In comments to my post on a review of Guy Pearse's High and Dry, JC pointed to a dispute between Andrew Norton and Pearse on whether the CIS had promoted denial and delay on greenhouse gasses. Pearse makes his case here (scroll to 25 July 2007), while Norton responds here. Now I think it is a bit much for Pearse to tag the CIS with Jennifer Marohasy's opinions on global warming when all they did was publish her article on another topic. But it is also a bit much for Norton to argue that the opinions of Roger Bate have nothing to do with the CIS when the CIS list him as one of their Research Staff with expertise in climate change.
Norton wrote:
But given the CIS cannot control any of these people, how can it be responsible for what they say?
The CIS can certainly control what appears in its publications and on its website, so I searched their site for published articles that took a position on the science or the policy related to global warming. The articles I found appeared in CIS publications Executive Highlights, Policy Magazine or Economic Freedom Watch. Without exception, the position was either denial ("its not happening!") or delay ("we shouldn't do anything!"), just as Pearse said. Here's the list, along with quotes from each piece so you can get the flavour:
Bjorn Lomberg 2006:
The really inconvenient truth is that combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol has a social value of less than a dollar for each dollar spent.
Nicholas Kerr 2004:
That it has not signed up to such agreements as the Kyoto Protocol is less a sign of US selfishness and more one of a lack of evidence surrounding the science and economics on which protocol is founded.
Helen Hughes 2003:
The highly tendentious nature of measuring 'warming' and its tenuous relation to current, or even medium-term development is ignored.
Wolfgang Kasper 2003:
Green lobbies and litigation lawyers announced in October that they
would sue environmental regulators and carbon energy producers for
weather damages -- because the links between Greenhouse emissions,
global warming and weather damage is increasingly proven. Given the
recent flare-ups in sunspot activity and given the well-known
correlation between solar activity and variations in global
temperatures (Graph 4), EFW suggests that the litigators make the Sun
a co-defendant.
Graph 4 is similar to the one that had to be corrected here
Wolfgang Kasper 2002:
A more serious case of foreign governments trying to limit the
economic freedom of Australians is the agitation to induce the
Commonwealth government to sign the Kyoto Protocol. This course of
action is promoted by European Union governments, the UN and
Green-collectivist interest groups. Yet, the evidence that man-made
climate change will be catastrophic is based on a poor understanding
of science and has been contradicted by many leading private climate
experts. The latest findings by the UN-convened Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are controversial.
Denis Dutton and Wolfgang Kasper 2002:
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its recent and supposedly conclusive report, was far from unanimous; sceptical minority views could not be fully aired in what became an increasingly political rather than a scientific debate. Leading members of the IPCC denounced the biased and undemocratic manipulation of the deliberations about the latest report. Respected, independent experts are also casting doubts on the IPCC findings. ...
One must therefore conclude that Kyoto activism is in reality not about saving the world. It is about exploiting Green sympathies and justified environmental concerns to convince the world that it should accept a new form of European protectionism.
Sarah Tyrell 2002:
The attempted control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions via such initiatives as the Kyoto Protocol has great potential to aggravate hunger, reduce public health services, increase mortality and retard economic growth. Forcing the pace of GHG reductions will not guarantee net benefits to public health, or the environment, nor will it have a positive effect on reducing climate change.
Wolfgang Kasper 2002:
Promise not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which amounts to a protection
policy for EU metal industries, undermines Australian energy-cost advantages
and discriminates against minerals processing in favour of third-world
countries that are given freedom to emit unconstrained amounts of CO2.
Steven Kates 2001:
If global warming is actually happening and whether it is a product of human activity, remains, so far, outside of any demonstrable calculation and proof. No-one can say with any certainty that it is not happening, but neither can they say with any greater certainty that it is.
Richard Stone 2001:
there is little scientific consensus regarding the nature, extent or seriousness of man-made global warming.
Sarah Tyrrell 2001:
the climate models used by most national entities and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are shown to have vastly overestimated predictions of temperature increases, sea level rises and the frequency of storms, flooding and drought due to climate change.
Barry Maley 2000:
The best data and eminent scientific opinion find no real evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. With so much of economic and social importance at stake, it would be the height of scientific, economic and political irrationality for Australia to ratify the Kyoto treaty or to take any steps to reduce emissions. ...
The upshot is that the climatic model predictions which formed the basis of the Kyoto recommendations have been invalidated. This is the conclusion reached in January this year by an expert panel of scientific specialists in temperature measurements commissioned by the United States Academy of Sciences. The best data and eminent scientific opinion find no real evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
That is, by the way, as thoroughgoing a misrepresentation of the panel's conclusions as you ever likely to see. Their actual conclusion:
In the opinion of the panel, the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising.
Geoff Hogbin 1998:
the science of global warming is fraught with uncertainty and it is therefore not clear how serious the problem of anthropogenic climate change is likely to be. The claims of the IPCC notwithstanding, there simply is no consensus amongst scientists that global warming will occur.
The only thing I can agree on is that Kyoto is made up of fail and lame (I'm too tired to write better than a 4channer at the mo), that some data in favor of AGW is done with profiteering and attention-seeking in mind and that it is better to wait in order to act well rather than rush into some self-serving projects with poor substance that has bad side-effects.
But they lack any capacity for persuasion and respect for ideas, these people. You get armchair cognitive psychology that explains how I want to destroy entrepreneurs because they are better than me or that I am just narcissistic, seeing myself as the center of the world because I want to do something about my actions regarding a significant problem.
Talking of denial...
A veritable who's who of denialism.
From the dissenting report Between a rock and a hard place --
The science of geosequestration
Tim - I've never disputed that the CIS has published some things on climate change, though there has been nothing of substance for some years. My argument with Pearse was over whether what it has done could possibly warrant Greg Lindsay's inclusion on a list of people who have most infuenced the Prime Minister. All the more recent quotes you have come up with are passing mentions; without Google they would have been forgotten (probably even by the authors) within days of them being written. The idea that the PM could be influenced by a passing mention of an opinion in an op-ed he quite possibly did not even read is nonsense.
Andrew, Howard was PM when all those pieces were published. I don't see why he could not have been influenced earlier in his PM-ship. Indeed, you would think that it would be easier to influence him then, when his mind was not yet made up.
Tim - I think a critical thing missing here is that Howard was quite capable of coming to his own conclusions for his own reasons. A strong economy has been central to his political success, and there was no way he was going to jeopardise this without very strong reasons. He knew full well that Australia meeting its Kyoto targets would only reduce the world total of greenhouse gas emissions by a very small percentage. Free riding behaviour perhaps, but with its own political logic. Even recently, while public opinion overwhelmingly supports climate change orthodoxy, there is little evidence that people are really willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make a difference. Look at the fuss when petrol prices spike upwards. Not for nothing is Labor being very vague about how they would reduce emissions in the long term.
