Don Boudreaux says that we shouldn't try to prevent global warming because
Capitalism produces so much food that we are never malnourished; it produces ample clothing and sturdy homes to protect us from the elements; it produces the soaps, shampoos, toothpastes and detergents that we use every day to cleanse our bodies and living spaces of bacteria and other dirt. And by continually substituting machines for human labor, capitalism progressively makes our work less backbreaking and less perilous.
Those of us who recognize these important benefits of capitalism -- those of us who understand that capitalism's true greatness lies not (as many critics insinuate) in producing oceans of pointless trinkets and baubles but in making the lives of ordinary people richer and fuller and longer -- are reluctant to yield power to governments to tackle global warming. We worry that this power will kill the goose that's laying this golden egg.
"Drastically change our civilization." Hmmm. This sounds like a call to significantly scale back markets, trade and industrial activities in order to lessen humankind's "footprint" on the Earth and its environment. We can, no doubt, make our environmental footprint smaller -- but how great a benefit will this achievement be if it returns us to the ages-old condition of high mortality and morbidity?
Or maybe Gore doesn't mean that we should give up capitalism? Instead of speculating about what his statement "sounds like", wouldn't it be better to consider what Gore proposes that we do about global warming? Boudreaux may be be unaware of this, but Gore sets out his views in a movie called An Inconvenient Truth, which is now number three on the all time list for box office sales for documentaries. Surely it would be more productive for Boudreaux to consider Gore's actual proposals instead of erecting a straw man?
Undoubtedly, most people who seek government action to fight global warming are "reasonable." They envision no drastic changes to our civilization. And I concede that, in principle, cost-effective steps to reduce global warming are possible. But I'm sure that it's also true that most of the "reasonable" people who demand action against global warming are unaware of the critical role that capitalism plays in improving the lives of ordinary men and women.
Yeah, because most people, unlike Boudreaux, are unaware that they have to pay money for food and that money help pays the farmers to grow stuff. What Boudreaux seems unaware of when he wrote that "Capitalism produces so much food" is that the food production depends on an benign climate and a balanced ecosystem. Capitalism won't be producing so much food if crops are destroyed by droughts or storms or plagues of insects.
So given this fact along with the hysterical language used by the likes of Al Gore -- who, after all, is not on society's fringes -- it's a perfectly legitimate stance for truly reasonable people to conclude that the best policy regarding global warming is to neglect it -- and let capitalism continue to make us healthier and wealthier.
So, Boudreaux concedes that cost-effective steps to reduce global warming are possible, but we shouldn't take such steps because he believes that the folks who want action are unaware of the benefits of capitalism. This doesn't even begin to make sense. Surely the "truly reasonable people" should
-
Support the cost-effective measures.
-
Oppose the measures that destroy capitalism and return us to a pre-industrial society. (Not that I've seen anything like this seriously proposed.)
Don Boudreaux is, by the way, chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University. That's the university where Dan Polsby is Dean of the Law School.
Amanda Terkel has more comments.
Intellectual sloth and fossilized business models are not part of a healthy Capitalist market...
Up until very recently, it's seemed to me that the energy market has been harmfully dominated by fossil fuels. In my observation, all the attention on global warming is starting to slowly open up other possibilities (renewable substitutes for fossil fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol, "new" fuels like hydrogen, technologies to more ubiquitously use solar energy directly).
This means new markets. That's HEALTHY capitalism, if the new markets are nurtured to maturity.
I would make the same argument about other environmental issues. Depleted fish stocks vs. the possibility of "Urban Aquaculture" (As seen in SEED magazine :-) ) research possibly making it possible for fish-farmers to compete with people who harvest directly from natural stocks, for example.
Heh.
Don Boudreaux is the ultimate evolutionist, I would say. Think of it as evolution in action. If humans manage to so thoroughly screw up the ecosystem that they kill of vast numbers of their race, others will rise to fill gaps in the ecosystem, or to thrive in the newly modified ecosystem.
Instead of saying, "Capitalism is great!", Boudreaux should be saying, "Who needs humans? Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorro we die adn get out-competed by fire ants or something!"
-Rob
Capitalism: King Midas's Goose?
Until I saw
I thought this was just from some high schooler's blog.
Boudreaux's argument has a basic flaw: he begs the question. He assumes that capitalism has done all of those wonderful things without government intervention. I presume he is speaking of US capitalism instead of, for example, European capitalism, which has actually yielded a higher standard of living than in the US but without all the cowboy mythology of wild and free capitalism, unfettered by government control, solving all the problems of society. Despite all that, it's possible that he is not actually a moron.
Couldn't Boudreaux, an economist, at least call for ending subsidies to fossil fuel industries? At the very least?
Sadly, I don't see discussion of this simple step in the Democratic party or even in mainstream environmental groups. I can only guess that it is extremely dfficult politically.
But surely an economist should oppose subsidies. He is for free markets, isn't he?
for example, European capitalism, which has actually yielded a higher standard of living than in the US but without all the cowboy mythology of wild and free capitalism,
BS. People with this 'Europe is so much better' attitude irritate me. Where does 'Europe' have a higher standard of living than in the US? France? UK? Switzerland? Bosnia? Maybe the Ukraine?
The European (and world) economy is directly tied the US. European capitalism is hardly uniform, even (especially) under the EU. The so called European 'higher standard of living' is hardly any more of an argument for a better economic system than the US economy is.
Is this some bizarro dialecticv where climate control and capitalism are locked in a death spiral of mutual antipathy? What the hell is wrong with these people?
I have no idea why, but when I see someone write something exceptionally stupid about global warming and how to deal with it, it often will be an economist who is the perpetrator of the idiocy. I'd really like to know what it is about economists that a) makes them misunderstand or deny so much about AGW, and b) makes them put their foolishness out in public as though their ideas have any merit.
Our system is too interconnected to allow for quick changes. The oil companies own the country and its government. We bow to them for one simple reason...They give us our lives. Petrolium is far more than just fuel, it is used to make our plasitcs, our underwear, our fertilizers, everything. We are so wrapped into it, that we cannot let go. To make things worse, most people are completely oblivious to what is happening. We are about to pay 4 dollars per gallon of fuel, and we still think that bio-fuels are too costly. We are not willing to sign the Kioto protocol, because it would cost too much to reduce CO2 emissions. Heck, as far as the government is concerned, Global Warming is a "Naturally Occuring" fenomenon, and has nothing to do with our disgusting abuse of the environment. There are a lot of things which we can do, but do not. Car makers can build more efficient vehicles, Diesel fleets can run of bio-fuels, but we don't do this because we are married to the oil giants. Whether or not Global warming is naturally occuring, we can debate all we want. It does not matter. What matters is that we are making things worse by putting millions of cu. tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. At our current rate, in 20 years we will have about 20% of the country running on bio-fuels, but it will not make much difference. Sooner or later, it will be too late, and the climate is telling us now that what we are doing needs to stop.
He assumes that capitalism has done all of those wonderful things without government intervention.
That would be a bad assumption. It has done all those things in spite of government intervention.
I presume he is speaking of US capitalism instead of, for example, European capitalism, which has actually yielded a higher standard of living than in the US
Say what? Good luck proving that. Are you refering to Europe's higher costs of living or lower average incomes yielding their supposed higher standard of living? Or is it their much higher rates of unemployement? And don't go pulling out the infant mortality bunk either, they may be higher here on average, but if you take out our inner cities, which are a byproduct of feel-good leftist government welfarestate intervention, then we do just fine. That, and the definitions used in measuring infant mortality are different between the US and Canada/Europe/Japan anyway, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Show me the money, Mark.
Oh Ben and Bob
You may wish to consult the HDI (Human Development Index). For the year 2005 the US was number 10 on that list. Six European countries sit above the US by that measure, most the large European nations sit below. The HDI is based on life expectancy, education and GDP and is considered a standard measure of quality of life. It does not include any of that annoying business about infant mortality. Really Ben we should just wall those people off from any government intervention and watch the infant mortality rates drop like a stone.
Can you comment on the subject matter of the post or did you just drop by to demonstrate the quality of the thinking that is typical of the world of the 'don't worry be happy economists'?
Nice find Tim, I wonder what an idealogue likw Bordeaux would say about Llyod's of London's director recently stating: "Climate change is today's problem not tomorrow's. If we don't take action now to understand the changing nature of our planet we will face extinction."
Some of the biggest capitalist in the world are taking this challenge head-on. I suspect that until it directly affects Bourdeaux's bottom-line we won't see much action out of him!
