Yesterday I spoke at Princeton University on a panel with Ross Douthat, Daniel Larison and Virginia Postrel to address this very question. You can read a real-time summary of the discussion on Fausta’s Blog here and near-real-time blogger reaction to the event on the League of Ordinary Gentlemen site here.
Among the very best moments:
Virginia Postrel produced a small quilted hatbox on stage, then opened it to reveal… an ordinary incandescent light bulb. Surely (she said) all strains of conservatism could agree that it was wrong for government to outlaw this bulb?
As a Princeton undergraduate, Virginia had sat in the very room in which we were speaking and been taught by some of the inventors of the cap-and-trade idea. They argued then that government should get out of the business of prescribing solutions to problems – like banning light bulbs to fight global warming – and instead set general rules that enabled people to experiment with the best solutions.
A generation later all that wisdom had been forgotten – and by a Republican administration. It was George W. Bush who had signed the ban. Twelve Republican members of Congress voted in favor of it.
I could add as a footnote that I understood why they had done it. It was a characteristic Bush administration maneuver: fight to oppose any large action on climate change (carbon tax, cap-and-trade) but yield on a small symbolic act. Yielding was all the easier since almost all the relevant major industry groups quietly favored the ban. The incandescent bulb is a low-margin item, usually manufactured in China. Very nice to have government prod every factory, shop and home into converting to a more lucrative substitute!
Cynically, some might wonder were the tea parties against this Republican-signed act of government outreach?
On the other hand: It’s not too late to organize them now!
85 responses so far
1 Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Liveblogging “The Future of Conservatism” at Princeton U // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:04 am
[...] Tuesday 23 October Welcome, New Majority readers. Please visit often. Analysis at the League of Ordinary [...]
2 Churl // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:30 am
Here’s Mark Steyn with further observations on the tea parties
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2528/26/
He forgot mention Bush, though.
3 balconesfault // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:02 am
Your story of Bush and the incandenscent bulb also illustrates another principle that I held regarding the Bush Administration from almost the beginning – if you wanted to know what side of any debate Bush would favor – you simply had to ask “which decision will make his wealthiest supporters richer?”
By and large, that decision tree really trumped any ideology. Bush understood that his supporters money, not ideology, is what really got him into the White House … and Bush is the sort who has completely internalized the concept of “dance with the ones that brung ya”.
4 mlindroo // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:14 am
Well, had the best and brightest of the left-wing blogosphere got together in the dark days of 2003-04 to discuss the future of liberalism, I would have found it quite ridiculous if one of the highlights was … discussing light bulbs and “the proper role of government”. Surely there are more pressing concerns than that?
MARCU$
5 ottovbvs // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:20 am
David, Ms Postrel and conservatives generally need to junk the Canuteism on efforts to combat global warming of which the the bulb ban is a small part. Govt bans lots of things and conservatives are in many cases the strongest supporters of the bans. These bulbs are now largely banned across Europe. After years of denying there was any such thing has global warming “enlightened” conservatives faced with overwhelming evidence of its existence have now moved to resist any attempts to deal with it(the unenlightened of course still deny the problem exists but they are generally people who think the earth has only existed for 10,000 years or less so there’s no hope for them). The coalition on the right resisting efforts to do anything about it is even crumbling as America’s leading corporations face reality and pull out of campaigns by the chamber opposing amelioration efforts. This is another albatross conservatism needs to dump not save.
6 Cforchange // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:14 am
Then the light bulb, now medicare. The problem is conservatism means nothing. The principals have been polluted by individuals who themselves stand for nothing that will garner a majority. So as “popular” issues present themselves, this angry band of noise makers latch onto the event of the day and twist the ideology in hopes of gaining traction. What on earth else could possibly explain the current stance on Medicare other than the “base” movement is in the mode of strictly attempting to garner a willing audience.
It’s all bull and these folks are stuck with talking to themselves. Because it all has the feel of illogic plus dishonesty, the effort will not generate any more respect than a band of a snake oil salesman.
Since my slice of the GOP has been determined to be Rhino, I’ve become very picky about who I will support. I am rock solid in my beliefs and too will no longer risk misrepresentation of my ideals from a party of chameleons.
7 joemarier // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:28 am
balconesfault,
Yes and no. Two border guards who shot a guy and tried to hide the evidence got their sentences commuted, but Conrad Black remains in jail…
8 balconesfault // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:52 am
joe – I will give Bush credit – he handled his Presidential Pardons with far more dignity and consistency than he handled the rest of his presidency. I may agree or disagree with some of his decisions, but it does seem the one place where he actually felt the rule of law was to be taken seriously, and was not simply mallable for political purposes. To that extent you can say there was at least one aspect of the Bush Presidency that was superior to the Clinton Presidency.
9 Reason60 // Oct 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm
The Left collasped in the 1970’s when it forgot its principle of defending the powerless, and became beholden to a gaggle of special interest groups, proving the old maxim that a movement begins as a cause, then becomes a business, then ends as a racket.
The consevative movement has become so beholden to coporate interests- seeing “capitalism” as being synonymous with “corporatism” that it no longer stands for anything.
This is because corporations do not have principles, or ideals, or values. They have only interests. If these interests coincide with free market, they fight government activism; if their interests coincide with government contracts, they pursue government enlargement with vigor.
Until the conservative movement can be as skeptical of Goldman Sachs and Halliburton as it is of ACORN, they will be intellectually incoherent; Witness the sudden confusion over the bill to ban government contractors who defraud the government- aimed at ACORN, but unwittingly targeting Halliburton.
10 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Frum:
David, you picked a bad example.
I’m also concerned about government overregulation and the corrosive effect it has on innovation.
But as you yourself admit, light bulbs are only a symbol; their actual influence on global warming is miniscule.
A significant solution involves moving away from gas-guzzling vehicles and away from old-style coal-burning power plants. That will require government action. There will never be a popular groundswell in a state like Ohio, which gets most of its electricity from cheap coal, to move away from that cheap source and go with something more expensive just because global warming might be occurring 30 years from now. This issue will require government leadership at all levels.
11 rbottoms // Oct 13, 2009 at 12:53 pm
She also could have produced a seatbelt and asked whether conservatism demanded opposing making use of the seatbelt mandatory. The government has the right to set into law policies that create the greater good. Global warming is real. The incandescent bulb is a wasteful relic as damaging to the environment as a car without a catalytic converter in the aggregate. Please fight battles like the light bulb, and the elimination of license plates while you’re at it.
Libertarians must love being silly and ineffective and they certainly must have no desire to ever achieve election to public office in any significant numbers.
12 DFL // Oct 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The budgetary implosion and trillions in red ink with the Baby Boomers beginning to retire will effect conservatism- or liberalism- much more than each will effect the coming fiscal catastrophe.