The greenhouse mafia no doubt told Howard what he wanted to hear. But we don't need them (much less a few CIS comments) to find a persuasive explanation of why Howard took the stance he did.
I think Andrew is half right: yes, I agree with Andrew when he says (does he realize he's saying this) that Howard is a cynical liar who would distort facts and throw morality overboard to get reelected. But he needed 'science cover' to get away with it. People will only vote for you if cover your cynicism with a thin enough veneer to (a) be able to present it as a response to evidence and (b) be able to offer them the comfort of self-deception. The greenhouse mafia provided this cover. If Howard had been forced to rely entirely on overseas liars and dupes, his position would have been weaker. That is, his views (whatever they are or were; we don't know) mightn't have been different, but selling them would have been a bit harder.
Frankly, I humbled. I never thought I could get mention on Deltoid in such a positive/neutral way. (See Ian? You get treated well if you don't go off tangents implying the Berlin wall came down from west to east :-)
Tim.
I think your conflating tow issues here about Norton's argument with Pearse.
1. Pearse smeared Norton and has yet to apologize.
2. Pearse smeared the CIS by all accounts
.
Take look at article dates. The last piece was in 2006 slamming Kyoto orthodoxy. One doesn't have to believe in the worst warm mongering scenarios to think that Kyoto is a crock of command and control that won't work, the rest date back to 2004 and earlier. In fact you would be horrified if a free market "shop" could support Kyoto!
There's a lot of science water under the bridge since then. So much so that the IPCC has changed it's assumptions since it's last report proving again and again the science is settled.
Let me argue this. I would say that AGW has been of very low discussion value for the CIS either for or against the topic.
In other words, I would hardly be substituting the CIS for real climate or Deltoid to be getting the picture on AGW
Neil - I don't know what Howard actually believes (or believed). I was just offering an alternative explanation of what happened that didn't require implausible theories about highly influential passing comments.
Assertions of this sort beg for details. Otherwise you're just flippin' it in the wind, so to speak.
So, please, give us an example of ONE piece of data in favor of AGW that was done in profiteering in mind. It would be extra-extra-extra nice if you could provide some follow-on information, i.e. just how much money was made by the person(s) doing the data.
(not exactly sure what "doing the data" actually means, either, you're suggesting that data was falsified? That fraud's involved?)
Andrew, is this the normal response from CIS folk when the government adopts a policy you have promoted? Say that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with you? If you think that CIS publications have so little influence, why do you bother?
Your "what if" speculation about Howard is interesting but not very plausible. Australia got a very good deal under Kyoto (we got a target of 108% of 1990 emissions and got to count reductions in land clearing towards the target). Meeting it would not have cost very much. The anti-Kyoto folks have been arguing that Australia is meeting its Kyoto unlike the countries that signed (while also arguing that Kyoto would wreck the economy). If you believe the science, the safe thing is to sign. It only makes sense not to sign if you don't believe the science. In that case, you figure that in a few more years the consensus gets overturned and you like a genius.
I also note that it is incorrect to characterise all the pieces as "passing comments".
Tim
Do you entertain the possibility that a think tank espousing free markets could possibly see Kyoto as not the best solution to dealing with AGW?
It's not altogether viewed as the best possible agreement in general anyway, so much so that G10 recently canned it and is expected to come up with a better solution including the non-signatories such as China and India by 2009
"A strong economy has been central to his political success, and there was no way he was going to jeopardise this without very strong reasons. He knew full well that Australia meeting its Kyoto targets would only reduce the world total of greenhouse gas emissions by a very small percentage."
But thanks to the exceptional generous deal Howard negotiated in Kyoto, Australia is likely to meet its target (an 8% increase over 1990 emissions when other countries where committing to cuts of 10% or more)in any case.
All Howard's supposed concern for the Australian economy has done is cut Australian industry out of the market for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
"See Ian? You get treated well if you don't go off tangents implying the Berlin wall came down from west to east"
Please provide the thread and message number where I said or implied anything of the sort.
What does comparing people who disagree with you to Stalin do for your credibility?
"All Howard's supposed concern for the Australian economy has done is cut Australian industry out of the market for greenhouse gas emission reductions."
Pardon me. You have to explain this to me. But please call me first so I strap myself into the chair.
"See Ian? You get treated well if you don't go off tangents implying the Berlin wall came down from west to east"
Oh Gouldie, it was a light jab at you, Mr. Mirthless. Lighten up.
Australia, as of the 2005 figures which are the most recent available, will emit less carbon dioxide than its Kyoto target over the period 2008-2012.
If we had a cap and trade system in place with grandfathered emission permits in place, we would be able to sell credits for the gap between our actual emissions and our target.
"Do you entertain the possibility that a think tank espousing free markets could possibly see Kyoto as not the best solution to dealing with AGW?"
Is there a free market think tank in existence that acknowledges the science on AGW? Just curious.
"Is there a free market think tank in existence that acknowledges the science on AGW? Just curious."
Dunno. Reasons science writer has taken the view that we should apply a global carbon tax. Some Libertarian groups also think a global carbon2 tax is the way to go as a cap and trade system is not cheat proof.
Gouldie.
Who would we sell it too? Euro contracts have fallen to about 9 cents each last time I looked. Their cheating has allowed that to happen.
Moreover if we are well below the theoretical quota why are we worried about Kyoto? Why cares?
Why join up the first club you visit? Be a little more choosey than that pal.
"Assertions of this sort beg for details. Otherwise you're just flippin' it in the wind, so to speak.
So, please, give us an example of ONE piece of data in favor of AGW that was done in profiteering in mind. It would be extra-extra-extra nice if you could provide some follow-on information, i.e. just how much money was made by the person(s) doing the data.
(not exactly sure what "doing the data" actually means, either, you're suggesting that data was falsified? That fraud's involved?)"
I think realclimate is very close to this AFL-CIO (Is that the name?) group, and that this could pose a problem. No, you're right, I cannot really give an example of any report in favor of the thesis of AGW being done with the intent or order to attract money. As for "doing data", I was too tired to express myself well. I meant to say that information is offered in a cherry-picked way with personal, or at least political, non-scientific prioritites in mind.
But I can't say the onus is on you or anything, just voicing my small doubts.
"Reasons science writer has taken the view that we should apply a global carbon tax. Some Libertarian groups also think a global carbon2 tax is the way to go as a cap and trade system is not cheat proof..."
So the libertarians are advocating government intervention as preferable to a market-based system?
It's always fun to see the absurdities ideologues can swallow.
European contract prices are extremely low at the moment - they will recover. Also how exactly did Howard know back in 2000 or so what prices would be in 2007?
As to why it's a big deal, the first Kyoto committal period was always intended to be about establishing the market mechanisms and finding and fixing problems such as the oversupply of permits we've seen in Europe.
Oh and Australia is only on track to beat its target because of the reduction in emissions from land clearing in Queensland.
