to get them to pitch their pennies, but you still can't logically argue that each penny really matters (although as a motivating device you would obviously want to say so!).

Clearly democracy needs a certain number of voters to work well (and presumably educated voters are better than uneducated ones), but there's no step-function at which the nth vote suddenly makes it work. Heck, we don't even have a rough idea of what proportion of a population you need to participate in order to make it work well (and I would say that such information is really important, so that lack of knowledge is really problematic).

Posted by: James Hanley | April 25, 2009 10:09 AM

116

Democommie, Thanks for the fix!

Yes, the secret ballot is also about preventing corruption. And in a closed society, perhaps the ballot's opinion-expressing role might be important. But in an open society where you and I can freely express (argue nonstop about) our opinions, the "opinion expression" value of the ballot is so marginal as to be barely relevant. Whatever value there is to an individual in voting, it must be more than that to motivate so many people to go out and do it.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 25, 2009 1:56 PM

118

Well, I bought a Saturn in 1992 because it was a car in my price range with antilock brakes. I bought a Subaru in 1999 because it had antilock brakes and all-wheel drive. And after driving a 1970s pickup for a few years, I decided to get rid of it because the gas tanks in the sidewalls made it a death trap.

I'm only one data point, and perhaps I'm unusual. But I was a bike messenger and I'm a wilderness canoer, so I'm obviously not tremendously risk-averse.

There's an implication in your argument that people won't take care of themelves properly, so they need to be made to do so. But why? If the government really is better at making decisions for us than we are ourselves, then there's not much reason to oppose excessive regulation, because there probably won't be any that's excessive by that standard.

Now it's certainly legitimate to disagree, but my general stance is that people should be left to make their own choices as long as they're not imposing harm on others (antilock brakes, perhaps, are legitimately mandated because they can prevent me from negligently running into you, against your will). But if I prefer style to safety, why should you care? I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to mandate that you make the type of choices I personally would think are wise.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 25, 2009 4:51 PM

120

Ildi - As a non-libertarian I have been following the Hanley Bee debate for quite some time and I feel for Hanley because it doesn't matter how he describes Libertarianism, Bee will resort to his "the Libertarians I know believe this" crap. You too seem to have that affliction. It is obvious that you had made up your mind prior to ever entering into this discussion. Bravo. I find it funny that you take pride in your ignorance about economics and talk of being an "educated layperson" like it is some badge of honor and therefore discredits Hanley's knowledge. Oh yeah, as you and Bee piss and moan about Libertarians you keep coming back and reading this blog written by none other than a (gasp) Libertarian.

Posted by: Anna | April 25, 2009 7:17 PM

122

Yes, JH, being hot tempered and easily provoked to anger doesn't help, and "hates to have to repeat the same point to students multiple times" is the icing on the cake. If your posting style is any reflection of your teaching style, yes, you suck. I'll bet none of your students dare "boast of their ignorance" because you may have to repeat your high-brow nasty-ass self.

Who cares if I like you? Sorry that hurt your feelings. My point was that if you are trying to be considered an expert, you lose credibility when you resort to personal attacks. News flash, I don't give a rat's ass for your respect, sweetie, I was looking for IN-FOR-MA-TION.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll add them to my reading list. Right now it's time to go drinking.

Posted by: ildi | April 25, 2009 9:33 PM

124

The value of a good doesn't depend on the effort put into it, but rather the pleasure and avoidance of pain that can be derived from the good.

And that pleasure or avoidance of pain comes from the fact that the object in question was made, extracted, refined, delivered, etc. by whatever labor was necessary. You can't enjoy the use of something unless and until you, or someone else, makes it and gets it to you. Gold, for example, has intrinsic value, but not until it's been discovered, extracted and refined; and each of those steps increases its value to people. The raw materials that make up a car have no value until they've been put together into a workable car.

Labour is necessary, but it doesn't actually produce the value. You can spend a lot of labour digging holes and filling them up, but that doesn't create value.

As I understand it, the labor theory value says that all value comes from labor; not that all labor automatically creates value.

Posted by: Raging Bee | April 25, 2009 11:20 PM

126

@James Hanley/K:

Are you both seriously describing Singapore as libertarian? Lee Kuan Yew's personal fiefdom - where the economy is run by the Economic Development Board; wages set by the National Wages Council; the infrastructure is largely created and run by the government? That Singapore?

Tell me; what colour is the sky in the world where Singapore is in any sense libertarian?

Posted by: Robin Levett | April 26, 2009 4:43 AM

128

@James K:

In fact, Singapore's combination of economic corporatism and political and social dynastic authoritarianism has a strong whiff of a political philosophy incarnated in early 20th century Italy.

As for NZ; I know a few Kiwis, and can even tell them from Aussies if I can get them to say Fish and Chips. It's a country 12,000 miles away from and 2-3 decades behind the UK. What did/does it have going for it in economic terms? And what made it libertarian economically, as opposed to Thatcherite?