13 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Seems like he did not get the memo:
“The Future of Conservatism” does not include Frum.
14 Panta Rei // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Agree with some comments that there is industrial politics involved,
whatever about other motives….
I have extensively covered the Europe light bulb ban,
including the unpublicised institutional and industrial politics behind it:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
It may sound good to “only allow efficient products”.
Unfortunately, inefficient products may be popular for many other reasons, relating to
performance, appearance, construction, as well as cost, and sometimes the overall savings
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards
Put it this way with the light bulbs:
Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2008).
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product = no “savings”!
If new LED lights – or more efficient incandescents etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.
The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Any government worried about say oil use can simply tax it
(and imported oil is not used in electricity generation).
Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, heat factor etc with referenced research
About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2),
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
Taxation is just another unjustified way of targeting light bulbs – but might be a compromise solution:
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to supposedly reduce electricity consumption.
For those who favor bans, or who want to act quickly in targeting electricity consumption as well as production and distribution,
taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense, governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few dollars tax that reduces the current sales (USA like the EU 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
But the real deal is simply to supply energy as needed with whatever emisssion criteria is needed,
and let consumers use and pay for what they want, in their own homes.
15 Panta Rei // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Agree with some comments that there is industrial politics involved,
whatever about other motives….
I have extensively covered the Europe light bulb ban,
including the unpublicised institutional and industrial politics behind it:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
It may sound good to “only allow efficient products”.
Unfortunately, inefficient products may be popular for many other reasons, relating to
performance, appearance, construction, as well as cost, and sometimes the overall savings
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards
Put it this way with the light bulbs:
Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2008).
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product = no “savings”!
If new LED lights – or more efficient incandescents etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.
The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Any government worried about say oil use can simply tax it
(and imported oil is not used in electricity generation).
Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, heat factor etc with referenced research
About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2),
with a focus on transport and electricity:
ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
Taxation is just another unjustified way of targeting light bulbs – but might be a compromise solution:
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to supposedly reduce electricity consumption.
For those who favor bans, or who want to act quickly in targeting electricity consumption as well as production and distribution,
taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense, governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few dollars tax that reduces the current sales (USA like the EU 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
But the real deal is simply to supply energy as needed with whatever emisssion criteria is needed,
and let consumers use and pay for what they want, in their own homes.
16 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Frum wrote: “They argued then that government should get out of the business of prescribing solutions to problems – like banning light bulbs to fight global warming – and instead set general rules that enabled people to experiment with the best solutions.”
This, more than any other statement I can recall, best illustrates the irrelevance of modern conservatism. While it’s a healthy instinct to doubt government’s ability to develop an administer effective solutions to many problems, it’s quite destructive to reflexively resist any attempt by government to solve problems that private enterprise has not or can not solve. Moreover, it’s reckless to ignore the consequences of delay in solving many problems while waiting for private enterprise to determine whether the provision of a solution is in its commercial interest.
As shown by the ban on the light bulb, there are many examples of government intervention that do serve the greater good without creating all of the woes that conservatives wail about.
17 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 3:25 pm
It’s going to cost money to fight global warming, because it requires moving away from the equilibrium price set by the free market. Coal is cheap, there’s no doubt about that. Even factoring in the cost of acid rain and sulfur dioxide, it’s still cheap. But global warming will be catastrophic–someday.
Spending money to fight global warming is like buying life insurance. The money you spend on premiums is a sunk cost, gone forever. You HOPE you won’t be making money on this deal. Because the only way to make money on it is to die early of some catastrophe. In that sense, the billions to fight global warming are like paying the premiums for an insurance policy for the planet.
BTW, “rbottoms”: Your comparison is an exaggeration. Cars without catalytic converters produce unburnt hydrocarbons, which are immediately toxic today to those in the immediate environment. (L.A. smog used to be horrible.) An incandescent light bulb produces no toxic gases. Whether toxic gases are produced by the power plant to power the light bulbs depends on what type of power plant it is.
18 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm
spartacusisnotdead:
I think direct bans on this or that product are a highly inefficient and bureaucratic way to go about the problem.
The right answer is just to raise taxes on fuels. If the gasoline tax goes up, drivers will buy fuel-efficient cars or use mass transit. If the tax on fossil fuels goes up, power companies will switch to other types of power. The pricing signal will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher electricity rates. And they will respond accordingly by buying fluorescents or high-efficiency appliances.
Obama himself said as much at one point.
The problem here is the conservatives’ allergy to raising any taxes, anyplace, anytime.
19 balconesfault // Oct 13, 2009 at 3:48 pm
panta – welcome
agree with a lot of what you say, but need to challenge this point:
About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).
There are tiers of cost per kwh in virtually every household utility bill in America. Some baseline usage (from what I’ve seen, often around 500-700 kwh/month) is priced at a lower rate – and there will be one or more tiers for higher household usage where $/kwh might be double or more the first price for that first 500-700 kwh/month.
Sinz has it right, though, when he writes The problem here is the conservatives’ allergy to raising any taxes, anyplace, anytime.
What really drives me crazy, and we’ve discussed it before, is that there are conservatives who are willing to support some desired policy via subsidies or tax rebates … but go ballistic when the idea of raising taxes to achieve the same goal is proposed. Because if government hands out money in some form … it will need to raise revenue somewhere else, which means some future tax increase. In fact, we end up with more and more byzantine prescriptions for problems in order to avoid the “T-word”, often causing unintended secondary consequences that undermine the initial goal, not to mention making our income tax forms a nightmare.
20 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Sinz wrote: “The right answer is just to raise taxes on fuels. The problem here is the conservatives’ allergy to raising any taxes, anyplace, anytime.”
I agree, but even when when there’s a proposal to simply “set the rules” as Virgnina Postrel recommends, conservatives often resist any government intervention such as in setting fuel mileage standards.
21 EscapeVelocity // Oct 13, 2009 at 4:18 pm
You people are hopelessly confused.
22 LFC // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:17 pm
panta-rei said… If new LED lights – or more efficient incandescents etc – are good, people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point). If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
Followed up by…
sinz54 said… Cars without catalytic converters produce unburnt hydrocarbons, which are immediately toxic today to those in the immediate environment.
Point, Sinz. Sorry, Panta, but saying that all decisions should be based upon what people WANT, regardless of the resultant costs to others is a knee-jerk free-market solution, not a conservative one. You could apply the same logic to almost any regulation concerning the environment, noise pollution, worker safety, etc.
Hey, if you don’t like the fact that some product is built in a factory that has an injury rate 10x higher than the national average for that industry, don’t buy it. GONG!
23 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:32 pm
May I suggest that political parties should have absolutely nothing to do with what kind of lightbulbs are produced? These conversations make us look petty and pathetic. Why don’t we leave the real scientific work to scientists?