Andrew, where did I say either that I have insight into what Howard believes or that you think you do? I said that Howard used the CIS (inter alia) as cover for his policies. What in your response counts as relevant to that claim?
Tim - I am always cautious about claiming direct or decisive influence. By the time anything gets to the policymaking stage there are almost always multiple factors in play. My personal view is that think-tanks can play their greatest role relatively early in a policy cycle, in trying to get an issue on the agenda, or establishing a perspective on an existing issue that departs from orthodox accounts. The structural advantage of think-tanks in doing that is that they are not, like interest groups or political parties, constituency based and can therefore say things that the others cannot (or cannot easily) for fear of a backlash from their supporters.
However, I don't think that influence can be achieved simply by publishing the occasional article, however brilliant it might be. It needs to be repeated constantly in many different ways and in many different contexts - a lesson the pollies learned long ago. Otherwise most people won't hear it or won't remember it if they do. I follow the CIS much more carefully than most people, but I had no recollection of most of links in your post. Greenhouse just hasn't been a CIS message, even though a few things on it have appeared under our name.
"So the libertarians are advocating government intervention as preferable to a market-based system?"
No, but it's better than a cap and trade.
----------------
"It's always fun to see the absurdities ideologues can swallow."
Behave yourself, you old socialist dinosaur
--------------
European contract prices are extremely low at the moment - they will recover.
So will the small mining cos.
----------------
Also how exactly did Howard know back in 2000 or so what prices would be in 2007?
Dunno. Maybe he has tremendous foresight. hahahaha
------------------
As to why it's a big deal, the first Kyoto committal period was always intended to be about establishing the market mechanisms and finding and fixing problems such as the oversupply of permits we've seen in Europe.
Gouldie, give it up. It's dead. let it lie in the coffin.
----------------
Oh and Australia is only on track to beat its target because of the reduction in emissions from land clearing in Queensland.
Ok. But we got over the line, Mr. mrthless.
Truly Ian's nowhere near as funny to read as are you, jc, yet often I enjoy his comments more :)
Help me with my geography here. When you mention "the reduction in emissions from land clearing in Queensland" --- is that close to here? http://wwwcomm.murdoch.edu.au/synergy/0403/fence.htm
Oh, Winston, Gouldie is the funniest guy around here. I am the floor most times I read his missives.
Gouldie supports a cap and trade system. Meanwhile the Euros have been so "successful" with their emssions that contract prices have fallen to almost zero, implying of course they are now emission free. You gotta laugh.
Ian Gould, did you do something to a family member of Jc's? Because he seems to be awfully keen on insulting you.
Andrew, you earlier argued that CIS had not been influential because they had not published much on the topic recently. Now you say that the potentially influential stuff is what they early in the cycle. So, unless I have misunderstood you, the material the CIS published before Howard rejected Kyoto could have influenced him.
Pearse did not say that CIS influence was decisive or the most important, but that it was part of the deny/delay campaign from right wing think tanks. I think that the articles I have listed above show this.
I think your comment above about orthodoxy is interesting, since the CIS publications were 100% behind the right-wing orthodoxy of "it isn't happening, it's not our fault and we can't afford to do anything about it".
"Ian Gould, did you do something to a family member of Jc's? Because he seems to be awfully keen on insulting you."
huh? I never insult Gouldielocks. I make fun of him at times but never ever insult the little Trot. I kinda of like him in fact.
How can you insult him when he says things like:
"European contract prices are extremely low at the moment - they will recover."
....when I pointed out to Gouldielocks that emission contracts in Euroland were trading at 9 cents after having fallen from around Euros 30.
That's about the most axiomatically blind comment I have ever seen in blogdom.
I guess we should see a rally after falling 333.33%. That is like buying Enron hoping it will come back.
And he has the nerve to call me an ideologue. I have never been 333.33% wrong in anything.
jc you've begged for this one so here it is: you are 110% totally, tragically and absolutely mistaken in your claim that your figures show emissions contracts in Europe to have fallen by "333.33%". Just to make it clear that you're wrong and not just mistyping, you said it twice and with emphasis.
If you tell us whether you mean a fall from E30 to E0.09, the most natural way of reading what you've written, or from E0.30 to E0.09 which would give an answer more commensurate with the schoolboy calculational error you've made, some kind soul would be better able to help ya with your math. Either way you might ponder the lesson you could learn from this (the making of a clueless sub-undergrad arithmetic error in the same breath as your claim of infallibility)!
Winnie
Oh my!
No... the price has fallen from Eur30 to 9 centimes. Sorry I used cents intead of centimes and I erred it's 33,333%! My mistake. Too many decimals
You're digging it deeper Jc ....
Somebody else remind me, was it Plato or Pythagoras perhaps who had the injunction inscribed above the entrance to his Academy "Abandon hope all ye who enter here without sufficient mathematics" (baldly paraphrased :)
Winnie
You got me. It's 99.7%. I was taking it the other way. Of course the price has tanked.
OK good for you Jc. It's not a bad idea to exercise a little humility when debating with bright guys like Ian.
"Help me with my geography here. When you mention "the reduction in emissions from land clearing in Queensland" --- is that close to here?"
No, Queensland is about a thousand miles away from there.
Up until a few years ago there were next to no restrictions on clearing native vegetation in Queensland for agriculture.
That's why Queenslanders' per capita GHG emissions are around 10 tonnes per year higher than the rest of the country.
Assuming the Queensland government sticks to its policy of winding down and then stopping clearing, that figure will drop substantially.
JC is as reliable as ever in writing about carbon prices.
The DEcember 2007 contract is currently trading at E0.12. (Only 33% off, that's a virtual bullseeye for JC).
But what he neglects to mention/doesn't know is that there were no binding targets for 2007 and buying credits was entirely voluntary.
Dec 08 contracts on the other hand are trading at around 19 euros.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/Home/Market%20prices/category377.html
At this point I expect JC to switch from complaining about how carbon prices are too low to complaining about how they're ruinously high.
Furthermore:
"According to a recent Point Carbon publication, greenhouse gas emission permits and credits were traded for â¬15.8 billion in the first six months of 2007 as compared with â¬22.5bn in all of 2006, an increase of 41% in annualised terms. A total of 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent were traded in the first half of the year, up 45% on the same period in 2006."
http://www.pointcarbon.com/About%20us/Press%20room/Press%20releases/art…
In other words, the average price for carbon credits in the period when JC claimed they'd collapsed to 9 Euro cents was actually around 13 Euroes.
Let's see that'd make him wrong by around 14633%.
"But what he neglects to mention/doesn't know is that there were no binding targets for 2007 and buying credits was entirely voluntary."
Gouldie.... er so what happened the Euros were,'t planning emit carbon in 07? They were carbon free...LOL.
The only reason an old Trot like you would support a cap and trade is to turnkey the economy. Any economist worth his salt, that is, any economist who understands economics would support a global carbon2 tax.
JC, are you going to engage in the breathtaking arrogance of pretending you never made the mistake that Ian just corrected? You can't really make any of the claims in 37 until you do so.