There is nothing needing to be done about 'global warming' except to have realised the NATURAL course of events observations outline. There is not any need to mention or discuss even Human Politics or Social perceptions nor is there any real point of involvement for 'Energy Policy' rhetoric, within actual processes that produce alterations within the Planetary Climate Oscillation. It is infact the attempt to 'play theatre' within such rhetoric that has lost Public interest IN supposed 'greenhouse science' and is NOW losing political interest in its trend to follow public interest.
The People need Electricity, it is used to provide function habitat, medical care, sewerage/water control and it was Electricity that produced the greatest CULTURAL revolution by freeing all these 'mundane tasks' from needing direct application of MECHANICAL power through an engine driven shaft. As such, for example, the SEWERAGE SYSTEM of London could be developed WITHOUT 'pumping engines' placed throughout the city-plex. POWER could be transferred form REMOTE generations utilities for a MORE efficient OVERALL system. This is STILL the situation in ALL developed/developing 'metro-plex' today.
Climate change is natural, with irregular progression, . Alteration to Turbulence will alter the residual Kinetic Energy within a system, and this residual Kinetic Energy is presented then within 'inverse alterations' in measures of Temperature commonly called 'Turbulence Cooling'.
Also, from museum.state.il.us :-
[" If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances. "]
It is also Common Knowledge, and thus commonly known, that there have been ~60 glacial advances within the last ~3 Million year 'Climate Period', outlined in part at (*) in the article 'Glaciers Reborn'. Climate has been 'warming' for the last 20,000 years and will continue to do so for some centuries longer with this process unaffected in any INDICATED & DIRECT manner by Human activity.
Climate change is natural with displayed irregular progression in both the Primary and Secondary 'Oscillatory progressions', the LIE is in the attempts to overlay 'greenhouse opinion' and label such as 'science'.
The PUBLIC will not listen to the 'environmental lie' being platformed in Movies/Novels regarding 'greenhouse climate change supposition'. It is very easy to understand if one steps away from the 'greenhouse wagon' and looks back at that 'vehicle', it remains a POLITICAL platform where 'advocates in white coats' are STILL advocates and where climate is KNOWN to be changing Naturally always at any 'time point' with 'no fixed rate'.
Fabrications of AUTHORS, 'greenhouse warming/climate-change' 'novels & movies' concoct an existence for something that cannot be observed (i.e. in any actual and sufficient ENERGY fluctuation), and attempt to overlay observations already known for existent processes. Just the same 'birth nonscience' that sees 'dark matter' 'talk festing' still being attempted. The great 'dark matter' debacle (resulting from a difference of two rather pretentious attempts to 'give a mass for the Universe', has seen astrophysics/astronomical committees struggle to do something POSITIVE. AS per any committee the action has been to produce LANGUAGE and so the 'solution' is to concoct a name for 'non-planets', the "Pluton" and this was 'heralded' as a 'new discovery' until people realised what was actually done, NOTHING.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
ben wrote, It has done all those things in spite of government intervention.
Yep. Government interves little in the market in Somalia, and capitalism is flourishing there.
The HDI is based on life expectancy, education and GDP and is considered a standard measure of quality of life.
Fine enough. I lived in Canada while it was #1 and couldn't see any practical difference between there and the US, except maybe the higher prices for food and fuel, and the longer waits for medical treatment. There's really no significant difference of HDI between the top 10 as far as I can see, at best the difference is subjective.
Can you comment on the subject matter of the post or did you just drop by to demonstrate the quality of the thinking that is typical of the world of the 'don't worry be happy economists'?
Nope, can't comment too much on that, haven't seen the movie and do not plan to. Al Gore? Blech.
Yep. Government interves little in the market in Somalia, and capitalism is flourishing there.
Capitalism without the rule of law is nothing. And especially in a backward place like that. They have no hope without outside government intervention, and they ain't gonna get it any time soon. They are their own problem. And all internal government intervention in the world will not make any difference.
If you look at the countries with the highest indexes of economic freedom, you will see the countries with the highest per capita incomes. Somalia has a low index of economic freedom. Bad choice for your argument, such as it is.
Hi Ben, you appear not to be someone living without health insurance in the US, which is one major HDI difference between Canada and the US, the crime rate being another. Remember, crime is the ultimate capitalists career, small investment, high risk, large reward.
I agree (speaking as a Brit who emigrated to the US 7 years ago), but with qualification.
For a middle class professional, at least, the standard of living is, at least here in Oregon, vastly higher than anywhere in the UK. I would put that down to lower taxation and less regulation, which allows markets to run wild in reducing cost of goods.
However, I don't know that that applies as an average; the worst off in the US are much worse off than their counterparts in the UK, for much the same reason.
To be honest, I don't know that it's actually a meaningful question to ask which is "better". It depends on to exactly what you're referring.
"Rule of law" is the application of government violence to enforce legislated rules of conduct. It is an exterme form of "government intervention". Hence, you are not averse to government intervention per se. It is just that you like some types of intervention, and dislike others.
Please explain what is it separates Good Intervention from Bad Intrevention.
Hi Ben, you appear not to be someone living without health insurance in the US, which is one major HDI difference between Canada and the US
I used to be without when I was a kid. A broken nose with complications saddled my mom with a $10k debt. The service was still better.
I'm totally on board with what Millimeter Wave said. Oregon is my home state, BTW, but I live in Washington now.
Good point Sortition. I'm for government intervention for, say, the obvious crimes such as theft, murder, etc. I'm not an anti-government libertarian wack-job. But I do worry when the .gov takes over too much and throws their weight around more than it should. Our BATF and DEA come to mind. And nobody ever claims that the government ever does anything efficiently, nor even fairly. I'm scared of that, and so the less of it the better, which simply means less government. This would get pretty long, so I'll cap it at that, vague as it is.
George Mason, eh? Let's not forget Wegman.
What annoys me is simply how he says "Capitalism produces". No, its people and their machines that produce. He makes it sound like capitalism is a real physical entity that does work for people.
"Yeah, because most people, unlike Boudreaux, are unaware that they have to pay money for food and that money help pays the farmers to grow stuff. What Boudreaux seems unaware of when he wrote that "Capitalism produces so much food" is that the food production depends on an benign climate and a balanced ecosystem. Capitalism won't be producing so much food if crops are destroyed by droughts or storms or plagues of insects."
But Tim, provided government plays its appropriately restricted role of protecting property rights and food prices are allowed to rise high enough some consuemrs "exit the market" resulting in a return ot a supply-demand equilibrium.
It worked a treat in 19th century Ireland.
Somehow help me out, which Orwell essay was it in which he talked about how the British ruling class in the 1930's unable to face up to the dual threats of the depression at home and totalitarianism abroad "retreated into stupidity"?
Ben: "take out our inner cities, which are a byproduct of feel-good leftist government welfarestate intervention"
Yes because there were no crime-ridden poverty-stricken inner cities in America before the 1960's.
I'm alss curious as to why the 19th century US is held up as a model of "non-interventionist" government. But then enforcing slavery laws; imposing massive import tariffs; killing millions of Inbdians; shooting strikers and stealing half of Mexico was intervention in the interests of the rich.
Ben: I lived in Canada while it was #1 and couldn't see any practical difference between there and the US, except maybe the higher prices for food and fuel, and the longer waits for medical treatment. There's really no significant difference of HDI between the top 10 as far as I can see, at best the difference is subjective.
So you admit the US system which you claim is superior doesn't actually result in any significantly better outcomes?
Considering that the US didn't get the crap bombed out of it twice within living memory like most of Europe and that the US was largely self-suffiicent in oil until relatively recently (not to mention the larger land mass per person) that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the US system.
BTW Ben did you know that the faster US GDP growth over the past decade relative to Euroep is almost entirely due to higher population growth (darn those illegal immigrants). US productivity growth per capita is only middling by European standards.
I wonder why people who defend unrestricted capitalism always sound like people who have plenty of money, health insurance and an existing, good lifestyle, and not like people who have to choose between paying for food or getting their prescription drugs?
I wonder why people who defend unrestricted capitalism always sound like people who have plenty of money, health insurance and an existing, good lifestyle, and not like people who have to choose between paying for food or getting their prescription drugs?
Because we're not whiners. I am a graduate student in Aerospace Engineering and I make a pittance. I make $1700/mo and my rent is $1300/mo. Add to that health insurance for my wife and kids at $150/mo and we're pretty strapped. However, I will graduate some day and do pretty well, thanks to the capitalist system. The less I have to pay in taxes for wasteful government programs at that time, the better.
Ben, I don't think I understand your response. Are you saying that you have to choose between buying food or buying your prescriptions?