We are on track for another freezing winter, and still we hear about the inexorable global warming charade… It’s the Big Lie. Human energy consumption has nothing to do with climate. For those who would venture to call me a “Denier,” read
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Updated-Expanded/dp/0742551245
24 Panta Rei // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:36 pm
( please excuse double post above…possibly a transatlantic delay thing
)
Thanks balconesfault (and sinz54)
Interesting about the opposite bill system in USA
Actually that is only one of several rebound effects anyway,
( http://ceolas.net/#cc214x )
for example the notion of energy efficiency effectively meaning cheaper energy so appliances get left on more, and hence no energy gets saved…
in fact, since CFL lifespan is tested in 3 hour cycles and any on-off switching reduces life, they are supposed to be left on anyway… in turn using energy
RE Tax,
Yes it’s odd the conservative support of bans instead of tax,
at least on a libertarian individual freedom angle.
Taxation isn’t justified here but seems a reasonable compromise.
It would also be the one type of tax people would accept too – since a ban is the stated alternative.
After all, no one is forcing you to buy the taxed product.
25 rbottoms // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm
“There is no future in England’s dreaming”
~ God Save the Queen, Sex Pistols
26 LFC // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:42 pm
WillyP, a book by a former tobacco industry apologist / DDT denier (S. Fred Singer) and an organic food critic (Dennis Avery)? Really?
And I should trust these two, who have vested financial interests in denying global warming as compared to thousands of independent actual climate scientists … uh, why?
27 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:44 pm
lfc, fine…
trust your elected officials and the u.n. instead!
28 LFC // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Oh, WillyP, try this review on Unstoppable at RealClimate. While you’re at it, peruse the site a bit. You might learn a thing or two from, you know, actual climate scientists.
29 balconesfault // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:48 pm
A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: “In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer’s group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute’s Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty.”
Oh, and as lfc noted – Singer was integral in producing papers which challenged the evidence that secondhand smoke causes health problems. Because as we all know, it’s having a filter between your lips that causes cancer, and not the smoke itself.
On energy taxes – as I’ve long argued elsewhere, and recently here – I think that we could all agree that about 1/2 our defense budget is really wrapped up in making sure there’s an uninterrupted supply of oil headed to our fair shores from around the world. That DOD budget is all an external cost. Were we to internalize that cost to the price of energy consumption, by pegging carbon taxes to a level necessary to cover 1/2 the DOD budget (including oil related adventures like Iraq) then we wouldn’t need subsidies, artificial constraints, etc – the free market would largely provide for conservation and renewables.
30 anniemargret // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:49 pm
sinz: “The right answer is just to raise taxes on fuels. If the gasoline tax goes up, drivers will buy fuel-efficient cars or use mass transit. If the tax on fossil fuels goes up, power companies will switch to other types of power.” and… “he problem here is the conservatives’ allergy to raising any taxes, anyplace, anytime.”
Absolutely agree with you here. During the mini-gas crisis of last year, suddenly people were interested in driving less, and/or had more interest in buying less gas guzzler cars. This idea that something of this magnitude cannot take place is wrong. We put a man on the moon, and we had thousands of workers develop the Manhattan Project in a matter of months. The American people are getting the wrong end of the argument – primarily from right wing talking heads who *still*! maintain there is no such thing as global warming, climate change, or no need for renewable energy sources.
Half of this country is woefully uneducated on the subject. Right now Democrats are leading in this argument. And they will continue to lead, unless Republicans by and large understand and agree that our oil dependency, especially on Middle Eastern oil, will continue to drag us into endless war. While China and other countries have already taken the reins, we are still light years from doing so.
And why? Because Rush Limbaugh says it ain’t so!
31 LFC // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:49 pm
trust your elected officials and the u.n. instead!
Interesting. I didn’t know my elected officials were involved in actual the performance of actual climate science and studies. I also didn’t know that the U.N. funded its own climate scientists. Do you have a source / citation for that?
32 LFC // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:51 pm
balconesfault said… Were we to internalize that cost to the price of energy consumption, by pegging carbon taxes to a level necessary to cover 1/2 the DOD budget (including oil related adventures like Iraq) then we wouldn’t need subsidies, artificial constraints, etc – the free market would largely provide for conservation and renewables.
A fuel tax that explicitly funded the military? Hmmmmm. I’ve never heard a proposal like this, but my first impression is that it really makes a lot of sense.
33 Panta Rei // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Thanks lfc,
but
re “all decisions should be based upon what people want”
1 As I said, a ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here – and light bulbs don’t give out CO2
This is simply a ban to supposedly reduce electricity consumption….
2. RE energy efficiency v emissions
energy efficiency carries its own reward – people save money
but there is no market reward for saving emissions
that is why indeed regulatory activity is needed – but only for emissions
The problem is muddling up the two, which is not necessary
It is commonly said that “banning light bulbs
is quicker/easier/cheaper than dealing directly with emission reduction”
but the argument doesn’t hold up for several reasons
http://ceolas.net/#cc201x
3. If you are really worried about working conditions in factories and environmental effects
how about working conditions in Chinese factories that make CFL energy saving lights …
http://ceolas.net/#li196x
and the CFL mercury issue… http://ceolas.net/#li19x
Believe me I have looked into this
34 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Being that neither you nor I are climatologists, the only thing I have to say is: wait and see. Governments will do nothing because they’re terrified of ruining their countries’ economies. We will see no Doomsday, and soon enough everyone will forget about it. It’s happening already…
Geez, aren’t you people conservatives? That generally goes along with questioning government generated crises, the biggest of which is almost certainly “global warming.”
35 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:04 pm
It’s quite amusing, however. All of you have a pet idea of how to do what – tax this, regulate that, subsidize this, ban that. Never does it enter your respective minds that maybe the best thing to do is just let the people alone. It is this characteristic which puts you in sync with liberal thinking. I find that repugnant.
36 Panta Rei // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:06 pm
lfc
thanks for comment
I replied but its under moderation so hang on in there
37 balconesfault // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:09 pm
We will see no Doomsday, and soon enough everyone will forget about it. It’s happening already…
Yeah … nothing to see here folks – move along …
Obama EPA releases Bush-era global warming finding
WASHINGTON — A controversial e-mail message buried by the Bush administration because of its conclusions on global warming surfaced Tuesday, nearly two years after it was first sent to the White House and never opened.
…
The document specifically cites global warming’s effects on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources and coastal areas as endangering public welfare.
That finding was rejected by the Bush White House, which strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing a so-called “endangerment finding” that had been ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007.
38 anniemargret // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:11 pm
It is not ‘liberal thinking’ to believe climate chance is REAL, and will impact our society. It is not ‘liberal thinking’ to think raises taxes on gas to force change for the good of this country – to reach for renewable energy sources. (Heck, even T.Pickens says we have gone from 24% to 65% for importing oil!) And it certainly should not be ‘liberal thinking ‘ to forge ahead of China in this arena before the USA starts playing defense. And it certainly wouldn’t be a bad thing if our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are not fighting for oil into the next century.