Perhaps when you said
you meant to say
Jc persistence and indomitability are virtues but adolescent ineducability is well ummmm not one of those, nor is boring trolling. That's it for me then.
Good on you, Tim Lambert. I've enjoyed your blog for a long time, particularly your interest in climate change politics. Good on you for alerting your readers to the case against the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) on greenhouse policy, and for adding to my list of examples where the CIS has pushed the denial and delay message. As you stress, the big problem has been that it has been one way traffic. I am yet to see one example of CIS comment that is inconsistent with the carbon lobby's push to delay emission cuts in Australia as long as possible and to keep them from paying for their emissions.
There's been lots of posturing and twisting my words since the release of High & Dry, but I'd like to see some evidence from my critics. I've clarified my view on Greg Lindsay on my website (see 25/7 on http://www.highanddry.com.au/comments.cfm) , so I don't think that bears revisiting--I am still waiting for Lindsay to disown all of the one-way traffic of denial and delay done by CIS on his watch.
A few small observations on the debate that I haven't covered in my own blog. Those suggesting I have smeared Andrew Norton (including Norton himself) should revisit what I have actually said about him. I don't think I once said he's influenced John Howard's climate change policy. I merely said he was a former Howard government ministerial adviser that works for CIS and hence an example of someone there with good links into the government. I struggle to see how saying someone has good links and implying this is an asset to their organization is a smear. And, Norton's comments that his February blog went against my case is nonsense--he keeps forgetting to mention the bit where he defended the American Enterprise Institute's right to subsidize sceptics willing to critique the latest IPCC report at $10k a pop. And while Norton has made a vague reference to action being needed on climate change I am not aware of him ever supporting any specific actions by Australia to reduce its emissions on a meaningful scale or in a meaningful timeframe. His support for the AEI funding of sceptics suggests he can't be too serious about international action either.
I noted the comments denying the existence of the greenhouse mafia by someone who is personal friends with a scientist who claims to be close to the government's work on this. All I can say is they must not be too close to the government's work. Another point raised in defence of the CIS role in this is that the bulk of their comments occurred in the 2000-03 period. As a defence, this is an own-goal, because that very period co-incided with the turn in Australian policy: the carbon lobby push particularly here and in Washington to kill Kyoto, the Bush administration's suggestion to Howard of an alternative approach (technology not targets & timetables etc), Howard's unilateral decision that Australia would not ratify Kyoto, the two cabinet decisions against emissions trading. Most of the big policy decisions were taken during the period that the CIS was most active in concert with the CIS's counterparts at the IPA, Lavoisier, APEC Studies Centre and various other groups in Washington. Tim was correct to allude to the importance of this earlier period which culminated in the 2004 Howard government Energy White Paper. The fact that Roger Bate is now a climate change expert at CIS speaks for itself. I'm fine with some reasonable critique of High & Dry.
I have clarified my view on Lindsay's role in light of Andrew Norton's comments about my PM's XI, and I am also willing to concede that the inclusion of Marohasy's contribution at CIS may have been borderline, but the key thing with these 'associates' is that they are all singing from the same song sheet. Many of the other comments attacking me are amusing for their emptiness. The most telling aspect is that here is an organisation that was set up by Greg Lindsay explicitly to influence opinion formers. I show up suggesting that the views expressed by the CIS might have indeed had an influence on the opinion formers Howard listens to and the CIS response is to say 'But we have no influence! How dare you suggest we're influential! Sure we put out a pile of comment on climate change pushing the denial and delay message, but no-one read it. It had no real impact.' If that's true, and the CIS has no influence (which I don't believe for one minute) Tim Lambert is probably right in saying--they should shut up shop. If the CIS response is that they've not been active on climate change, then does this mean they do not think the issue important? Let them say publicly climate change is not a high priority. If the CIS is genuinely so miffed at the suggestion they have in fact contributed to a successful campaign of denial and delay on climate change policy in Australia, I look forward to them publicly take a very different position.
"Those suggesting I have smeared Andrew Norton (including Norton himself) should revisit what I have actually said about him. I don't think I once said he's influenced John Howard's climate change policy."
You did try, it's obvious even to a retarded mongoose that's what you tried to do.
."I merely said he was a former Howard government ministerial adviser that works for CIS and hence an example of someone there with good links into the government."
You write a book on AGW suggesting there is lobby to prevent climate change policy and you mention Andrew Norton (along with his asscociation with the CIS) in the book having close links with Government leaders. Stop making stupid excuses as reeasonable people know what you were up to. It's pathetic. It's even more pathetic in the way you're trying to skulk out of it.
"And while Norton has made a vague reference to action being needed on climate change I am not aware of him ever supporting any specific actions by Australia to reduce its emissions on a meaningful scale or in a meaningful timeframe"
The "vague" reference you talk about is Norton saying that he supports action but doesn't write about it (AGW) becasue he feels it is not his area of competence. It's about as vague as a criket ball hitting you in the face at full speed. So here you go lying again.
You smeared him. You ought to get on your knees and grovel.
"I'm fine with some reasonable critique of High & Dry."
Yea right. Is that why you had Flannery "reviewing 'your book in the SMH? You're appear about as fine with critque as any fine member of the politburo.
"nor is boring trolling."
trolling hey! Winnie, I have mostly stayed with the subject until gouldie, SG or you have tried to jacknife this thread into another debate.
You're cofusing debating and disagreeing with trolling. Why don't you tell us about what you think of the smear. Any of you.
JC, don't be silly. Authors don't get to choose who reviews their books for the paper.
Jc,
What smear, exactly? That Pearse accurately described Norton's public history?
Disgraceful!
The difference between trolling and debate lies in the cogency of one's argument.
You, sir, err on the side of incoherence.
"Gouldie.... er so what happened the Euros were,'t planning emit carbon in 07? They were carbon free...LOL."
No, what happened is that 2008 is the first year in which the Kyoto Protocol actually applies and there's a legal penalty for not holding sufficient permits.
Think of the 2007/2008 comparison as a real-world experiment in the relative effectiveness of libertarian voluntarism and government regulation in environmental protection.
"Any economist worth his salt, that is, any economist who understands economics would support a global carbon2 tax."
Do you want a list of the Nobel Laureates in Economics who support Kyoto?
http://uneco.org/Global_Warming.html#Economists'%20Letter%20on%20Global…
"The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required -- such as an international emissions trading agreement."
- Kenneth J. Arrow, Dale W. Jorgenson, William D. Nordhaus, Paul R. Krugman, Robert M. Solow.
Krugman! Huh?
This s the guy who thinks raising wwages will avert a depression!!!!
Gouldie, that's stretching even for you, you old socialist war horse.
So you don't think that Krugman's Nobel in Economics is worth anything?
funny when you were defending Pinochet's mate it was the first thing you pointed to.