If you get health insurance for your wife and kids for $150 a month, it is subsidized. I pay about three times that for myself alone. So, as I see it, you have no reason to complain. While you may be in training (grad student, no less), you are a member of the privileged part of society that unrestrained capitalism serves quite well. I, too, am a member of that part of society. I make a damn good living and can afford my health insurance. But I also see that others don't do quite as well. Perhaps one day you can learn to see life from someone else's perspective, maybe someone not as fortunate as yourself. Or perhaps you will live in a gated community.
Perhaps one day you can learn to see life from someone else's perspective, maybe someone not as fortunate as yourself. Or perhaps you will live in a gated community.
ARgh! Obviously you did not read far enough above, or maybe I didn't make myself clear. I grew up with a single mom who went to school and made $4.0/hr supporting two kids. We had no health insurance. We lived in a dump that leaked when it rained so we had to put pots and pans out to catch the drips. When my nose was broken, I got excellent treatment and my mom got a big debt.
On the other hand, we eventually moved into subsidized housing. The buildings were far nicer, but about half of the people who lived there were scum. I have no love for them, and money spent on them is wasted.
In any case, take your smug BS and stuff it. Been there, done that, not fun. Fortunately, nearly anyone willing to work hard enough and who avoids the pitfalls of having children when they are poor etc, will do just fine in this country.
So your family benefited from welfare and now you would deny it to others?
Ben's sister interjecting here. I am a grad student, like Ben, with "cheap" health insurance. It's not subsidized. The out-of-pocket payment of $150 is the extra we pay for having additional people on our insurance, and doesn't reflect the other $300-400 that covers the main policy. I'm not sure how Ben's department does the numbers, but in my case, it's counted as income from the assistantship, and I pay taxes on it at the end of the year.
Mom actually held two jobs while she raised us and got her college degree. She had that opportunity, just as the vast majority of Americans do, and she sacrificed to make the most of it. The scum Ben refers to who also lived in our low-income housing decided that work was beneath them, and used their government checks to buy drugs and produce a lot of fatherless children.
Ben, I apologize for getting personal. Let me get back to a more general point. People who climb out of poverty in the US are not benefiting from unrestrained capitalism. In the first place, capitalism in the US is restrained and has been for about a century. Remember Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster? Remember from history how the conditions of labor were not just harsh but deadly? Remember from history how big companies hid their knowlege that mercury was a deadly toxin in the workplace? Remember how some auto company executives made a conscious decision to sell vehicles they knew were subject to deadly faults because it was cheaper to settle suits than to fix the problems? Remember from the headlines how government officials take high positions in government constractors businesses as payoffs for directing contracts? There are countless stories of how unrestrained capitalism works, and not many are of them are pretty.
In fact, most people who climb out of poverty in this country do so in large part because the government provides so many avenues, like free public education. Like state universities. Like research and teaching assistantships. And, even if capitalism plays a bigger part than I admit, you simply cannot say that people in other countries with much more of a welfare state than the US cannot climb out of poverty just as well.
The fact that some welfare recipients are bums doesn't change any of this.
Despite all their "expert" talk about capitalism, it's just that: talk. Economists like Bourdeaux are not capitalists. The fact is, they don't produce anything -- other than a lot of hot air, which just adds to global warming.
The people who become economists are usually the ones who could not hack the math required to be scientists or engineers.
"Not that I've seen anything like this seriously proposed"
Really? You haven't read A Blueprint for Survival yet?
http://www.theecologist.info/key27.html
Yes, it does talk about global warming as a justification.
" the worst off in the US are much worse off than their counterparts in the UK, for much the same reason."
Difficult to prove that. The EPI's "State of Wroking America: , latest version, chapter 8.
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/swa06_ch08_international.pdf
Nice graph in there showing the incomes of the poorest decile AFTER tax and benefits taken into account (so the US figures include EITC, Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers, all the things normally left out of calculations of the US poverty rate). Covers selected EU countries and America. Their purpose is to show how much more inegalitarian the distribution of incomes in the US is than Europe (which, of course, it is).
They measure those incomes of the deciles as a % ge of US median income. So, another way of reading it is to look at the absolute incomes of the poor in the various countries.
Amazingly, the absolute incomes of the poorest decile in, say, Finland, are just about the same as those of the poorest decile in the US.
(Apologies for any minor errors above, this is from memory.)
So to say that the worse off in the US are much worse off than the poor in Finland would not be true, using absolute figures. Only if one were to use relative positions within each country. Apologies again as I don't recall whether that holds true for the UK as well.
Perhaps Dr. Wegman can help him out, since they're on the same campus?
A bit harsh on economists - after all, some of the best ones actually were engineers to start with, contra JB :) Of course, my dad (meteorologist) thought engineers were idiots, so maybe that's not such a good thing.
To try to answer mndean's questions:
a) Many economists are sceptical about limits to economic growth arguments (because they're usually wrong due to a failure to take account of innovation, which is often assisted by market systems). Some economists (like some scientists) are also probably trotted out for political purposes, and these are the ones mndean is probably most likely to hear about/be upset by/remember/think 'oh no not another bloody economist' about;
b) someone has to talk about policy responses, and economists are good at this (no, really!). We'd probably like to stick to not commenting on the science, but this is hard to do since the appropriate policy depends critically on the science.
On the flip side, scientists from time to time make policy suggestions that would simply not work, and of which they have made little study. And there is potentially a case to be made that AGW is happening and we shouldn't try to stop it, but it is certainly not that stopping GW necessarily requires the destruction of capitalism. Weird.
"In any case, take your smug BS and stuff it. Been there, done that, not fun. Fortunately, nearly anyone willing to work hard enough and who avoids the pitfalls of having children when they are poor etc, will do just fine in this country."
Or lose their job/have their businrss go bankrupt;
Or have a family member suffer from a long-running medical condition notcovered by their insurance;
et cetera.
Despite all their "expert" talk about capitalism, it's just that: talk. Economists like Bourdeaux are not capitalists. The fact is, they don't produce anything -- other than a lot of hot air, which just adds to global warming.
The people who become economists are usually the ones who could not hack the math required to be scientists or engineers. - JB
Bourdeaux does nto speak for all or even a majority of economists.
Besides you could argue he's meeting the market demand for comforting bullshit about the innate superiority of American capitalism and the innate eveil of government.
As to your comments about maths - have you ever studied economics beyong the first year University level?
In particular are you familiar with the Black-Scholes-Morton formula; CGE econometric models or multi-variate analyis?
The US does not have a free market or capitalism - except that Americans conveniently define capitalism to be whatever is currently being done in the US (and by the US). What exists is corporatism, or corporate welfarism, where taxpayers support various industries based upon the industry's political clout. The corporations are the New Communists, with the CEOs and their political lackeys (Reb and Dem) the new Politbureau.
I am a Canadian who lived in the US for 8 years, and would not (willingly) go back. Yes, taxes are higher, but you get what you pay for. [I say willigly, because every so often we are foolish enough to elect a "pro-free-market" Prime Minister who sacrifices the Canadian economy to curry favour with the US. Brian Mulroney was the last; now we have Harper. Fortunately, Harper has a minority government - we learned something from the last hosing - so he can't do as much damage.) Many great people in the US, but not a free market or country, and on the verge of implosion due to internal contradictions and hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the Yanks will probably take us down with them.
Ben's sister Sarah sez:
"I'm not sure how Ben's department does the numbers, but in my case, it [$300+ month health insurance premium] is counted as income from the assistantship, and I pay taxes on it at the end of the year."
If you're employed, your health benefits aren't taxed.
If you're a contractor, your health insurance premiums are fully deductible (a relatively recent change, and one of the few good things that's come out of the Bush Republican control of Congress + the Executive).
In either case, your health insurance is subsidized due to its not being taxed.
Capitalism produces so much food that we are never malnourished; it produces ample clothing and sturdy homes to protect us from the elements;
Because gawd knows that before the introduction of capitalism, in and about the 16th century, we were all starving, naked and homeless.
As for economists and math... economists use exceptionally detailed math to substitute for knowledge. They are ususally pretty good at the math, it's just that the assumptions and axioms that the math is based on is voodoo.
After acknowledging that you strongly support some types of government activity you revert to the "the less government the better" slogan.
Why is the protection of a rich man's property so obviously a positive government activity but the dispensing of medical services to the poor so obviously a negative one?
In either case, your health insurance is subsidized due to its not being taxed.
One of the sillier notions I've read recently.
I am a Canadian who lived in the US for 8 years, and would not (willingly) go back.
I'm an American who lived in Canada for 14 years, and I'll never willingly go back there either. Works out pretty well, doesn't it?