It used to be called…. “American know-how.”
39 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:11 pm
again, all in sync with the liberal mind. just like your hero, david frum.
40 LFC // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:14 pm
WillyP said… It’s quite amusing, however. All of you have a pet idea of how to do what – tax this, regulate that, subsidize this, ban that. Never does it enter your respective minds that maybe the best thing to do is just let the people alone.
You mean like when a bunch of people denied the existence / importance of the ozone hole or its connection with CFCs in the 1980s? Maybe you should talk to school children in southern Argentina who have to wear long-sleeved shirts and hats in the summer to go outside. Or my friend, the melanoma specialist, practicing in Australia where skin cancer rates are particularly high.
Or maybe we should have let companies put anything they wished into the water. After all, what’s the big deal when a river catches fire?
Or perhaps we should allow car companies to create cars that blow up when struck from behind, or pickups that blow up when struck from the side.
Yeah, that sounds “conservative”.
I would be interested, though, if you support the repeal of DADT and the legalization of marijuana. That would certainly be two examples of leaving people alone.
41 balconesfault // Oct 13, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Don’t forget about how conservatives fought long and hard in America to keep government from taking lead out of gasoline and interior home paints.
We can see how that particular ban did no good whatsoever for the health of America’s children.
But no doubt we’d all be better off today if we had just followed WillyP’s advice – “that maybe the best thing to do is just let the people alone.” If people wanted lead in their gasoline, and companies wanted to sell lead based gas – who was the Government to force a phaseout? If people were cool with lead based paint, and companies wanted to sell lead paint – why get in the way?
42 agentprovocateur // Oct 13, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Never does it enter your respective minds that maybe the best thing to do is just let the people alone.
Oh, it is quite right to leave people alone. But leaving alone corporations that would harm people for the sake of profit is another matter.
43 Churl // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:45 pm
balconesfault, for you amusement, here is advice from the wizards at the EPA on how to deal with a broken fluorescent light bulb. You know, the earth tempering, sea lowering miracle technology mandated by our legislators.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/#fluorescent
Can’t wait until these things show up by the thousands in our waste disposal system.
44 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I’m confronted with an odd coalition of Luddites (banning DDT) and interventionists (taxing gasoline even more than it already is).
DDT has never been linked to human disease. It was tenuously linked to thinning bald eagle shell eggs in Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” which led to two things: 1) it’s ban 2) the death of millions from infectious disease. And the ban was repealed, recently, by the WHO – but only after the death of tens of millions of Africans. Like that?
Marijuana might as well be legalized. It’s a relatively harmless drug (certainly less harmful than alcohol) and hemp is an extremely useful product. Matter of fact, there is a column on MarketWatch today arguing for it’s legalization. Buckley and Friedman also advocated repealing its prohibition. I’m sure I’m going to be accused of encouraging all sorts of licentious behavior now that I’ve said that.
Taxing gasoline will discourage using gasoline. I can’t argue with that contention – it’s economics 101. What it will not do is save the planet or save us money or even substantially reduce our importation of foreign oil. You (all) act as though declaring something less available will automatically generate practical alternatives. You don’t think there’s a reason why it hasn’t been done already? There are virtually no workable alternatives. We would quite literally shut down our economy, while at the same time providing for less competition for the Chinese, Russians, etc. to purchase Middle Eastern oil. As is typical for you liberal Republicans, you never think out the ramifications of your recommended policy. Why don’t you familiarize yourself with some Bastiat and rethink your recommendations.
I am for economic liberalism. I think this is the best policy – laissez-faire. To what extent? I’d say it’s probably a good idea to repeal legal tender laws, if that gives you some idea of where I am coming from. Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves, to paraphrase Hayek (don’t quote me on that!). I happen to think Classical Liberalism was a wonderful system, and rather regret its transmogrification into welfare statism, and eco-statism for that matter.
45 anniemargret // Oct 13, 2009 at 9:39 pm
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
I’m a left of center Democrat, or if I have to be put in a box….
That said, I am solidly with Mr. Pickens on this topic. We can’t afford NOT to! As a nation, we have to have foresight. You say we already would have done this – the powers that be do not want this. To change the entire focus of our economy off oil would be – yes – a huge undertaking. But so was the Manhattan Project. To get ourselves off oil would mean a truly bipartisan all hands on deck approach. It would mean getting Americans to understand the ramifications of NOT getting off oil…and any one of them is more dangerous than the ‘can’t do’ attitude that is being asserted here.
By redirecting our thrust to getting off oil (even if we have to drill our own for a number of years), but heading toward a totally renewable, green energy, we create new industries and jobs for those thousands of unemployed new graduates. We encourage more Americans to get into the earth sciences to compete in the brave new world that coming. If we think we are going to be a superpower by just sending our troops to every corner of the world, think again. We will lose our superpower status if our economy worsens, and it will worsen as long as we are dependent on oil and the oil masters in the world.
Sorry… this is one American who thinks we are trekking down the wrong path now. By the time we wake up from our collective sleep on this issue (the political parties will have to throw that ball back and forth for another ten years), China will be leaving us in the dust.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/When-China-Rules-the-World/Martin-Jacques/e/9781594201851/?itm=1&USRI=when+china+rules+the+world+the+end+of+the+western
46 Reason60 // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:37 pm
The refrain of “just let the market handle it” is a good one, if we are talking about consumer goods, or supply and demand of things.
But the marketplace is not a panacea, it is not a infallible dogma that always and ever produces good results.
The marketplace has limits of what it can do, and what it can’t. It can react very well to consumer demand, of what the consumers demand…TODAY. What the marketplace cannot do is plan ahead and convert to something that we know will make sense tomorrow, but is inefficient today.
So even though we know that petroleum will run out in a few decades, and that petroleum dependency is killing our air and earth and economy in a thousand ways, the marketplace cannot efficiently shift to a non-petroleum basis. Solar, wind, and just plain energy efficiency are not rewarded in the current marketplace.
The marketplace also does not shift from one basis to another in slow smooth even movements- if the price of gasoline, for example were to gradually increase, slowly, evenly, smoothly, then the marketplace would slowly produce more and more energy efficient products.
But the marketplace changes the same way that evolution does- in fits and starts, in sudden wrenching cataclysms; a war in Iraq, a terror strike in Nigeria, a revolution in Iran; the price of oil surges, then recedes, then surges again in wild unpredictable motions.
Just chanting “marketplace” like a mantra treats the common sense reality of supply and demand like a cultish religion, a dogma that solves all problems from energy to hangovers.
We create governments to handle problems that the blind forces of the marketplace by themselves cannot.