Posted by: Robin Levett | April 26, 2009 7:03 AM

130

Robin Levett,

Do you have any instances where you consider libertarian policies have been tried and not failed?

Yes, I do. Carter and Reagan deregulated the trucking, railroad, airline, and telecommunications industries. Previously, all were heavily regulated to limit entry by competitor firms and to set prices and routes. The deregulation led to a boom in all industries and was important for the economic growth we've had since then.

Portugal has recently decriminalized all drugs, and it's worked fine.

The U.S. has moved toward freer trade, with fewer tariffs and quotas. Despite the popular perception that America is declining economically because of it, our manufacturing sector still produces about 4 times as much as China, and the total economic output of our manufacturing sector is at record levels.

I would also say that the tradeable permits in sulfur dioxide in Southern California have worked better than command-and-control policies at reducing air pollution at cheapest cost.

So, yes, I think there are libertarian policies that have not failed. I would also add the success of property rights. We tend not to think of that as a "libertarian" policy, but it is a "classical liberal" policy. If you compare countries with secure property rights to those without, I think you'll probably agree that it's a policy that hasn't failed. (Specifically I recommend the books of Hernando de Soto, The Other Path,, and The Mystery of Capital.)

As to lawyers, I've never knowingly met a libertarian lawyer. I don't actually travel in libertarian circles (I travel in political scientist circles--I think I know all 3 other libertarian political scientists in the U.S.). I actually just ask it whenever I happen to meet a lawyer. The last lawyer I asked it of was a county prosecutor here in Michigan--distinctly Republican rather than libertarian.

Granted the bar would keep out the absolute dreck who are so moronic it's a miracle they passed law school. But how many of them would ever get hired by a law firm, and how many of them who set up business on their own would last any length of time? And if the goal is to weed out would-be lawyers who are going to send their clients to jail through their own incompetence, well, the current system isn't noticeably better. Again, Arizona provides a good test case. I only know what I've read about it, so I don't claim to be an expert. But I put it out there so anybody else can check it out.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 26, 2009 7:10 PM

132

James Hanley:

The de-regulation of the airlines and trucking industries have led to more competition and better pricing. Try telling that to someone who has to get themselves, or a bunch of goods, from unpopular point of origin A to unpopular destination B. Now, bear in mind that both A & B have good if not excellent airports and surface transport infrastructure. Both A & B also have populations exceeding a half million people.

What about the Eisenhower Interstate System? Places like the Northeast and California it makes a lot of sense to have a gazillion miles of highway (lately the Southeast as well) but MI, ID, MN--where's the payback? I don't know how far you want to go with this; but, it seems to me, that the sort of government you and James K. envision simply wouldn't do things like the interstate or flood control projects as they disproportionately benefit the few.

Also, the deregulation of airlines has helped to get us to a place where business travellers and vacationers, with full price seats and confirmed reservations are simply left sitting in airports due to flight cancellations that apparenly are unrelated to either mechanical or lack of aircrew considerations. So much for the rigors of the market.

Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2009 8:15 AM

134

@James x2:

As a followup to the claim that libertarians are pro-corporation, which you have both rejected; the reaction of the libertarian spectrum to anti-trust suits is revealing. As I wilfully misinterpret the argument, corporations should be allowed to hold monopolies and screw their customers and competitors alike through abuse of market power because Pol Pot killed millions in Cambodia. Have I got it right?

Posted by: Robin Levett | April 27, 2009 8:52 AM

136

Robin and Raging Bee,

Well, A for effort, but you both misunderstand why libertarians think anti-trust is silly, which is because free markets works against monopolies. Economists believe that; people who don't study economics don't believe it. (Robin, think about the silly things I'm sure you've heard non-lawyers say about the law before you too quickly dismiss the experts. I remember arguing once with a woman who "knew for a fact" that the Supreme Court had declared abortion a state issue, so that states could ban it, and I have much the same reaction to non-economists who assert that free markets create monopolies.)

Re: AT&T. Keep in mind that Ma Bell wasn't a free market monopoly, but one sanctioned by the U.S. government. Only decades later did the U.S. gov't change course and charge it with anti-trust violations. All pretty ironic, considering the government's role in creating the company's monopoly.

As to my example policies, those are libertarian policies. Any policy that reduces the regulatory power of the state tends libertarian. If the deregulation was so "common sense," why did it take so many years?

Keep in mind, libertarians don't necessarily have a special set of policies all their own. They lean civil libertarian with the Democrats, and lean toward economic libertarianism with the...well, with what the Republicans like to say they believe. Libertarians just want to pull what they think are the best out of both parties, which is both parties' tendency to be very skeptical about government policy in certain areas.

Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2009 9:22 PM

138

@James Hanley:

free markets works against monopolies

Maybe, but I'd like to know the conditions under which a market can be said to be truly free so as to act against a monopoly; in the meantime, in the real world, corporations work towards monopoly or cartel, and often get there.