So Ben will not return to Canada, finally some good news for us Canucks.
Ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben, ben......BEN.
You are joking, aren't you?
About everything, right?
"Surely it would be more productive for Boudreaux to consider Gore's actual proposals instead of erecting a straw man?"
Oh, that depends what he's producing.
"...oppose the measures that destroy capitalism and return us to a pre-industrial society. (Not that I've seen anything like this seriously proposed.)"
Look no further, Tim Lambert.
(via peakenergy at blogspot)
But there are way more "priests" than (false) "prophets" in the world, happily. And prophet-style thinking is not something the far left has a monopoly on. Indeed, when "technology and capitalism will save us" is used as an argument against actually putting technology and capitalism to use towards our goals, the path of reason has been left in favour of the path of prophecy.
As usual, the arguments of Don Boudreaux and Ben and their ilk can be dismissed because they fail to naote that the wealth of the developed countries (DCs) has largely been co-opted by resources from less developed countries (LDCs). There isn't a single country in the developed world which does finance mass overconsumption by promoting trade that enables them to reach beyond their borders and plunder the resources of LDCs. This explains the rush by DCs to promote 'free trade' and 'neoliberal reforms' which are effectively means to enable the resource deficit DCs to loot the resource wealth of LDCs even more effectively. In other words, what we are seeing is 'socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor'. Its all laid out quite clearly in Ecofootprinting analyses and by Tom Athanasiou in his still relevant 1996 book, "Divided Planet - The Ecology of Rich and Poor".
Basically, the premise of Ben's arguments is simple. Downplay or even ignore the role of the natural economy in sustaining overconsumption in the DCs, because he doesn't understand it. The short-term condition of the material economy is the only measure the cornucopians can fathom. Human overshoot is shown empirically in declining groundwater levels, the loss of deep, rich agricultural soils and (most worryingly) in the current mass extinction event, whereby species and genetically distinct populations are being lost at hundreds, and perhaps thousands of times higher than natural (background) rates. Biodiversity represents the working parts of our global ecological life-support systems, and thus the services it helps to generate over variable spatio-temporal scales permit humans to exist and persist. This is hardly controversial, except among those who somehow believe that Homo sapiens is exempt from the laws of nature. Sadly, that appears to include Ben and many others who are profiting from the short-term rapacious plundering of the planet. These people have the wealth and power to continue to drive humanity towars the edge, and seem to enjoy doing it with great gusto. Unfortuneately, the debt will have to be repaid, and the costs for humanity could be stupendous, when nature, as it certainly will, 'bites back'. When that happens, we all lose.
Ben's argument is one I have had to deal with ad nauseum for years and is still ignored by those whose understanding of the link between human welfare and the health of the biosphere is poor or non-existent. I find it frustrating to have to repeat the obvious time, and time, and time again, only for the same gobbledegook arguments to re-emerge. The linear optimists ignore the myriad of signs that clearly show that we are living with a growing ecological deficit. There is plenty of evidence all around us, but they clearly don't 'get it'. Obvious sources are the World Bank-UNEP created "Living Planet Index", which has declined by about 35-40% since 1970. It was created using the health of coastal marine, freshwater and forest ecosystems (the three that are critical in supplying umanity with resources) as a measure of human effects on the biosphere. Ecofootprinting analyses, pioneered by the likes of William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel, provide concrete proof that the per capita footprints of Americans, Europeans and Japanese far exceeds the internal land masses in which their citizens live. The deficit can only be met, as I said earlier, by promoting uneven forms of trade that enable our corporations to grab the resources from LDCs (or to other forms of coercion - e.g. military force). It is also important that many DCs support top-down governments in LDCs, simply because these ensure that the resurces remain in the 'proper hands' (e.g. western investors). There is no real interest in true 'democratic reform' in LDCs amongst DCs, in spite of the rhetoric coming out of Washington and London. Why not? Because true democracy in LDCs would invariably lead to governments that wish to use their own resources to benefit all sectors of their own populations, which conflicts with the interests of western investors and corporations. Again, this should be hardly controversial, if one reads declassified planning documents. I have read a number from the US and UK, and none speak of advocating 'human rights' or democracy' in LDC, but of concern that 'nationalism in LDCs would conflict with the business interests of western corporations' and would negatively affect wealth 'repatriation'.
Uncle!
Don,
Despite how most companies may define it, my health insurance benefits are taxed. The graduate assistantship counts the funds I get for health insurance as income. The university pays me that $300/month, and then deducts it from my salary to cover the insurance premium. Those $$$ show up in Box 1 on my W-2. If it ain't supposed to be that way, then the .gov owes me some money.
Sarah, it sounds like the school is not considering you an employee or an independent contractor. Is the insurance simply a policy offered to all students? In that case, I could see where it would be taxed.
The simple reason a lot of economists think the way Boudreaux does is that economic theory, as it is practiced in our universities, is based on equilibrium pricing and does not take any medium or long-term effects into account. In other words, it tells us that any increase in current consumption is good and any decrease is bad. And screw the future.
That's in effect what we are doing when we deny global warming or just say we won't do anything about it. We are pushing the consequences onto our children and our childern's children so that we don't have to take any hits to our lifestyles today.
Future generations will curse us for our selfishness, and they'll be right.
Sounds like you're being screwed by the capitalists who run your school, then. Too bad. Perhaps a little government regulation could force them to organize their health care benefits in a tax-deductible fashion the way most companies (and universities) do it?
"Because gawd knows that before the introduction of capitalism, in and about the 16th century, we were all starving, naked and homeless."
Well, compared to now of course, we were. 16 th century Europe had a standard of living approximately equal to that of many in sub-saharan Africa now. $600 or so per capita per year (in current $). Looks like something's changed over that period of time and it could in fact be capitalism as Boudreaux (and, in fact, even Marx, amongst other economists) notes.
I must have missed the point of economic theory that holds that externalizing massive costs (such as the cost of carbon emissions) is conducive to the efficient use of resources.
BTW: George Mason University has sought to make its reputation in the economics world by developing a department based on the free-market views of Austrians like F. von Hayek.
Do any mainstream economists get it? Read this:
"Free markets" is a very general term. There are all sorts of problems that will emerge. Free markets work best when the transaction between two individuals affects only those individuals. But that isn't the fact. The fact is that, most often, a transaction between you and me affects a third party. That is the source of all problems for government. That is the source of all pollution problems, of the inequality problem. There are some good economists like Gary Becker and Bob Lucas who are working on these issues.
That's a quote from Milton Friedman, in the New Perspectives Quarterly, Spring 2006.
Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate libertarian economist.
Austrlains readign this will doubtless recall the term "economic rationalism". Economic rationalism was the Australian version of Reaganism or THatcherism.
It got ditched when John Howard realised it threatened his chances at re-election, replaced by an endless stream of middle-class welfare and corproate hand-outs financed by the reveneu boom from Chinese economic boom and the resulting commodity boom.
Economic rationalism, based as it was on simplistic models of "Homo Economicus" that real economist abandoned twenty years ago and a Manichaean view of the world as a struggle between the virtuous frces of corporations and the evil of government, was never particularly rational and never had much to do with actual economics - even though some of its leading lights were, in fact, economists by training.
People like Boudreaux, like the economic rationalists, are simply usign economics - or rather a sad parody of econoics - as a justification for their prejudices and political biases.
The really sad thing is that those who oppose them are largely buying into their version of economics.
Sarah wrote:
Your university doesn't consider you to be an employee but rather a trainee, so they consider your graduate assistantship money to be a stipend. So your health benefits are taxable and the university reports it on your W-2. It's not that way at all universities. For example, at my institution, the TA's and RA's forced the administration (after a long fight) to classify them as employees. There is still debate over whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but one of the results is that general labor law covers them and their health benefits are excluded from taxable income. Whether it's "supposed to be that way" depends on you.
I'll add that I found it interesting that your initial reaction was "the .gov owes me some money" rather than thinking that it was something for which either you or your university were responsible.
If you are a trainee then your stipend is not subject to payroll taxes. That has both good and bad points, but it is about 8.5% less out of your check. Of course, if they are deducting it, you have an issue. There is an IRS bulletin on this. Win some, lose some
"and the definitions used in measuring infant mortality are different between the US and Canada/Europe/Japan anyway, so it's not an apples to apples comparison."
"I'm afraid your baby's dead, sir."\
"No he isn't!"
"Capitalism without the rule of law is nothing."
I.e., you support government intervention.
"I make $1700/mo and my rent is $1300/mo. Add to that health insurance for my wife and kids at $150/mo and we're pretty strapped."