47 spikeytx86 // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Actually the basic tenants of conservatism are still very popular. Limited but effective Government, Lower Taxes and Regulation, Traditional Values, and a Strong National Defense are supported by majorities of voters. In fact independents now support Limited Government and Lower Taxes by nearly a 2-1 margin.
The problem is not conservatism but special interests. Right Wing special interest groups have hijacked the Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative, the Social Conservative, and National Defense wings of the party.
They have pushed the party to support the most extreme views of all of these wings by convincing leadership that being the loudest equates with being a majority.
Which is why we have ended up where we are, a reactionary party of no that has no original thoughts other then to cut taxes.
We are basically where the Democrats were in 2003. Which means we still have a few elections to lose unfortunately before we finally get a clue.
I consider my self a big “C” Conservative and small “l” libertarian who is fairly socially conservative on some issues and libertine on others. This basically means I am a bit at home with all of the wings of the party and with none of them. To the extremes of each wing I am a heretic and a RINO. Unfortunately since pretty much no one can fit cookie cutter neat into any one wing of the party, these groups are alienating most GOP’ers and are continually alienating voters every election and this will eventually lead to us becoming nothing more then a party of White Middle Aged Southern Men.
Unfortunately until the party finally figure’s out that the special interests and extremes of the party don’t represent most GOP voters (and poll after poll bares this out) we are pretty much doomed to continual electoral failure.
48 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:57 pm
“We create governments to handle problems that the blind forces of the marketplace by themselves cannot.”
The Declaration of Independence disagrees with you:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Protecting Life, Liberty, and Property. Consent of governed. Where do you claim your authority?
I don’t see anything there about economic planning. That’s because these men were classical liberals, not statists. I could come to some agreement with you if your ideas were not patently discredited by nearly every economist who has ever lived. Or, if history had provided us with any reliable guide that those governing us were more proficient in economic planning than the private sector. Alas none of these conditions can be met, and we arrive at an impasse.
Frankly, you’re wrong and discredited by theory, history, and the highest law in the land, and I’m right.
You say, “So even though we know that petroleum will run out in a few decades, and that petroleum dependency is killing our air and earth and economy in a thousand ways, the marketplace cannot efficiently shift to a non-petroleum basis. Solar, wind, and just plain energy efficiency are not rewarded in the current marketplace.”
Well boo-hoo. I’m sorry I don’t want to increase my energy bill by 100 fold, or be forced to recycle toilet paper and old food containers. Once the costs become prohibitive – a point that can be arrived at accurately by only free market forces – we will begin to transition. It’s not like we’re going to wake up one day and hear “NO MORE OIL!” Believe it or not, Exxon Mobil thinks of these things, too.
If you were in favor of clean, safe, abundant energy, you’d support nuclear power. Lift the ban and all you have as a byproduct is steam and some very minor waste. Matter of fact, David Frum himself advocated this approach. Uncannily, however, he still trumpets doom and gloom over global warming and the need to tax carbon emissions. Let me tell you something: a carbon tax, a VAT tax, rising marginal tax rates, tax penalties for not providing health insurance, and the flood of cheap dollars will destroy this country. Wise up folks.
http://nyyrc.com/2009/10/01/approaching-100-taxation/
49 spikeytx86 // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:59 pm
reason60!
Great post! I think idol worship of the free market is just as awful as the Democrats worship of the state.
Especially on Energy matters we will need some Government intervention to help prod the market toward finding solutions. A Gas Tax may not be popular but it is necessary to set the right conditions in the market place for the economy to bare out what works and doesn’t work in alternative energy.
Leaving it to the free market alone will not work. Many of these advocates seem to forget that we would not have become the industrial and manufacturing powerhouse that we were from the turn of the twentieth century to the dawn of the 21st without Lincoln Republicans in the 1860’s -90’s supporting high tariffs on Industrial goods to help coax our budding industrial economy along and protect it from European Industrial domination until it could stand on it’s own.
The same needs to be done for energy.
50 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:07 pm
spikey, “worshiping” the free market is tantamount to believing in the inherent ability of people to live and produce in an intelligent and materially fulfilling manner.
the opposite, it goes without saying, is tantamount of idol (or STATE) worship.
what makes you so confident you know so much better than everyone else? what makes you think our elected representatives, arguably the scummiest cohort of people outside of the prison system, know better than everyone else?
i wonder what goes through some heads.
51 spikeytx86 // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:09 pm
WillyP!
The founders proposed a tax system to fund our new Government based on tariffs. And most of these tariffs were on imported goods that were considered a threat to the economy of the Country. That is economic planing my friend.
As well many of our founding fathers, especially Alexander Hamilton, advocated a strong central Government (though arguably not the behemoth we have today). Thomas Paine even advocated in his writings ideas the idea of a national guaranteed minimum income.
The founding fathers were not some lockstep group that agreed with each other on everything.
52 spikeytx86 // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm
WillyP!
Believing the free market can solve all things would imply that people are perfect and always make perfect decisions and that outside forces can never manipulate or distort the Market.
The Market is not Perfect. It is not evil or good. It simply is what it is, the most natural and successful method of allocating goods and services in the most efficient manner possible.
But sometimes the market does not deliver everything that Society needs or desires. That is one of the reasons we have a Government, to perform the essential duties that people and/or the market can not do or do effectively.
Sometimes Government intervention is necessary. Tax cuts are Government intervention. It is a deliberate policy to provide fiscal stimulus to the Economy and to promote and encourage productive behavior which will lead to economic growth. That’s not leaving the market alone to do it’s thing. It’s Government intervening to produce a desired result.
53 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“The founding fathers were not some lockstep group that agreed with each other on everything.”
Well certainly not.
My point was to reinforce the animus against government planning in prior eras, after countless centuries of active, and failed, government planning in one form or another.
I am not exactly a Hamiltonian in governance. Much closer to Jefferson. As for your assertion re: Tom Paine, he very well may have. Stupid idea, if you ask me.
As far as the tariffs, I do not know the history of Federal income, but suffice to say that when you’re trying to raise public money, a tax on imports is extremely expedient. Why? You turn around to your voting citizens and say “Look! We’ll make the foreigners pay for our government!”
Of course, anyone educated in basic economic theory will know these costs are passed onto the consumer. In other words, there is no free lunch.
54 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:22 pm
OK, this is the last thing I’m saying for the moment –
“Believing the free market can solve all things would imply that people are perfect and always make perfect decisions and that outside forces can never manipulate or distort the Market.”
You fail to consider alternatives, and whether they are better or worse. Governments are run by people, you know. Are they more perfect than market actors? No – the difference is that they have the tool of coercion in their back pocket. Pushing and prodding at gunpoint does produce desired results, sure. But there is always the law of unintended consequences. And this is why government intervention sucks, and never works like they say it will!