Krugman doesn't have a Nobel in economics, though there is a fair chance that he will eventually get one.
Tim,
You are correct and that was a very careless error on my part.
Of the five authors of the declaration, only Arrow is a Nobel laureate.
However three of the others have been awarded the John Bates Clark Medal, the second-most prestigious award in economics after the Nobel.
The only non-winner of the Clark is Nordhaus - co-author with Paul Samuelson of possibly the most influential undergraduate text in economics of the past century and is the Sterling Professor of Economcis at Harvard.
Pretty impressive for a group none of whom "understands economics".
Funnily enough they seem to have managed to persuade 2,500 other economists to sign their statement. But obviously none of them no anything about economics either.
http://dieoff.org/page123.htm
In addition to Arrow, the following Economics laureates endorsed Kyoto at the time:
Wassily Leontief
Herbert A. Simon
James Tobin
If I need to drive home any further JC's ridiculous overstatement I can produce further statements from subsequent laureates.
Guys Please.
Gouldie... no, he doesn't.
Are you talking about Hayek or Friedman here?
Both offered advice and supported Pincohet over Allende. Sometimes you don't get good choices in Life. At least they were realistic unlike your hero, FDR who thought Stalin was a great guy.
Tim,
His just isn't a good economist. There is nothng he has ever said or written about that could even be considered ground breaking.
Gouldie.
I had the following email discussion with one of the people you mentioned. I can't tell you who it was for privacy reasons. I have to say I was more then under whelmed with his answer. Frankly I was flabbergasted. The guy in question is better off teaching math.
The problem for some numerate guys dealing with economics is that they can't get their heard around important principles because they are often abstract. It also quite obvious they don't know much economic history either. History is vital in economics otherwise I would not have got this answer as he would have known about the 200 years of settled debate over the marginal productivity theory. His answer is bad economics, pure and simple.
Milt Friedman once said that there are many well trained economists who relly don't understand the subject.
I agree after reading this.
Dear Professor
I studied economics and was wondering how you came to sign the petition calling for a higher minimum wage. As a student I have been taught:
1. Demand curves slope downward
2. Prices are responsive to market forces
3. Motivations and intentions don't matter. Results do.
I am at a loss to understand your signature on the petition, while I have been taught the 3 "principles" above that point directly opposite. I would much appreciate an explanation as I am in awe of your knowledge in the area of economics.
Yours sincerely
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear xxxxxxxxxx
The second and third of your statements are unclear in themselves and
as to their relevance to the issue of the minimum wage. Prices are
not responsive to market forces if the state (or some other
controlling authority, such as a cartel) interferes. Prices for
public utilities are regulated, rents have been controlled and still
are in some American cities. Minimum wages are universal in the
developed world, including Australia, and I believe the American
level is in fact among the lowest in real terms. So, the idea of
mitigating the role of market forces in price determination is acted
upon regularly.
As for the third statement, you must have meant something different
than what it seems to say. Economics, after all, is all about
motivations, to get the maximum utility or profit.
I suppose what you are arguing is that, if the demand for labor is
downward-sloping, raising the wage above the equilibrium level will
create unemployment. Is that your point?
If so, it is correct in some ways, but may not be very relevant to
the particular set of jobs at stake. These are low-skilled jobs. If
wages are raised, the prices of the products of that labor will rise
somewhat, but if demand for those products (e.g., fruit or retail or
restaurant services) is fairly inelastic, the employment effect is
very small compared with the income transfer. There is considerable
empirical evidence to support this conclusion.
In the case of the United States, the problem of immigration
reinforces the argument. The relevant supply of labor for low-paying
jobs includes a large number of illegal immigrants. If wages are
forced to rise, the employers will prefer the better-educated native
labor, and this will reduce the demand for immigrant labor. I see no
problem with this.
Sincerely yours,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stop making stupid excuses as reeasonable people know what you were up to. It's pathetic. It's even more pathetic in the way you're trying to skulk out of it.
This statement, in light of Jc's dog and pony mathematical show re: carbon tax, leaves the air with such a high level of irony, I can scarcely breath!
Some meds make you short of breath, Dom. Go back the doc and ask for the non generic brand that helps stabilize problems associated with delusion.
Goldie; Solow won a Nobel, and some you cite for supporting Kyoto (Leontief, Tobin) were dead or anyway defunct at the time. You are not scoring well.
Leontief died two years after Kyoto, and, no, I won't take TimC's word for it that he was "defunct".
"Milt Friedman once said that there are many well trained economists who relly don't understand the subject."
Head of the physics approaches the dean to ask for more funding for new equipment.
"I wish you were more like the math department", says the dean. "All they need is pencils, paper, and wastebaskets. Or like the economics department; they don't even need wastebaskets".
Economics: Dismal Science or Happy Religion?
Markets are rational, except when they're not.
How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb?
The null set. They all just sit in the dark waiting for an invisible hand to change it for them.
"Markets are rational, except when they're not."
Yea. So tell us, you're irrational everytime you buy soap and deodorant? Remind me never to be downwind of you, LB.
Do you have ANYTHING to add to the conversation other than ad hom crap like this?
In other words, Hoggsie:
Market failure is real! Every non economist and failed economist believes it. There's consensus!
I'm sorry but the use of the "merket failure" needs to be throttled every time it raises it head from the dark swamp of ingnorance.
Jc, you old stinker you.
From Frank, with love:
JC, there is, I believe, a market for economists. Economists that believe that market failure exists, seem to have no trouble getting jobs. So therefore, those economists are not "failed economist". Unless you think that there has been market failure in the market for economists ...
"ingnorance" on display, indeed ...
"Goldie; Solow won a Nobel, and some you cite for supporting Kyoto (Leontief, Tobin) were dead or anyway defunct at the time. You are not scoring well."
Solow did indeed with the Nobel. Somewhat surprisingly his wikipedia page omits that detail.
Having just demonstrated the unreliabiltiy of wikipedia, I'll further imperil my credibility by pointing out that Wikipedia says Tobin died in 2002.
The declaration which I linked to earlier is from 1998, so I find it quite credible that they did, in fact, sign in.
By the way Timmi-kins, if you must imitate JC by using an infantile nickname for me to try and denigrate me can you at least spell it correctly?
Okay Timtim?
"I'm sorry but the use of the "merket failure" needs to be throttled every time it raises it head from the dark swamp of ingnorance."
See this is the problem with religious belief.
The sacred prophets Hayek and Von Mises decreed that homo economicus was real so he's real.
Never mind the intervening 30-40 years of economic study.
Facts are nothing before Truth.
Oh and as for your earlier comment about expectations not mattering, your hero Friedman would probably disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_income_hypothesis
"The permanent income hypothesis (PIH) was developed by the American economist Milton Friedman. In its simplest form, PIH states that the choices made by a consumers regarding their consumption patterns are determined not by current income but by their longer-term income expectations."
JC, there is, I believe, a market for economists. Economists that believe that market failure exists, seem to have no trouble getting jobs.