Somethng don't add up. For one thing, healthcare costs in the US are running at $500 per month per capita these days, so if you're covering your family for $150 a month, somebody's subsidizing Mr. Free Market Capitalist.
" I grew up with a single mom who went to school and made $4.0/hr supporting two kids. We had no health insurance. We lived in a dump that leaked when it rained so we had to put pots and pans out to catch the drips. When my nose was broken, I got excellent treatment and my mom got a big debt. "
If this is the argument in favor of free market capitalism, I am stumped as to what I could add as an argument against it.
"In any case, take your smug BS and stuff it. Been there, done that, not fun. Fortunately, nearly anyone willing to work hard enough and who avoids the pitfalls of having children when they are poor etc, will do just fine in this country. "
Right..... nobody in this country ever lives a horrible life because of poor luck, they all deserve it because they are "scum". You, of course, have succeeded, because you are not scum. Congrats.
"The scum Ben refers to who also lived in our low-income housing decided that work was beneath them, and used their government checks to buy drugs and produce a lot of fatherless children. "
Not unlike many of the wealthiest people in America.
Ben wrote:
Well, it's true that infant mortality measurements differ a little, but only a little. If you look at birthweight-specific perinatal mortality rates then the US looks much better, but the problem is that we have a disproportionately large number of low weight births (even though American women aren't, on average, particularly low weight themselves). And, since low birthweight is closely tied to prenatal care and poverty, it's not a particularly good sign. Nonetheless, if you look at perinatal mortality rather than infant mortality, the US moves from near the bottom of the OECD countries to about one-third of the way up from the bottom. Woo hoo.
"if you look at perinatal mortality rather than infant mortality, the US moves from near the bottom of the OECD countries to about one-third of the way up from the bottom. Woo hoo."
Further proof that the free market is capable of deliver to the citizens of the richest and msot advanced country in the world a standard of medical services easily comparable to that of Cuba or Greece - and at only double the cost. (As a percentage of GDP, US health costs are around 50% higher than the OECD average but compare the dollar amounts spent in the US on health with the amounts spent in less wealthy countries which achieve simialr health outcomes and the discrepancy is more like double.)
Ian Gould wrote:
I don't think double is quite right. And, as long as we're at it...
You're right - it's more like about quadruple.
"Nonetheless, if you look at perinatal mortality rather than infant mortality, the US moves from near the bottom of the OECD countries to about one-third of the way up from the bottom. "
It's not just perinatal and/or infant, US care by life expectancy, death rate, etc. is worse than average all the way up to about 70. And it's pretty monotonic; i.e., you're much worse off getting care in the US as a baby, then it gets better as you age until after age 70, the US system begins to kick into gear. Given the profit margin of for-profit heart transplants versus that of prenatal vitamins, etc. no surprise. Same tendency for MDs to go for the glory specialties like cardia surgery, rather than GP or pediatrician.
Of course, this is after eliminating deaths from violence (although not that many infants get shot in a drug deal), and recognizing that the US is much better than average in not smoking, lower chronic alcoholism, etc. And of course, the usual gripe that this is all due to the impoverished inner cities 1) misses the point and 2) sounds odd, coming from the exact same folks who are telling us how much better off Americans are economically.
Well you have to remember that "inner cities" is code for "the blacks".
Because there are no economically disadvantaged, socially disaffected ethnic minorities in other countries - just look at Algerians in France or the Pakistanis in England.
z wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not sure this is so. The point above that birthweight-specific perinatal mortality is lower in the US is a story about intensification of care: rather than spend relatively small amounts of money on pre-natal care to prevent low weight births, we spend ginormous amounts to treat 1200g babies once they're born (and we've become very good at saving them, too). Basically, in the US we tilt toward a pound of cure instead of an ounce of prevention. And I'm also not sure about the age-schedule of care. It's true that we observe an old age crossover in life expectancy in the US compared to many other developed countries (that is, that for most ages, US life expectancy is lower but then after about age 80 life expectancy crosses over and is higher than in other developed countries); however, I don't think that anyone seriously attributes that to higher-quality medical care in the US.
Ben wrote, Because we're not whiners. I am a graduate student in Aerospace Engineering and I make a pittance. ... However, I will graduate some day and do pretty well, thanks to the capitalist system. The less I have to pay in taxes for wasteful government programs at that time, the better.
LOL! Wasteful government programs, like military spending which just so happens to dump lots of money on the aerospace industry?
Ben said, "I am a graduate student in Aerospace Engineering and I make a pittance. ... However, I will graduate some day and do pretty well, thanks to the capitalist system. The less I have to pay in taxes for wasteful government programs at that time, the better".
This is pure and utter drivel. I pretty much demolished it before, but Ben clearly couldn't understand what I was saying. This kind of statement belies a complete inability to understand links between the material and natural economies. To be fair, the linear optimists (the neocalissical economics crowd from which Ben seems to have gleaned his nonsense) don't get it either - they like to believe in a metaphorical tooth fairy, and think that resources are infinite. Once this silly belief is undermined, they then switch to tactic number two: unlimited substitutability. This predicts that we can infinitely switch to alternatives once a specified resource is depleted (doesn't work for water, though, and there are limits to 'switching'; see a discussion in Czech, 2000). Then finally, the cornucopians end up with the third stalwart of their unbridled faith in market capitalism: human ingenuity. Thus, they argue, that once we approach theroretical limits, human wisdom will intervene and forever increase human carrying capacity.
This is pure and utter nonsense, fantasy, but hardly surprising coming from someone doing a graduate degree in Aerospace Engineering. Ben, what on Earth do you understand about the natural economy which unperpins human welfare and the material economy? Nix? Or almost nix? You are living is a fragile glass house.
One day I'll have sufficient words to describe my pleasure at reading Jeff Harvey's comments.
I should, however, state that poor addled Ben is a Husky and I should stick up for a fellow Husky. But after reading his ridiculous comments I'll have to let him stand on his rugged individualist own and fend for himself, just like his arguments imply should happen to everyone else.
Best,
D
Wow, we sure kicked the crap out of THAT straw man - and yet I doubt the several thousand words above has changed anyone's mind one whit.
Ben said: "I am a graduate student in Aerospace Engineering and I make a pittance. ... However, I will graduate some day and do pretty well, thanks to the capitalist system. The less I have to pay in taxes for wasteful government programs at that time, the better".
To add to liberal's comment: Ben, if you are going into Aerospace Engineering, you will spend the rest of your working life suckling at the government teat.
The entire aerospace industry is supported by government subsidy and government contracts. If the capitalist system had anything to say about it, you wouldn't be getting a job in aerospace - heck, there'd barely BE an aerospace industry.
And you complain about "wasteful government programs?". Subsidies to the aerospace industry, all that contracts to Bae, Northrop Grumman and Boeing - there's a wasteful government program.
Won't be no aerospace jobs either. A sinking ship if there ever was one.
Shinobi, it could be argued that the Capitalist System needs the aerospace industry to protect its interests, so my fellow Husky could, conceviably, be correct in thanking the Capitalist System for his teat to ruggedly and individually suck on.
Best,
D
Energizer bunny alert!
Dano,
fair enough - but that would require a viewpoint of the business world and government as part of an overall connected system, much like (to go back to the original topic) humanity and this planet are, rather than adversaries. However, such views are often hard to square with a desire to feel rugged and individual.
Interesting Shinobi. Hmmm. I'd have to trot out Halliburton, KBR, Boeing, McDonnell-D, et al though.
A person wishing to believe they are rugged and individual isn't necessarily an unsupportable counterpoint to the fact of the existence of a military-industrial complex.
Best,
D
Dano,
Let me return the compliment. If it weren't for the common sense of your comments, and others like Ian Gould on this and other threads, I'd have thrown in the towel a long, long time ago. It would be gratifying if writers like Ben would think beyond the simple, uni-dimensional verbiage they have gleaned from mainstream media and television. In my job I have learned that the material economy is underpinned by the natural economy. The empirical evidence for this is overwhelming. We've moved beyond the point where humanity can consider itself exempt from nature's laws. But the sad thing for me is that there are still powerful, vested interests out there who are determined to maintain the status quo, in spite of the obvious consequences. They are mangling science to promote a pre-determined worldview, and have unlimited money at their disposal to ensure that humanity and nature remain on a collision course. Although my research is based on population ecology, I believe that it is the responsibility of those with the relevant scientific background to stand up and counter those who are sending our planet to hell in a handbasket.