55 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:26 pm
and, really, reducing taxes is hardly a government intervention. it’s a REPEAL if anything…
56 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:33 pm
WillyP:
Times have changed since Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations”–and since the Constitution was ratified.
In those years, North America was mostly wilderness, sparsely populated. Natural resources seemed almost infinite. If settlers despoiled one area, they could move on to another. And much of the rest of the world was still unexplored by white man. The world seemed vast.
In those days, it was logical to model economic transactions as atomistic: You and I make a deal in which I buy your goods or services–but it doesn’t need to affect anyone else far from us on the planet. That’s a good first approximation, just as the kinetic theory of gases uses as a first approximation that molecules of gas behave like point masses at conditions of room temperature and sea level pressure.
But any first approximation can go awry when conditions become more extreme. At high pressures or low temperatures, gases don’t behave like point masses anymore. And today, economic transactions are too often non-atomistic.
Today, we’ve got 7 billion people on earth. Natural resources in the developed world are running low. (The U.S. has less than one-tenth the oil reserves of the Middle East.) And the side effects of a private economic transaction between you and me can be felt everywhere. Such externalities, like air pollution and global warming, are not accounted for in traditional laissez-faire economics. Because laissez-faire assumes an infinite atmosphere, whose use is virtually free.
Only it’s not. The atmosphere is finite–and man can damage it. In the 1980s, scientists learned that halocarbon propellants were damaging the protective ozone layer of the atmosphere. Then, as now, industry fought that scientific conclusion tooth and nail. But Reagan eventually agreed that it had to be corrected–and he signed into law legislation that phased out halocarbons. The ozone layer would never have been corrected by the private sector, since there was no charge being levied on the use of halocarbons for their damage to the ozone layer.
Whether it’s dumping chemical or nuclear waste, or the ozone layer, or global warming, the true cost of economic transactions has to be accounted for, in terms of the depreciation of the natural environment. The free market has no mechanism to do this, because no one owns the atmosphere as a whole, or the oceans, much less the Earth as a whole. (The Law of the Sea Treaty prevents any individual party from owning the oceans.) They are a resource held in trust for all mankind. And the interests of mankind have to get a seat at the bargaining table.
57 WillyP // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I’m dealing with confused libs. ‘night.
58 spikeytx86 // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:36 pm
“and, really, reducing taxes is hardly a government intervention. it’s a REPEAL if anything…”
Sure it is. It’s a tool that is often used as Fiscal Stimulus. Every Tax Cut from Coolidge to Bush was to provide a fiscal jolt to the economy and promote economic efficiency and growth.
It’s not a repeal. A repeal would be to take away the 16th amendment. Lowering tax rates is just an economic policy.
59 spikeytx86 // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:46 pm
WillyP!
“You fail to consider alternatives, and whether they are better or worse. Governments are run by people, you know. Are they more perfect than market actors? No – the difference is that they have the tool of coercion in their back pocket. Pushing and prodding at gunpoint does produce desired results, sure. But there is always the law of unintended consequences. And this is why government intervention sucks, and never works like they say it will!”
No but Government can act as a check on Destructive Market Forces or extremes.
Look I think the Government intervenes way, way too much. I also think we spend way too much. I would like to see the budget cut by at least 10% and froze at that level until revenues equal spending and we get ourselves out of these mega deficits. I’d like to see at least a quarter of Government departments shuttered.
I think as a whole Government does way too much. But that does not mean I am for Government NEVER intervening. When Government looks at intervention it should ask itself this;
1. Is there a problem?
2. If yes does it require Government action?
3. If yes how much and on what level.
I guarantee that if the Federal Government were to take these questions and review it’s policies and be honest with it’s self it would divest itself from numerous areas of peoples lives and from sectors of the Market. But it would also increase it’s intervention in a few areas more then likely. But in net it would do far less then it is doing now.
I am for Limited but effective Government, not Big Government, but not no Government either.
I am also for paying the bills too. Tax cuts are nice but if they increase the deficit they only guarantee a future tax increase.
60 spikeytx86 // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:49 pm
“I’m dealing with confused libs. ‘night.”
LOL! Your only “dealing with us” because you want to. No one is forcing you to interact with us or to be on this site.
And for a liberal I guess I am really confused, being a Straight Ticket Republican since I could vote and all.
61 joedee1969 // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:21 am
These light bulbs shine light on the madness. I can’t wait until C. Rich is back from vacation, here’s what he said about this:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2008/12/global-warming-and-the-jonestown-koolaide/
62 balconesfault // Oct 14, 2009 at 8:02 am
http://americaspeaksink.com/2008/12/global-warming-and-the-jonestown-koolaide/
web page hit troll …
63 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 8:53 am
Spikey, you ARE a destructive market force!
Ha!
Seriously though, market forces are engaged in destructive activity most commonly when government interferes with the pricing mechanism. Or, as we’ve come to understand this, some form of socialization of private property.
Otherwise, the whole point of a market is to create PROFITABLE channels of production. If something is truly destructive (in an economic, not moral, sense) it will be ferreted out through financial loss. This is why accounting is so important and this is also why the creation of money out of thin air leads to the business cycle (undermines the methods of accounting). The free market will allocate resources in a more efficient way than government by virtue of the fact that it collects more subjective information from individuals’ preference scales.
Of course, if in there were such a thing as anthropogenic global warming, there would be no way to effectively divvy up the atmosphere, and I would at that point urge a carbon tax. Again, I believe this is obviously not the case. Earth is doing just fine, and we’re silly to think that it’s somehow immoral to create waste products in our economy. Natural history is filled with far more destructive agents than humans, like ice ages, meteors, and volcanic eruptions.
Has the fact that over the last 10 years earth’s average temperature has decreased while emissions have risen substantially ever given you pause? Do you not see a severe disconnect between cause and effect here?
64 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 9:39 am
WillyP:
Loss to whom, in the cases of air pollution and global warming?
If all the polluting vehicles in a city give off smog that give the kids in that city asthma attacks, how is the loss to those kids’ families paid for? Are they supposed to send a bill to all the drivers of all those cars? How do they find out who was driving in their city that day?
If power plants and cars in Ohio help cause GLOBAL warming, which will damage low-lying areas of Maldives and Bangladesh in 30 years, how is that going to be paid for? Will Maldives and Bangladesh send the citizens of Ohio a bill for all the dikes and levees they will need to build? Or maybe they should just declare war on us?
I keep explaining over and over that the side effects of economic transactions (”externalities”) aren’t taken into account in your model. For example, your power plant makes electricity, I as a consumer pay for it, and you’re happy, and I’m happy. But in the meantime, sea levels rise and low-lying areas in the rest of the world get submerged. When I paid for YOUR electricity, neither you nor I cared about that. You didn’t have to pay anyone for the use of the AIR that you are polluting. The earth’s atmosphere has been priced as if it’s free, since human civilization began. Adam Smith priced it that way too.