True. It's blight on the profession I agree. It's like saying that people like Lindzen is a failed climate scientist.
-----------------------------------------------------
So therefore, those economists are not "failed economist".
They are a pretty mediocre bunch at the best of times. At their worst they infect the public with pretty bad ideas.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Unless you think that there has been market failure in the market for economists"
I wouldn't call it market as such. But it proves just how bountiful free enterprise economies are when marginal people can actually find full paying jobs.
Gouldie
Whta are up up to today? Whats this new conflation of yours? Ok, let's go through it line by line shall we?
See this is the problem with religious belief.
I agree.
---------------------------
The sacred prophets Hayek and Von Mises decreed that homo economicus was real so he's real.
No, Gouldie, they didn't decree anything. It was the brute force of their ideas that helped stop Keynesian economics in its tracks.
------------------------------
Never mind the intervening 30-40 years of economic study
And...... because........................
Don't stop there. What did this 30-40 years tell you Gouldie, that they were wrong.? Pleaazze you're scaring the kids.
------------------------------------
Facts are nothing before Truth.
That's true.
--------------------------------
Oh and as for your earlier comment about expectations not mattering, your hero Friedman would probably disagree:
Stop conflating things and concocting some brew of tangled weeds pretending it's a cancer cure you old trot. Milt, my old hero would have agreed with every word I said.
Hoggsie
"Merket" was a kid
I(N)gnorance was a typo.
good to see your spending time proof reading
here s a nice game to play:
two players, A and B get 100$. Player A is allowed to decide, how the money is split between the two.
Player B then has the option to either accept this distribution (then both get their share as proposed by A) or to decline it. (then both get nothing)
these games are called Veto or ultimatum or dictator games and Jc will surely be able to predict the outcome.
http://tinyurl.com/2w4yd2
Sod
These games have been around for ages and ages. There is nothing new.
1. Why do you need to games to tell you socialism never works when have had living experiments going on for the great part of the 2oth century? We know.
2. What some of these games tell you are that people can be charitable and envy driven.
Charitable behavior is a great thing, however our envy driven emotions are a big concern. We call it the all poppy syndrome, which is a nicer name for envy.
We see envy driving our motivations in lots of ways. We have political parties Labor/greens and the US Dems who specialize in maintaining their hold on power by manipulating people's desire to quench the thirst of envy. We witness this through the periodic class wars these parties try to create.
"Vote for me and I will tax the better off and hand over the spoils...."
This is achieved through the threat of implied violence against those being picked on.
It has obvious results in such things as tax policy where 5% of the US taxpaying population contribute something like 70% odd of the income taxes. It's not as extreme here in Australia but it is also up there.
"Sharing Wealth. Forget envy-inspired stereotypes of the greedy rich. Using Federal Reserve data, a study by Boston University sociologists Paul Schervish and John Havens suggests that as people get richer, they also become more generous. Households with in comes of $100,000 gave 2 percent of their incomes to charity. Those who made between $100,000 and $150,000 gave away 3.6 percent. And people making $1 million or more donated 4.9 percent of their earnings."
Here is an interesting study on our behaviour when confronted with the possibility of removing other people's wealth
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34826.html
It's very worrying in knowing how to deal with envy.
Ah, yes! Reason Magazine. One stop shopping for libertarian confirmation bias.
The funny thing about Von Mises and Hayek. They create these grand edifices of logic that prove Marxian and Keynesian economics are useless, and then Marxian and Keynesian economists come along and say, "That's interesting, we can use this!"
Let's restate that - those who hold > 90% of the wealth of the nation contribute something like 70% of the nation's tax revenue.
Class warfare, indeed. Keep the poor poorer, and the wealthy wealthier. That's the real class war, and JC appears to be in the vanguard.
And, I'm a bit surprised you could only find one language error in that sentence I snipped. The astonishing number of errors combined with the misspelling of "ignorance" was what made it so humorous.
It's a terrific magazine, LB. I head there once a week. What do you read?
-----------------------
Hoggsie:
You're mixing/conflating income with wealth. i don't blame you as most people who are ignorant of economics usually fall that that most basic error. As far as I know neither the US nor OZ have a wealth tax of sorts.
---------------------
Class warfare, indeed. Keep the poor poorer, and the wealthy wealthier. That's the real class war, and JC appears to be in the vanguard.
Really? What an astonishing little claim to make. I thought you were a little more thoughtful than that hoggise. I'm surprised.
-------------------
"And, I'm a bit surprised you could only find one language error in that sentence I snipped. The astonishing number of errors combined with the misspelling of "ignorance" was what made it so humorous."
Yes , well I left out a word. Very bad I don't edit. Sometimes Microsoft Word does it's job and other times it doesn't. Don't get it. Seems not to work when copying stuff onto the program.
But thanks for confirming how pedantic you are.
I'm well aware of the difference, and I'm also well aware that income from wealth is generally taxed at a lower rate in my country than income from labor.
Part of the "class warfare" the poor wage against the rich, I'm sure.
I doubt I'm the only person here to be unsuprised by your being astonished by the truth.
And I doubt I'm the only person here to be unsurprised by your responding in ad hom fashion rather than saying anything of substance.
"I'm well aware of the difference, and I'm also well aware that income from wealth is generally taxed at a lower rate in my country than income from labor."
There's no wealth tax in the US.
-------------
"Part of the "class warfare" the poor wage against the rich, I'm sure."
I think you're confused again, Hoggsie. I think you're referring to such taxes as Cap Gains.
Cap Gains is possibly the worst form of tax as it taxes capital. You're in fact converting/transferring captial to consumption. If there is anything that one can do to reduce future living standards just raise a Cap gains tax.
----------------------
"I'm the only person here to be unsurprised by your responding in ad hom fashion rather than saying anything of substance."
You're possibly the worst offender, hoggsie. Collecting typo errors, word omissions has become your specialization these days it seems. So much so that you even have the Gouldmeister doing it. You know what a follower he is, don't you?
Capital Gains Tax does not tax capital. It taxes the gains from personal equity in capital property. The initial capital investment itself is mostly written off through depreciation allowances and business expenses.
Oh, the poor, poor, rich people. What a burden!
Luminous Beuty, would you like to expand on your comment #76, regarding the uses to which von Mises and HAyeks thoughts can be put?
I'm just getting into a discussion elsewhere with a "classical" economist, who blames marxist central banks for boom and bust, never mind that boom and bust existed before central banks adjusted interest rates.
LB
Dead cats don't bounce and your point is a cat that's been dead for a long time.
Cap gains tax is a capital tax. Period. If you tax it, there is less capital to go around. The reason it has an effect on living standards is because living standards can only rise when the capital to labor ratio increases.
It's not a matter of worryng about the rich. If you do that you end up taking your eye of the ball and losing the game.
Guthrie.
Central banks cause the instability as a result of uncontolled growth in the money supply. Yes there were periods of instability before central banking but will find that the cause was always the same : manipulation of the specie ratios.