To be fair, people like Ben are not unusual in believing in the gospel of neoclassical economics. We are drip fed the kinds of myths inherent in the arguments espoused in neoclassical theory from day one: limitless resources, the potential of switching to other resources, and human ingenuity. I encounter these kinds of arguments on a daily basis, and a look of incomprehension often greets me when I dare suggest that humanity - at least in the developed world - is financing a huge ecological deficit that will one day have to be paid. I have provided ample sources of evidence of this in earlier posts, and the scientific literature is replete with examples.
Economist Tom Athansiou, in his groundbreaking (and still relevant) 1996 book, "Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor", summed up the fate that awaits humanity as it embraces a rapacious, global capitalist system. With much evidence, he argues that communism was a compeltely bankrupt political system that was driven into the ground by market-based capitalism. But he warns that, whereas communism has gone done the drain, that unrestrained capitalism is now in the water swirling above the plug. He states that the current system will endure the same fate, unless it is capable of accounting for the natural economy and aims at providing justice and security for everyone on the planet. Sadly, Athansiou sees something quite different: a neoliberal economic approach that is aimed at concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands, at the expense of most of humanity. To this end, he predicts that the consequences will be severe. Brian Czech makes a similar point in his equally excellent critique of our obsession with economic growth in his 2000 book, "Shovelling Fuel for a Runaway Train".
Jeff:
We are drip fed the kinds of myths inherent in the arguments espoused in neoclassical theory from day one: limitless resources, the potential of switching to other resources, and human ingenuity.
Yes.
These sound real purty and IMHO are preferable (for many) to having to restrain oneself.
Paul Ehrlich calls the things you enumerate above intractable parts of the human condition, and are in fact contributors to the considerable momentum that societies have. It takes a long time to change the direction of the ship, and the Cornucopians are, simply, currents against which we must steer - the currents are always there and won't go away, so we must always paddle.
Best,
D
Jeff, I think you should reconsider your frantic jargon peddling. I haven't read those books, nor do I plan to. How about you demonstrate some understanding and condense your argument for us laypersons? Turgid, apparently multi-dimensional, verbiage notwithstanding.
Ben. let me provide one simple example of what Jeff's talking about.
Stricter emission levels for cars in the 70's and 80's significntly improved air quality in most western countries.
So much so that urban air quality was regarded as more or less "solved".
But with continued economic growth and increasing populations the number of cars has increased to the point where air pollution levels are rising again.
More to the point, if we assume constant economic growth and constant population growth into the indefinite future, then it doesn't matter how much we reduce the emission levels per car - sooner or later we'll end up with unacceptable levels of air pollution as we increase the number of cars.
So we either need to produce true zero-emission cars or we need to change the nature of economic growth and/or stop population growth.
Now that's better. Thanks Ian.
Ian,
Your example illustrates a point, which is that while well-meaning regulation sometimes achieves the intended goal in the short-term, it almost always produces the opposite results in the long-term.
Human nature is such that people are only motivated to change their habits when there is a perceived crisis. Sure, emissions restrictions in the '70s and '80s temporarily improved air quality, but all it did in the long-term was stave off a bigger crisis that would have compelled people to permanently change their habits for the better. Now, thirty years later, we're heading in a direction that's worse than before. No one can say for certain, but sans regulation I suspect that most of us by now would be relying on something environmentally sound like hybrid cars, or perhaps something much superior, if it hadn't been for interventionism.
Sarah, would you mind providing something, oh, concrete to back your assertions? Something unrelated to unintended consequences, unless you've developed, in your uni studies, some algorithm or mechanism that can obviate unintended consequences.
And can you discuss the oh-so-compelling economic (capital) benefits derived from your example, and why these realized bennies are insufficient to stave off a bigger crisis that would have compelled people to permanently change their habits for the better ?
Thank you in advance.
D
Sarah, I think you are mistaken. There was a conscious decision in the US, as indicated by the election of Ronald Reagan, to pretend that natural resources are infinite. Government regulations did not encourage people to make this choice. Rather, the choice allowed the government to essentially stop regulations like CAFE from increasing fuel economy. I could buy a 30-mpg car nearly 40 years ago, and today car companies brag about a car the gets 30 mpg. Of course there are some that get better - much better in some cases - but US car makers generally do not make them. Air pollution is just one of the many wonderful side benefits of a government that has no energy policy other than the help oil companies. If this is a free market, I think it is safe to say that free markets are blind and incapable of conceiving of a future that is not a linear extrapolation of the present. (But with faster cars.)
So Sarah,
Can you explain why centuries of plague and massive deaths fro mwater-borne diseases didn't produce a voluntary free market solution to London's contaminated water supply but government action in the 1830's fixed the problem in a couple of years?
While we're talking about London you might also want to explain why the government response to the Great Smog of 1956 radically improved air quality after about a century and a half of conssitent deterioration?
BTW, can I assume you think we should legalise murder in order to encourage people to develop a pro-active strategy for their own defence and stop sponing off the government?
Oooh! Good 'un Ian.
I wonder why th' Murrican air pollution regalayshun is actually cost-effective, rather than having the opposite results in the long term. Maybe we just have to wait a little longer for the collapse!
Shucky darns! There goes another ideological paradigm. So sad, too.
Best,
D
hmmm...
Linky.
[i]A person wishing to believe they are rugged and individual isn't necessarily an unsupportable counterpoint to the fact of the existence of a military-industrial complex.[/i]
Well, in the general sense, you are correct.
However, the ability of aerospace companies and other major defence contractors to waste government money is well documented - see missile defense, any US fighter the Australian government has invested in, etc.
If Ben feels individual because he doesn't rely on government largesse, well, he certainly will be once he enters the aerospace industry. Even though I live in Australia, considering the amount the Australian government pays to US aircraft developers it is still possible that my taxes will pay his salary.
Certainly, if he feels individual and rugged because he goes to montana every weekend to wrestle bears, then fair enough.
In response to your earlier point - that capitalism needs a strong military to protect its interests - I would argue that most, if not all, government services could be argued for in the same way. Government-funded hospitals and medical research protect the labour pool from epidemics in a way that private enterprise could not. Government-funded police ensure that contracts are not reneged on by a physically stronger party; that people do not steal what they would otherwise have to buy. Government-funded education prevents shortages of skilled workers. If one waste of government money (aerospace) serves capitalism, why it and not all the other wastes of government money?
If Ben feels individual because he doesn't rely on government largesse...
Not really, it is almost impossible to avoid.
Certainly, if he feels individual and rugged because he goes to montana every weekend to wrestle bears, then fair enough.
Heh! Bears? Nah. Maybe elk if I could afford it. I'll have to settle for the home grown variety here in Washington.
Government-funded police ensure that contracts are not reneged on by a physically stronger party
True.
Government-funded hospitals and medical research protect the labour pool from epidemics in a way that private enterprise could not.
Sorta true.
Anyway, I used to be a full blown libertarian. I figured income tax was a disaster. I've changed my mind though. I am for a flat tax, as that would eliminate much of the wasted resources that go into simply complying with the tax code. I also think taxing businesses and individuals is rediculus. The cost taxes paid by business is just passed on to the individual anyway.
Some things the government does somewhat acceptably. Other things it does not. There really needs to be an effort to streamline the .gov and to kill wastefull and/or redundant programs and so forth. That, and every politician needs at least two slaps in the face every year.
There really needs to be an effort to streamline the .gov and to kill wastefull and/or redundant programs and so forth. That, and every politician needs at least two slaps in the face every year.
Well, I'm with you on those.
Ian, I'm no scholar on the subject, but I hazard a guess that centuries of disease and contamination weren't enough motivation to produce a free-market solution to the problem in London because for centuries there was no solution. Or else the solution was untenable, because the problem was one of overdense population.
Let me in turn ask you why it is that Canada has seen per-capita greenhouse emissions increase at three times the rate of the United States, in spite of the fact that Canada is (or was) a full supporter of Kyoto and is a virtual regulation paradise compared to America?
What I'm hearing is the same argument that's been used throughout the ages against the free market. Someone's pet idea doesn't come to pass immediately, therefore the whole free market -- which is only thing that has lifted the human race out of poverty -- has to be scrapped.
If you're truly convinced there is a huge environmental catastrophe around the corner, you have to be quite clear about what's driving it. The two things that are driving it, stripped of all complexities,
are lifestyle and world population. Once you understand that, then you have to have firmly in your mind one indisputable fact about human beings, which is that human beings only actually act in truly
meaningful ways in the face of a crisis. You can waste your time arguing that people should be better than that, but it's just the way things are. We need a crisis -- a real crisis -- so that people finally realize that something has to be done and are willing to accept the discomfort of doing it. This has to be done before the world population hits the point of no return, because ultimately the earth can support only so many people. You can't sell the idea of environmental concern to China or India, because regulation would crush economic development, but these are the two most populous nations on earth and they're still growing. We have to foment a crisis before the point of no return. People who recycle, help reduce emissions, and apply regulation in this regard simply put off the crisis while the population time bomb ticks away. The sooner we have a crisis the better, because we will still be at a point where
we can adjust our lifestyles and address population control on a worldwide level.