As for your examples, as I understand it from them, your economic libertarianism is pretty weaksauce; for example while libertarians as a generality oppose antitrust, you consider antitrust lawsuits libertarian policies. You are prepared to label as "libertarian" policies that are merely a little more libertarian than other - pretty "statist" - policies that could have been , or had previously, been adopted. By your definitions, Europe has pretty libertarian economies; each of the deregulatory moves to which you refer either were paralleled, or were unnecessary, in European economies. Take trucking; the UK didn't have a system of restrictive state licensing of the trucking business.

Posted by: Robin Levett | April 28, 2009 2:57 AM

140

Ha! James Hanley has left the thread. Now I can call him a "doodyhead" and spout all the unrefuted nonsense I care to! Oh, snap! That's no fun, I already do that!

Anyhoo. I partially buy the deregulation argument, but not even close to completely. I used to work in Verizon's legal department in the office of Regulatory Management. I was just a clerk (a union clerk--which scared the bejesus out of management), but I handled a lot of paper and used to read it when I had downtime. Suffice to say that the company's strategy was to get unregulated--particularly in wireless. In order to do this they made lots of promises to both the feds and the various states about how they would keep service quality up and prices down. They got deregulation, prices went through the roof and customer service is non-existent.

Posted by: democommie | April 28, 2009 4:02 PM

142

Democommie: Maybe we're just better informed......one need not belong to either of the groups you cite to be just that.

Ed:

Responses below.

"True, but not terribly relevant....."

I strongly disagree, and think in the context of a biased piece addressing a scientific issue, failing (or refusing) to distinguish between being told not to eat ANY fish and being able to eat limied quantities of fish is VERY relevant to the piece.

"Really? They measured dioxin levels in West Michigan Park at 6 times the EPA limits and they shut it down to completely change out all the dirt in the park and probably even the equipment. And they didn't do this because the park is unsafe? Sorry, that's ridiculous."

I'm fully aware of the levels that were measured, though they have nothing to do with this point. The park "wasn't safe to be there".........during construction activities. I'm sure you'll agree that heavy equipment, trucks, etc. all represent unsafe conditions for curious little people. The park wasn't closed because it "wasn't safe to be there" due to the contamination, as you imply.

"And this contradicts what I said how? Yes, it's coming to a close. But this is still breeding season, albeit at the tail end of it. The point was that these walleye have spent the last few weeks swimming up the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers in waters loaded with dioxin, as they do every year at this time."

The verbiage of the piece strongly implied that spawning fish would be getting yanked out of their river before them having finished their business. As with much of the rest of the rhetoric, it struck me as inflammatory and misleading.

"It is under consideration right now by the EPA. Several EPA officials came through in late March to examine the issue and came up with three options for how to handle it, one of which is to list it as a superfund site. Environmental groups were opposed to that while Bush was in office but are okay with it now that Obama is in office and controls the EPA. It is looking more and more likely that the EPA is going to assert control the issue because they view Michigan authorities as compromised by Dow's influence. All of this was laid out in detail in Eartha's previous reporting."

It has been discussed simply because it was a potential option. The Tittabawassee River will not become a Superfund site because nobody WANTS it to be: not the Feds, not the State, not Dow, not the community....NO ONE. There's absolutely no need for it.

The EPA will assume control not because the MDEQ is "compromised by Dow's influence". Nothing could be further from the truth. The simple fact of the matter is that the MDEQ suffers from bureaucratic inertia and can't make decisions (partly because they lack the technical expertise). They can't get anything done and don't know how to actually facilitate a cleanup project - they'd rather overregulate it, because they mistakenly think that's the best way to justify their existence when the exact opposite is true. Trust me, I know. THAT'S why the EPA will take the river over.

If the public actually knew the business model the MDEQ followed (so to speak), they'd be outraged. It's not due to a coziness with industry, despite suggestions to the contrary (though this may have been closer to the truth in the 1990s). It's primarily due to regulatory incompetence coupled with a lack of real-world experience. There's nothing easier than waving a book of state regulations around and perpetually holding up hoops for the regulated community to jump through.

Try getting the necessary permits to undertake a large-scale river dredging operation, make transportation and disposal arrangements, get the half dozen contractors on board to do everything.....then pay for it. THAT'S the hard part that the MDEQ has no clue about.

"So of the 5, I'll give you full credit on one, partial credit on one and three misses."

Please re-score.

Posted by: Oz | April 29, 2009 1:28 PM

144

OZ:

"Democommie: Maybe we're just better informed......one need not belong to either of the groups you cite to be just that."

It took you a week to come up with that answer?

I'd say it means that you are involved at some official level with the state or Dow. Since you don't want to say otherwise, I'll stick with that thought, which means your answers are at best self-serving cherry picking of the facts--at worst, who knows?

Posted by: democommie | April 29, 2009 4:28 PM