We have a real problem on our hands because the central banks are not managing the quantity of money that's being fed into the sytem. they are trying to achieve this by using a "marker": an interst rate level that will help them achieve stability. They can't because it is an impossible task.
Maybe not just now, but the entire world's monetary system is placed at risk with the current operating procedure.
Jc: "LB Dead cats don't bounce and your point is a cat that's been dead for a long time."
Dead Cat Bounce Definition: A short rebound a in a stock or market after a significant drop in price. "Even a dead cat will bounce if dropped from high enough."
Jc, spreading disinformation all over since July 2007 (at least).
Why do you need to games to tell you socialism never works when have had living experiments going on for the great part of the 2oth century? We know.
who talked about socialism? there s an area between unlimited market and 5 years plans. do some reading, you might discover it.
btw, i ll name you two nations, that interfere into market failures, for everyone you tell me that doesn t. go ahead!
What some of these games tell you are that people can be charitable and envy driven.
the word that you were looking for is fairness. you might want to look it up in a dictionary.
and "can be" is slightly false as well. basically NONE of the individuals playing the game, acts as we would expect an homo economicus to do.
it s pretty bizarre how the same guys believe in simple models like the market or homo economicus, who are shown to be false DAILY in our lives.
and at the same time have doubts about climate models, who explain what we see every day.
---------------------------
Households with in comes of $100,000 gave 2 percent of their incomes to charity. Those who made between $100,000 and $150,000 gave away 3.6 percent. And people making $1 million or more donated 4.9 percent of their earnings."
wow, so a guy earning 1.000.000 will give 50000 a year?
before tax deductions, that is?
that s wonderful!
"Central banks cause the instability as a result of uncontolled growth in the money supply. Yes there were periods of instability before central banking but will find that the cause was always the same : manipulation of the specie ratios."
Wow, people still believe in monetarism?
Even after Friedman admitted it was his greater error?
Sod
Define "fairness"
(hint) What you consider fair may not be fair to me.
You may also want to distinguish how your version of "fairness" is nothing other than a gaudy display of personal preferences.
Gouldie
"Wow, people still believe in monetarism?"
No Gouldie, you unhappy trot, every 1/2 way decent economist knows that money is not neutral. You do obviously. So you may wish to explain why? (Please note: I'm strapped into my seat for this explanation)
It's nothing to do with monetarism and all to do with monetary economics. Jeesh and i thought you once said you were trained as an economist. See my earlier comment about that.
Nor did I say there is ... gee.
Jc,
Capital is property that earns an income, it is not the income earned, unless one is a market speculator. A market speculator is one who makes money without producing anything of value. In ecological terms, a parasite.
Jc,
Capital is property that earns an income. It is not the income earned, unless one is a market speculator. A market speculator is one whose money makes money without producing anything of value. In ecological terms, a parasite.
For one who claims to have a better than anyone else grasp of economics, it is curious that you don't even know the basic definitions of principle terms.
Jc,
Fairness is that which is in all parties' mutual interest. If you don't believe in mutuality, an inference reasonably drawn from your declaration that, '"fairness" is nothing other than a gaudy display of personal preferences', then you have no principled understanding of fairness.
Ergo, if you, a priori, don't agree with what sod considers fair, then it is an insubstantial disagreement, as you have no understanding of the meaning of the word.
Hoggise says:
"Nor did I say there is ... gee."
After I said
There's no wealth tax in the US
But he then says:
"I'm well aware of the difference, and I'm also well aware that income from wealth is generally taxed at a lower rate in my country than income from labor."
So hoggisie says he is aware there is no wealth tax yet says wealth is taxed at a lower rate.
Hoggise is one confused person.
"Capital is property that earns an income."
Ummmm It's a little more than that LB. Here's a link you ought to get your teeth into that may help expand your knowledge on capital.
http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/d1bohm.htm
"It is not the income earned, unless one is a market speculator."
Nonsense. Total hogwash. I wouldn't know where to begin to untangle this mess.
---------------------------
" A market speculator is one whose money makes money without producing anything of value. In ecological terms, a parasite."
Huh! That's what I do for a living. Rather than pass judgement on others I suggest you use the following methodology in figuring out who is worthwhile and who isn't.
If an enterprise has a positive rate of return and is legal it is economically satisfying.
--------------------------
"For one who claims to have a better than anyone else grasp of economics, it is curious that you don't even know the basic definitions of principle terms."
Well actually I do. Please keep up with the class.
Fairness is that which is in all parties' mutual interest.
No it bloody well isn't. That's total crap.
--------------------------------
If you don't believe in mutuality, an inference reasonably drawn from your declaration that, '"fairness" is nothing other than a gaudy display of personal preferences', then you have no principled understanding of fairness.
Sure I have. I may not consider fair what you think is fair.
-------------------------
Ergo, if you, a priori, don't agree with what sod considers fair, then it is an insubstantial disagreement, as you have no understanding of the meaning of the word.
Back to English class with you LB. You can't even properly define your own terms.
Fairness is a much-abused term by the left these days used to support redistribution polices. It's nothing other than a suite of personal preferences that simply benefits one group at the expense of another. Theft is a more appropriate term: Legalized theft.
"Legalized theft"
Of which one well-known example in Australia is governments (particularly our federal government) using taxpayers money to fund advertising that helps them get re-elected.
I would include the states as well Chris. They are far worse on a per cap basis.
But hey, I can't say i really blame the government on this one especially with all the lies the union movement has put out on workchoices. this been the most dishonest campaign I have ever seen from those economic trogs. All the government is doing is cleaning up the mess of lies and distortions.
Compare the "i'm doing great" the state labor government ads resemble and you know who is really doing it bad.
#86, Ian Gould- I quote the text of a letter to the Scotsman:
"Bill Jamieson (Opinion, 17 August) asks "why do markets go into periodic cash-like convulsions?" and provides the answer later in his article noting that the "US Federal Reserve cut interest rates to just 1 per cent".
Boom-and-bust cycles are always the result of a credit expansion by a central bank, itself a nationalisation of the money supply.
The answer to this problem is to return to laissez-faire and a return to the gold standard which prevents reckless spending and currency expansion."
The person who wrote that letter was of the opinion a few years ago that in WW2 in the UK the best way to deal with food shortages was not rationing, which was an intolerable intrusion into peoples lives, but by letting the free market do its job. Myself and others pointed out that the market can't work properly under such circumstances, but he didn't seem to understand that.
"Boom-and-bust cycles are always the result of a credit expansion by a central bank, itself a nationalisation of the money supply."
So there were no economic boosts and busts before the introduction of modern central banks?
How about jurisdictions like Hong Kong which don;t have a central bank?
Do you grasp the most elementary basics of science well enoguh to understand that if B occurs in the absence of A, A can't be the sole cause of B?
"The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I'm not sure that I would as of today push it as hard as I once did."