Even Milton Friedman, who did more to popularize capitalism (”Free to Choose”) than anyone else in recent times, recognized that laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t deal with this. Government has to act as an accumulator of the costs of externalities, and charge them to the appropriate participants.
65 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 9:47 am
WillyP:
Earth will do just fine.
The human race may not.
Sea levels have risen and fallen throughout the Earth’s history. The composition of the atmosphere has changed dramatically too. And the planet is still here.
But what you left out of your rosy picture is that such dramatic changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans have been traced by paleontologists to mass extinctions of plant life, animal life, and sea life. It wouldn’t take much to make the Midwest U.S., the Ukraine, and other “breadbaskets of the world” into dust bowls, with disastrous results on post-industrial economies that depend on highly productive farming to feed them.
You also left out the fact that the Miami coast is one of the richest areas of the U.S. And a rise in sea levels could wipe it out entirely.
You also left out the fact that Bangladesh is mostly low-lying, and a rise in sea levels could flood out most of the country. 70% of its population of 200 million people are Muslim. How do you think they will react when they see that CO2 gases from the “Great Satan” destroyed their country?
Throughout history, wars have been fought over conflicts over natural resources.
Why do you want to take a risk on all this happening? Isn’t it prudent to pay for an insurance policy against this possible future?
The chance that you will be killed on a commercial airline flight is only 1 in 1 million. That’s far less than the chance that global warming is occurring. Yet millions of passengers still purchase flight insurance.
66 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 9:53 am
WillyP:
Laissez-faire capitalism assumes an “invisible hand”–that if each participant pursues his own self-interest, the global interest of maximally efficient allocation of resources for all is attained. That seemed to be true when resources were assumed to be so vast that coupling and externality effects were rare.
So what happens when resources are scarcer?
Modern game theory suggests that it doesn’t work as well.
Problems like the Travelers’ Dilemma show that when each participant pursues his own narrow economic self-interest in a universe of limited resources, the result can be a globally inefficient result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveler%27s_dilemma
It turns out that only a strategy of cooperation can produce a better result.
That’s something Adam Smith never thought of.
But that’s why in real life, you end up with trusts, cartels, oligopolistic imperfect competition, etc.
67 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 10:37 am
I’m not going to bother engaging with this Sinz character on issues of economic theory, because I have to say I find nothing said original or provocative. Laissez-faire does not imply man-eat-man, but only that legal restrictions do not hinder free association. Cooperation is an inherent component of any free market, and it’s so backwards to suggest that governments encourage cooperation that I won’t bother to reply. As for your ludicrous suggestion that cars in cities are so damaging to people’s health, I’d say if this were the case, cities would depopulate. I’ve lived in large metropolitan areas for the better part of 7 years, and in close proximity to NYC most of my life. I go running regularly and have never noticed my lungs aching. Judging by the number of people I see when out, I can only assume I’m not alone. Furthermore, what good does a pittance of monetary compensation do to someone who has severe respiratory problems? If car’s polluted to the extent you suggest, we would ban them in cities and not think twice.
If sea levels are going to rise, they are going to rise no matter what man does. Yes, wild weather events do cause mass extinctions, and rather than impoverish ourselves in a completely meaningless and fruitless effort to stave off the specter of a nonexistent threat – anthropogenic global warming, leading to rising sea levels!), I think we should be developing REAL solutions to these problems through better technology and innovation. When 95% of the atmosphere’s greenhouse gas composition is water vapor, increasing our CO2 output by a relatively minor amount simply has no tangible effect on climate.
You think I kid you? Again, why is nobody acting on this? Because, very clearly, there is no threat. I’ll repeat:
Has the fact that over the last 10 years earth’s average temperature has decreased while emissions have risen substantially ever given you pause? Do you not see a severe disconnect between cause and effect here?
68 Reason60 // Oct 14, 2009 at 11:52 am
WillyP-
You quoted the Declaration of Independence, which is fine; It establishes principles of freedom from tyranny. Your premise I assume, is to argue that governmental controls of the marketplace infringe on individual liberty. Actually, I share your concern about that- government is notoriously heavy-handed and clumsy.
However, where we disagree is the notion that there can be NO governmental intervention in the natural workings of the marketplace. Allow me a bit of quotation, this time from the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 8 where it gives power to Congress to provide for the “general Welfare” and the power to regulate interstate commerce.
Clearly, food safety laws, zoning laws, building regulations, airline regulations, anti-pollution regulations among the many others, are not only legal and proper, but vital and necessary.
When we the people see a need to restrict or discourage harmful products or industrial processes, governmental intervention is a useful tool to accomplish what the market alone can’t.
Again, government isn’t a panacea or cure-all, just as the marketplace isn’t.
But a thoughtful combination of the two is common sense.
69 spikeytx86 // Oct 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm
WillyP!
Actually I am quite agnostic on Global Warming. If man is impacting climate it is arguably on a negligible level.
The reason I support a higher gas tax is to eliminate our dependence on Foreign Oil, especially oil from the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela. A permanently higher price for gas would reduce our consumption of oil, and create a competitive environment for possible alternatives to oil which will further reduce our consumption of oil. Establishing a competitive environment for industries that we as a nation deem vital to our security and prosperity is not some Marxist plot. It’s what we have done since this countries founding. As I noted before it was Lincoln Republicans during the latter half of the 19th century that supported and established high tariffs on Manufactured and Industrial imported goods so that our fledgling industrial sector could take hold and get strong enough to compete against the European industrial powers. By helping to protect our industrial sector until it was strong enough to stand on its own, we became an industrial powerhouse which brought unfathomable prosperity to our country and made it possible for us to win two world wars and a cold war.
I would also make the Gas Tax revenue neutral. For every $1 raised in the gas tax $1 would be cut from payroll and income taxes. Just like that arch communist Charles Krauthammer proposed.
70 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“Clearly, food safety laws, zoning laws, building regulations, airline regulations, anti-pollution regulations among the many others, are not only legal and proper, but vital and necessary.”
You present a perversion of the commerce clause.
The whole reason that it exists it to create a commercial zone encompassing the entire union. Or, put another way, to prevent STATE governments from engaging in protectionism.
Promoting general welfare implies NOT picking winners and losers.
71 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm
spikey, forget about the pet schemes. i am going to flat out disagree with krauthammer and say while it’s a creative idea, it’s also a petty and ineffectual one.
support ending the nuclear moratorium. this would do more to eliminate our “addiction” to foreign oil than anything else, period!
72 spikeytx86 // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:20 pm
WillyP!
I 110% Agree with you on that. We need more Nuclear Power now, actually two decades ago, but especially now!