If y'all are so wild about regulation, start where it will do the most good. Get the U.N. to promote worldwide population control, and then precipitate an environmental crisis. If you don't understand that that's how people operate, then you simply don't understand the human psyche and are dealing with some idealized version of humanity. If you really care about the environment, work on population restrictions. But be ready with a very strong program for when the environmental crisis does occur, and seize control of it.
There are two motivations for concern about the environment: 1) genuine care for the well-being of people; or 2) cover for an anti-capitalist mentality. It's obvious that folks on the far-Left, who for the last century failed in their attempts to manage the economy, have now turned their leftist urges onto managing the earth's climate. In the end, this will be just as much of a failure, but it satisfies their incredible urge to regulate other human beings, which is their true aim. However, if person is of the first kind, they understand the two forces driving the environmental problem and start controlling populations now -- this should be the U.N.'s biggest concern. They should quit trying to manage the environment directly, look ahead and understand how the crisis will occur and be prepared to take swift, decisive action when it does.
The free market system should be used as a vehicle for getting this done. Encorporate the cost of cleaning up the environment into the capitalist system. Make it work for you, by making people pay the true cost of cleaning up, and then you're in control. Unless, of course, your hatred of the free market is such that you are prevented from seeing how this could work (or you don't really care about the environment, anyway). In which case, regulate away. When your only tool is a hammer, I suppose every problem looks like a nail.
Sarah, take two strawmen and see your doctor in the morning.
"Then finally, the cornucopians end up with the third stalwart of their unbridled faith in market capitalism: human ingenuity. "
Similar to the notion that just because there is apparently no species in the universe capable of interstellar travel, with enough hard work I could certainly develop it.
"Ben. let me provide one simple example of what Jeff's talking about."
Well, based on that success, let's try this one: we are currently burning through hundreds of millions of years of carbon taken out of the CO2 in the atmosphere and thus storing vast quantities of formerly solar energy underground, over about a century. As an engineer, I assume you must have a hunch that that can't go on forever.
" The point above that birthweight-specific perinatal mortality is lower in the US is a story about intensification of care: rather than spend relatively small amounts of money on pre-natal care to prevent low weight births, we spend ginormous amounts to treat 1200g babies once they're born (and we've become very good at saving them, too). "
But old folks have lots of big expensive illnesses. And often (at least to start with) a lifetime of savings to squander on staying alive.
The JAMA study, 7/26/2000 has the US ranked 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males, 10th and 12th at age 15, 10th and 9th at age 40, 7th and 7th at
age 65, and 3rd and 3rd at age 80, so you can see the age-related pattern.
Tell me Sarah did you read my earleir comment abotu Manichaeanism?
If so did you understand it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeanism
The jey principle of Manicaheanism is the beleif that the world is divided into the forces ofl ight and the forces of evil.
You have fallne into the belief that markets are always and everywhere Good and that governemnt intervention (other than killing arabs; stopping queers from flaunting their degenerate perversions by demanding to be treated as the equals of normal peopel and protecting white people's property from the darkies) is Evil.
I'm not "pro-regulation" or "pro-market" I'm a professional economist with extensive real-world business experience as well as a decade of experience as an environmental economist working for the Queensalnd EPA precisely on the issue of how to use market forces rather than regulation to solve environmental problems. Both markets and egulation are tools, they both have positvies and negatives.
I approach social and economci problems by firstly looking for market solutiosn and then, if I can't fidn one, lookign for the minimal government intervention that will solve or reduce the problem. As opposed to your "the market will produce a solution through its mysterious magic powers and any suggestion to the contrary is an abomination" approach.
I look forward to hearing how a free enterprise solution to child prostitution and pornography would be vastly preferable to the evils of government intervention.
As to the specific example of london - in both cases, there were numerous other cities which had better approaches to both water pollution before the 1830's and air pollution before the 1950's.
But I'm sure there were plenty of ideologues ready to explain how cholera statistics for London weren't really comparable to those for Paris and hwo banning coal fires was part of an elitist environmentalist plot to freeze the poor to death in order ot reduce the global population.
Incidetally, there's no need for further global action to reduce popultion it's on track to stabilise around 2050 and may declien thereafter.
Two points, Ben first. He states, "I haven't read those books [by Tom Athanasiou and Brian Czech], nor do I plan to". Why not? They could fill in a lot of missing points in your rather uni-dimensional view of the world.
He also states, "Jeff, I think you should reconsider your frantic jargon peddling". Ben, there is no 'jargon peddling' in the following facts: declining water tables, mass extinction, rapidly declining soil fertility. This is all based on volumes of empirical data. Like most of the linear optimists, you either (a) choose to ignore it, or (b) somehow think that the consequences of human simplification of the biosphere will not somehow and at some time rebound on us. There is ample evidence that the effectiveness of critical ecosystem services - e.g. water purification, climate control, pollination, seed dispersal, nutrient cycling, pest control and others - are currently being reduced by human actions. Again, this is not jargon but fact. What do you suggest we do, in the face of potentially dire consequences?
Sarah: I actually agree with what some of your points, the rant against 'leftist ideology' notwithstanding. Population is one factor driving environmental degredation, but let's not fool ourlselves that it is the only reason. An equally important factor is per capita rates of consumption and the attendant inequity in the way that limited global resources (natural capital) are divided. The fact is that the thirty richest individuals control more wealth than the poorest 3 billion combined. A mere 15% of the world's population in the developed world controls and consumes more than 80% of the world's resources. In 1948, 'leftist' (your terminology, not mine) George Kennan, a planer in the Truman administration, stated openly that the United states 'controlled more than 50% of the planet's wealth with only 6% of its population'. He went on to say that 'our aim in the coming period should be to devise a series of relationships to maintain this disparity without threat to our national security'. In doing so, he said that the United States would have to 'abandon' notions like the the promotion of democracy and altruism, and to think in straight 'power concepts'. In 1950 Kennan was fired for his overly 'liberal views'. At least the guy was honest, unlike political leaders who espouse all kinds of lies about their desire to 'eradicate poverty' in the third world etc. They fully realize that resources are indeed finite and that 'poverty eradication' would require economies in the developed world to increase their efficiency (per unit of economic output) by more than 90%, or else to reduce per capita consumption by the same amount or more. This is never going to happen. Moreover, this completely conflicts with the avowed aim of our market capitalist society, which is forever obsessed with 'economic growth' and its concomitant twins, increased consumption and waste production.
Later, Henry Kissinger stated the obvious, when he argued that the United States should promote an active policy of depopulation of third world countries, because the United States will require their resources to maintain the kind of affluence most Americans enjoy today. Again, Kissinger may be a monster in many respects, but the guy is brutally honest. Kissinger's and Kennan's comments fit in exactly with the policies that are being pursued by elites in the developed world: deregulation, 'free trade' and other neoliberal policies. Why? Because our governments and the corporations and financial institutions to which they are beholden covet the resource wealth in less developed countries. They are using the leverage of 'free trade' policies to get access to resources and markets of third world countries. This should be hardly controversial, except for the fact that the state-corporate media apparatus is forever peddling myths about our true intent. The bottom line to all of this, in contrast with Sarah's apparent suggestion, is that it is the rich who are ravaging the biosphere, and not the poor. This is the thrust of Athanasiou's thesis and he is completely correct.
So where does this also leave Sarah's comments about leaving environmental clean up to the free market system? Considering that the vast majority of corporations are self-valorizing amoral tyrannies, is what she states even remotely possible if profits are not somehow involved? This is a major point. Moreover, Sarah appears to agree with the addled notion that the costs of environmental damage should be passed off onto society who has little choice but to accept them. In other words, externalize the costs, do not internalize them. Is this correct Sarah? Or am I misinterpreting your words?
In summary, there is nothing that its anti-capitalist in what I am saying. I speak as a scientist and as a citizen, not as someone who opposes market solutions to many problems (many more ecologically-minded economists like Geoffrey Heal avidly avow market solutions to environmental problems and I like their ideas). But it is essential that regulations are maintained, even strengthened if necessary, that local markets are protected from exploitation, and that we retain the precautionary principle in light of the potential consequences of contemporary human actions to future generations. If there was a 5% chance that a plane would crash, would any who think like Ben and Sarah here board it? Then, why is it that with a far greater risk of serious consequences of environmental destruction are many on the political right continuing to argue that 'business-as-usual' is the 'only' way forward? Is this not insanity, in light of the burgeoning empirical evidence of what humans are doing? What is most disgusting is the way in wich science is being mangled to promote the status quo through a pre-determined worldview and political agenda.