Milton Friedman, Financial Times [UK] (7 June 2003)
As to your request for explanations, stop playing with yourslef.
You've made it obvious you don't understand economics and more fundamentally don't WANT to understand it. You've got your libertarian delusions about how you'd be fabulously wealthy if it weren't for the EVIL Gub'mint takin' your hard-earned money and nothing will change your mind.
Your inquiries are no more genuine than those of the young-Earth creationist who gleefully wastes the time of the "evilutionists" by demanding explanations for faults in Darwinian theory that exist only in their mind.
Sorry Ian for not making it clear enough- my post #97 was to show that there are still monetarists and classical economics followers out there, and has nothing to do with anyone posting on this thread. I'm trying to work out how wrong they are without wading through tons of rubbish. All I seem to find so far are unsubstantiated assertions.
Gouldie, you dishonest little trot this is what I said:
"Central banks cause the instability as a result of uncontolled growth in the money supply. Yes there were periods of instability before central banking but will find that the cause was always the same : manipulation of the specie ratios."
.....that sparked your dribble about monetarism
with this
"Wow, people still believe in monetarism?
Even after Friedman admitted it was his greater error?"
as well as the disgusting comment above about mastabation (SIC)
Now listen you dishonest prig, i never mentioned anything about monetarism. You did by using that straw man and then trying to paint me into a corner with that abusive comment.
I aksed for an explantion and so far you have failed to provide one. The reason is obvious why. Becasue it would make you look like the stooge you are.
Now either provide an explanation
Here it is again just to remind you:
No Gouldie, you unhappy trot, every 1/2 way decent economist knows that money is not neutral. You do obviously. So you may wish to explain why? (Please note: I'm strapped into my seat for this explanation)
Gouldie says:
"How about jurisdictions like Hong Kong, which don't have a central bank?
Do you grasp the most elementary basics of science well enough to understand that if B occurs in the absence of A, A can't be the sole cause of B?"
Oh my lord. This is a guy who says he has an economics degree and infers he's more knowledgeable than others even making offensive comments like any blowhard would.
Lesson 101 Monetary Economics ... The nature of pegged currencies.
Hong Kong has a pegged currency to the US Dollar. Without going into the finer details that would bore people silly a clean peg (Hong Kong has a dirty peg of sorts) essentially means the pegged currency abrogates its monetary policy to the country of the nation it has pegged to. It does this by the promise to convert the host currency at a pegged rate. In effect the pegger has no need for a central bank in the traditional sense of the word and maintains what is called a currency board. A currency board performs all the administrative duties of a central bank but does not conduct any monetary policy. Hong Kong uses the giant Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank to perform these duties if I recall correctly. It's always supposed have a certain amount of the pegged currency in reserve in order to meet immediate obligations.
The effect of this is that Honk Kong essentially runs the same monetary policy as the US. It will therefore experience instability to an extent that the US does. The level of instability will depend entirely on such things as the level of labor market freedoms compared to the US. Argentina's peg failed because it tried to maintain a peg to the US but its labor markets were very sticky and unreformed and therefore this part of the economy was unable to act as a shock absorber when the US tightened monetary policy in the late 90's. Hong kong on the other hand has relatively free labor markets and is therefore more flexible.
So Guthrie, what Gouldie is telling you is crap, as he doesn't understand monetary policy in the slightest way. I know he will come back blustering and offending everyone in his wake, but he shows absolutely no understanding of the discipline his professors worked so hard at teaching him. It's tragic really.
Jc,
It seems I pegged you as a parasite without any intent.
No apologies.
Of course you are going to interpret what you do in the best possible light. It is a trivial psychological truth that perception creates reality.
It isn't really true, though.
Good luck!
"No it bloody well isn't. That's total crap."
This is what passes for critical reasoning in JcLand.
You're a clown, Jc. A pathetic, narcissistic, solipsistic clown. You have absolutely nothing to offer but axiomatic clinging to vague metaphysical opinion.
Quite sad, really.
LB,
Come on, enough abuse.
Did you read the link I left you? It will help you understand economic definitions a little better.
I'm running a remdial class on economics that you and maybe Ian G. Trotsky may wish to attend.
Let me know and i'll reserve a coupla spots. Get in early though as the spots seem to be filling up fast.
Jc,
No abuse intended on my part, just a friendly warning about the pathway to hell.
Sorry, but I've had my fill of Austrian School horseshit, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand to boot. Definitions interpreted to agree with one's confirmation bias are intellectually honest only in a pathological way, bud. You can believe it if you want, and diddle away with your fellow-travelers as it suits you, but don't expect anyone with healthy, well developed human reason and empathy to follow your pied piper paean to unmitigated ego gratification.
OTOH, if you want some libertarian thought with hair on its balls, I've got some reading for you.
http://tinyurl.com/277e5j
It's been eating at me for a while, but out of my sense of fairness I haven't indulged in this wee tidbit of abuse, but since you opened the door, here it is:
I'm sure the average tapeworm finds feeding at the trough in some pig's gut 'economically satisfying', too.
"No abuse intended on my part, just a friendly warning about the pathway to hell."
Yea right.... "I'm sorry I jsut killed you. it won't happen again", says the serial killer.
"Sorry, but I've had my fill of Austrian School horseshit, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand to boot. "
I can't recall the last time I went to one of those sites. I prefer lefty sites myself as they're so much more informative with intelligently written posts.
"Definitions interpreted to agree with one's confirmation bias are intellectually honest only in a pathological way, bud."
Huh! So I should use Marx's captial theory to be fair? lol
"You can believe it if you want, and diddle away with your fellow-travelers as it suits you, but don't expect anyone with healthy, well developed human reason and empathy to follow your pied piper paean to unmitigated ego gratification."
You think i'actuially trying to convince Ian G Trot to follow my views. Pleaazze,if he became a librtarian I'd join a Marxist sect.
"But hey, I can't say i really blame the government on this one"
"I am happy your tax dollars are wasted. Personally I couldn't give a toss about your money and what happens to it, but I am concerned mine goes towards funding headkicker central".
Jc,
I fail to understand how pointing out your solipsistic and narcissistic tendencies is tantamount to serial murder. Methinks you are too sensitive, but what else can one expect from a narcissist?
I'd suggest judging one's theoretical belief system against empirical evidence rather than interpreting evidence to comply with one's beliefs in order to be intellectually honest. Then, maybe, one can begin to entertain some genuine notions of objectivity and fairness. Marxian analysis is sometimes on the money, believe it or not. One would never know it if one assumes a priori it is just crap. Likewise, Hayek made one or two brilliant observations even if his philosophic premises suck big time.
One final bit of free advice. People are not discrete autonomous individuals. We are social critters. By trolling on 'lefty' sites, you are engaging in the social function, no matter how perverse your intent, or how deeply obscured your native humanity is by your 'ideology'.
Remember what Poor Richard said, "You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar".
Namasté