As for the Gas Tax, it’s nothing more then an excise tax, just like the ones our nation ran on for well over half it’s existence. I’d much rather tax things we want less of, like imported oil and pollution, then things we want more of like working, productivity, environmentalism, investing, and innovation.
73 spikeytx86 // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:25 pm
WillyP!
The General Welfare clause implies acts of Government which would benefit the Country as a whole, like ensuring a safe food supply, a secure source of energy, safe working conditions, reliable and safe medicine, and sound building construction, and many more. All of these things as a whole do secure and improve the General Welfare of the entire nation.
Now we do pervert that clause often, I will grant you that. Ethanol is a good example. It doesn’t work, it is actually worse for the environment, and the only people whose “General Welfare” improves is those in vote rich and influential farm states and a handful of big AG companies.
74 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 2:53 pm
The commerce clause was intended to leave THOSE items to the states – closer gov’t to people. It was intended to impede the states from creating laws that discouraged commerce, such as creating their own currencies. Where you get the idea that the commerce clause is supposed to give the Federal government the power and authority to provide for a stable food and energy supply I cannot say. I think this goes against the fabric of the Revolution in general, and is, in my opinion, an asinine assertion that should set off the warning bells that you’re confused on history and economics. Your comments lapse into Kommisar-like language towards the end. The laws of economics are forever valid – just as valid today as they were 250 years ago, when our country was young. Look at socialized medicine in England and Canada. There is a reason why it’s on the covers of the papers everyday, and why it dominates the political elections – it’s in chronic economic dislocation. Call me cranky, but every few decades people seem to get it in their head that new technology can somehow supplant the problems inherent in economic calculation. This is the apotheosis of hubris, and recognizing such basic facts is, in my opinion, the bedrock of conservative thought.
75 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:05 pm
…to be clear, I mean that thinking we are somehow fundamentally different than our ancestors is the problem, and the recognition that first and foremost we are still the same frail humans we always were is the bedrock of conservative thought. And by that I mean we accumulate wisdom, and conserve it in our policies.
to be further clear, I do not view economics as the bedrock of conservative thought – just a very fruitful area of research that leads to the ability to refute idiotic government enforced production schemes.
76 spikeytx86 // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Do you honestly believe that having 50 different Food Inspection authorities wouldn’t inhibit interstate commerce? You don’t think companies like Tyson wouldn’t be impeded having to deal with 50 different food safety laws and fifty different inspection authorities?
As for energy supply, how are states without any abundant source of resources supposed to guaranty a secure and regular supply of energy?
Is Rhode Island supposed to patrol the Persian gulf on it’s own to secure it’s own supply of oil?
What your talking about isn’t Conservatism, it’s Libertarianism.
The founders did not intend for the Government to remain static in perpetuity. They knew as time passed and things progressed it would be natural for the Federal Government to grow, not to any where near the behemoth we have today, but they knew the Government would inevitably need to do more then run the SCOTUS, maintain a Navy, and maintain roads.
By your logic, we should immediately decommission the Air Force, and the Army since the constitution does not authorize them. The only standing defense the constitution authorizes is a Navy.
77 spikeytx86 // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm
WillyP!
I don’t believe we as a people are different then the Founding Fathers.
But we do live in a different time. And different times call for different answers. And the Founders new this. They did not believe we would live in a static world with a static Government. That’s why they developed a constitution that would provide checks and balances against Government power as the Nation grew and inevitably the Government as well.
78 LauraNo // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:29 pm
When a person is reduced to arguing whether government should ban light bulbs, because people won’t change on their own and it’s for the greater good, it seems to be they have no principle left on which to stand. Any reasonable person would acknowledge the need for government to be involved in some aspects of society – for the greater good, and if you instinctively oppose every little thing you just look the fool. Why don’t conservatives care about conserving? Energy, in this instance? Because they care more for a slogan “keep government out of my life”? than for real life practical problems or their attendant solutions? Silliness.
79 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The confusion mounts.
Conservatives aren’t against conserving energy. This is silliness on stilts. They reject the notion that they need some group of overseers to tell them to conserve resources, as if they’re too stupid to know/realize this on their own.
The battle here is between those who believe government is already the source of too many of our problems in all sorts of varied areas: healthcare, banking, automobile production, chemical regulation, insurance, etc., and those who, instead of repealing the bulk of the New Deal, would instead impose a “New Patch” to cure what ills us. I maintain it’ll never work, just as the New Deal did not work.
80 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 4:54 pm
WillyP:
There’s no point in arguing with with you about this,
because you don’t believe global warming is even occurring.
This is NOT about “conserving energy”!!!
It’s about restricting the production of greenhouse gases, as an insurance policy against the future.
I’ll say it again and again: There is NO FREE MARKET INCENTIVE to restrict the production of greenhouse gases, since the cost to the earth’s atmosphere is not required to be paid by anyone. Yet.
In the 1980s, we faced a similar issue with the production of halocarbon gases. Then, halocarbon gases were destroying the ozone layer in the earth’s atmosphere. Then, there was NO FREE MARKET INCENTIVE to restrict this–because NO ONE owned the ozone layer! It’s a trust held by all mankind. So government action was needed.
Even President Reagan understood this. He was skeptical at first, but when his science adviser said it was necessary, he signed legislation phasing out halocarbon gases.
But you probably didn’t believe the ozone layer was being destroyed either.
The mindset seems to be that how can we puny human beings possibly damage the earth’s atmosphere? You can mention the ozone layer and nuclear winter again and again and again, and it just falls on deaf ears.
Scientific illiteracy is going to be the death of nations in the 21st century.
81 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:57 pm
sinz, that depends on who you ask (whether this is about energy conservation)
As for global CLIMATE CHANGE, I repeat, again:
Has the fact that over the last 10 years earth’s average temperature has decreased while emissions have risen substantially ever given you pause? Do you not see a severe disconnect between cause and effect here?
82 WillyP // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Nuclear may well be our downfall. Scientific illiteracy, certainly not. Never have more people been more educated in scientific matters than today.
However, what will not kill us, but very well may enslave us, is monetary theory. cf The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises.
83 aftermath609 // Oct 15, 2009 at 7:31 pm
As an aside from the energy debate, my favorite thing that Ms. Postrel said at that panel discussion went something like this:
On why conservatives should oppose a ban on light bulbs: “And the Burkean conservatives will find some intrinsic value and wisdom in the golden yellow light that [an incandescent light bulb] produces”
84 Starship Mechanic // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Don’t you find it tiresome to define “conservatism” by what it opposes, rather than what it promotes?
85 Starship Mechanic // Oct 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm
WillyP writes: “Has the fact that over the last 10 years earth’s average temperature has decreased while emissions have risen substantially ever given you pause? Do you not see a severe disconnect between cause and effect here?”
_______________
Question: if the stock market tanks, do you think this refutes the notion of long-term equity growth?
You must log in to post a comment.