Sarah,
you failed to address the fact that you cannot provide something concrete to back your assertions.
And you didn't discuss the benefits derived from your example, and why these realized benefits are insufficient to stave off a bigger (unnamed) crisis that would have compelled people to permanently change their habits for the better.
I presume you have no answer to these basic issues.
Best,
D
you have to have firmly in your mind one indisputable fact about human beings, which is that human beings only actually act in truly meaningful ways in the face of a crisis.
What a load of cr*p. You are making our public school system look bad.
Yes, I only act around, say, women in the face of a horniness crisis. I do small acts of kindness only when there are small crises, never just cuz I wanna do something nice. I only act to feed the cats when they are in hunger crises. Acting to water the plants? Only when they wilt.
And so on.
Best,
D
Good reply Jeff. I'll think about what you've written later today. Sorry for the snark, I kinda felt under attack.
One thing though:
A mere 15% of the world's population in the developed world controls and consumes more than 80% of the world's resources.
I think that 15% of the world's population may control and consume 80% of the controlled and consumed total resources of the planet, but certainly not 80% of its total available resources. That's important. While I agree that we Americans over consume many things, just look at how fat we are, we also have the "machinery" to produce and consume.
What is it exactly that prevents the third world from making factories, running businesses, controlling resources, all that stuff that we do? On the other hand, why are we all so fat, in so many ways? There's something in there about human nature that has to be delt with somehow. How?
The reason I won't read the books is simple lack of time. I'm trying to make my way through "All the Shah's Men," a marvelous book on Iran, which also shows Truman's foreign policy to be vastly superior to Eisenhower's, at least in the middle east. It gives a great short history of Persia, and was recommended by my Iranian labmate.
I've had the book for a month and I'm half way through the third chapter. At that rate, I'll get to the books you mention in a couple years. I'm trying to frantically finish my PhD so I can get a real job and get out of my $100k debt. Fun!
"That's important. While I agree that we Americans over consume many things, just look at how fat we are, we also have the "machinery" to produce and consume.
What is it exactly that prevents the third world from making factories, running businesses, controlling resources, all that stuff that we do"
Per capita you use abotu twice as much petrol as the rest of the developed world - and if rescource consumption were linked mainly to production of manufactured goods the consumption leaders would be East Asian countries like Japan and South Korea.
what is it that keeps the developign world from makign factories et cetera?
Well for starters in most cases there was anywhere between 50 and 500 years in which the colonial powers quite consciously and deliberately destroyed the entrepeneurial class and local industry in those countries.
The classic example is India where it was simply a prison offense for India to weave cloth or make shoes - the VRtish industryt revolution was fiannced by destroying Indian manufacturing then forcing Indians to buy British goods (massive tariff walsl were impsoed to prevent them buying from third coutries.)
More recently you might want to consider the fact that the US is consuming the bulk of the rest of world's savings to finance your massive consumption binge. If the US wasn't borrowing the better part of a trillion dollars each and every year (that's prviate as well as government debt) soem of that money wmight flow to invest in the developing world.
But, hey, God obviously wants his Chosen People to have three humvees per family.
The classic example is India where it was simply a prison offense for India to weave cloth or make shoes - the VRtish industryt revolution was fiannced by destroying Indian manufacturing then forcing Indians to buy British goods (massive tariff walsl were impsoed to prevent them buying from third coutries.)
Yeah, England did that to everyone, including us here in the USA way back in the day. That's why we kicked their butts. India seems to be doing quite well these days with decent economic growth. I do recall back in the day their socialist government from whom a business had to get government permission to buy computers and make any sort of changes. Didn't help much. They shrugged that burden off and are growing quite rapidly.
More recently you might want to consider the fact that the US is consuming the bulk of the rest of world's savings to finance your massive consumption binge. If the US wasn't borrowing the better part of a trillion dollars each and every year (that's prviate as well as government debt) soem of that money wmight flow to invest in the developing world.
Huh? If we're borrowing so much money from them, then aren't they making a killing on the interest? And what exactly are we doing with that money? Burying it in the ground? Or buying their products back from them? Seems like they're getting the better end of the stick.
But, hey, God obviously wants his Chosen People to have three humvees per family.
Now that's just plain exageration. I don't think God cares much about Humvees either way. And if he did, well I certainly am not one of the chosen. We have but one car. And gas costs so much that we take the bus and ride our bikes most of the time. Hey, look at that. Capitalism solving a problem. Gas costs too much, so we're using less of it.
z wrote:
Yeah, I'm familiar with the age pattern crossover. What I'm saying is that not too many people seriously think the US medical care system has much to do with it. The most common theories have to do either with heterogeneity in frailty or age misstatement.
Ben, industry is a net borrower. households are net lenders.
The massive borrowing from the US to finance its never-ending consumption growth pushes up interest rates for industry in developing countries.
Some of the US consumption leaks over into imports - that's why you have the world's largest trade deficit.
But much of it goes on petrol exprots - and in a deal that goes back to the 1970's the gulf States plough that money back into US military exports and into dollar-denominated debt.
Why do you think the US keeps supporting those dictatorships?
I mean you wouldn't want a Saudi government that wasted its money on education and housing instead of the current wise investment of $10-12 billion a year in US weapon systems.
I would have thought the lack of health care for many would account for that pattern. At the young end no universal care for pregnant women and a chaotic situation wrt delivery, and on the other, because the people without health care have died off before reaching 80.
"What I'm saying is that not too many people seriously think the US medical care system has much to do with it. The most common theories have to do either with heterogeneity in frailty or age misstatement."
Not going to mount a big argument, but from what I read, most everybody thinks the US medical care system has much to do with it. Heterogeneity in frailty? You mean, the US has by chance acquired more than its share of sickly youth and healthy octogenerians, in a monotonic fashion? Age misstatement? Again from what I read, it runs the other way, thus accounting for all those folks in the hills of Afghanistan who live to the age of 120 by drinking yogurt, etc.
Argh, this has gone on too long! Hitler!
z wrote:
We must read different things. Eli's explanation is the one for heterogeneity in frailty: life expectancy is a conditional expectation, so (the theory sez) if the sickly die earlier then the survivors tend to be healthier than average. As for the age misstatement theory, it is that lack of cradle-to-grave universal care in the US gave an incentive for some people to misstate their age upward in order to cross an eligibility threshold. There's rock solid demographic evidence that there are "too many" centenarians in the US; the question is how far down the age scale that goes. Those are the structural theories. One the other side of the table is the "better health care in the US compared to other countries" theory, but it is undermined when one looks at disease-specific rather than age-specific care: methods of care for acute things aren't that different between the US and most other developed countries (for some things the US is slightly better, in others it's slightly worse so on average it's right about in the middle) but methods of care for chronic conditions in the US (for example, diabetes and renal disease) appear to be slightly below average. For another example, it used to be thought that interventions for ischemic heart disease (coronary bypasses and angioplasties) extended life, and the US does many more of these than anywhere else. However, in the last decade or so it has come to be recognized that the majority of these interventions improve functionality and reduce discomfort but don't have much effect on overall life expectancy. Which ain't to say they have no effect; just not much.
I'll add a family story onto the one about people claiming to be older than they are. My grandfather was smitten by a young girl whom he married. When he went to get his citizenship papers, he put down my grandmothers age as a year or two older than she actually was. Neither had a birth certificate and they were married for over 50 years. As they grew older there was no reason to change it (they were married considerably before social security in the US)
I am a bit mistrustful of Robert's explanation, because to "change" your age you really have to start early and be somewhat clever and there are reasons when you are young to be even younger and reasons when you are old to be even older, so I think it evens out. However, I should be clear that he has obviously looked into this more deeply than I have.
Eli wrote:
To clarify, this isn't my explanation. I'm just reporting what the "age misstatement" camp says. If you have access to the NEJM, you can look up both the original Manton and Vaupel article from 1995 that points out the life expectancy crossover, and especially the comment letter from Preston and Elo in a subsequent issue that makes the age misstatement claim. [I have access to the full text but if you don't, the first 100 words of the Preston and Elo response is available online and just barely points out the dispute].
A great column in Harper's criticising the proposed drilling in the ANWR:
"More Hot Air Over the Arctic: Why Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not the Answer
By Dean Baker"
http://www.harpers.org/bb-arctic-refuge-fallacies-928347.html