7/13/2007
A trillion dollars to special interest groups from this? Amazing, and what a waste. Forcing business to become less profitable and less effective, this surely is going to effect the ‘free marketplace’ in a negative way. But then they’re not about ‘free markets’–check out the book Freakonomics.
| Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced this week their “Low Carbon Economy Act” (LCEA) intended to combat global warming. The bill ought to be called the “The Trillion Dollar Giveaway and Wealth Redistribution Act.” |
| The LCEA is 130 pages in length and quite complex. So while it will take considerably more time to do a thorough analysis, the bill does have one notable feature that screams for immediate attention – its giveaway of more than one trillion dollars to special interests in its first 10 years. |
|
|
July 13th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I read freakonomics and maybe I missed something - where did it come down against the free market?
July 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Read Freedomnomics; the counterpoint to Freakonomics. For one thing, Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner describe the ‘obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit” that pervades our everyday lives. They go on to categorize “experts such as doctors, funeral directors, and life insurance agents as unscrupulous sharks looking to cash in on their expertise by swindling their own clients.”
Their claim about the free market is completely wrong; capitalism is not based on greed and predation.
That’s for starters.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Matt, may I suggest you go back to “Warlords of Afghanistan” and get off my blog.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I will no longer comment if you like - but I am actually here trying to undestand your reasoning - not trying to make you look bad.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am
It is interesting that so many people pretend to have an informed opinion about global warming when poll after poll shows that nearly half of the American people believe the earth is only six thousand years old (i.e. created 3,500 years after Native Americans domesticated squash and the peanut).
This requires that they must reject, a priori, all evidence from ice, bog and sea floor core samples dating back tens or even hundreds of thousands of years showing evidence of climate fluctuations from which to compare the current temperature increase.
If they accepted the antiquity of the samples they would understand why scientists conclude that the current change is outside the natural fluctuations in so short a time.
Let’s see, are we to believe the best scientific minds interpreting the best scientific data or certain interpretations of Iron Age literature? Hmmmm!
Of course there is a third choice; believe economists, politicians and conspiracy theorists instead.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am
July 14th, 2007 at 11:43 am
This is interesting; a few bullet points showing the sun’s influence on warming-entitled “Cosmic-climate study cools Kyoto” by by Tim Patterson, National Post Monday, July 14, 2003 (I think this guy is also out of Canada).
- When we are in the bright arms of the galaxy, we are relatively close to more supernovas, the galactic cosmic ray intensity is consequently high, we therefore have more cooling clouds, and so we see colder periods on the Earth;
- When we are out of the arms and galactic cosmic ray strength is low, there are less clouds and the Earth is warmer.
Veizer and Shaviv conclude that 75% of the temperature variability in the last half-billion years is explained by cosmic ray changes as we move in and out of galactic spiral arms.
Yet, over the same time frame, the geologic record shows essentially no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature even though CO2 levels have been up to 18 times higher than today. In fact, CO2 concentration was more than 10 times higher than current levels during the Ordovician glaciation, about 440 million years ago.
Veizer and Shaviv use their study results to conclude that a doubling of today’s CO2 levels would result in a change in low-latitude sea temperatures of about 0.5C. This translates into a global temperature rise of only about 0.75C instead of the 1.5-to-5.5C global warming predicted by the IPCC. This new forecast compares favourably with other predictions (e.g. MIT’s Richard Lindzen, 1997) and matches the rate of change observed by weather satellites over the past 22 years.
Reference
This table demonstrates in a simple visual format that Lindzen’s theory about cloud cover is completely accurate, and that the majority of ‘greenhouse gases’ are made up of water vapor. As you can see, man’s contribution is barely visible here, because it’s minimal! Greenhouse gases are natural; industrialization has done nothing to the environment. Industrialization, burning of fossil fuels, actually adds to the wonderful protective blanket that filters harmful rays from the sun and protects our atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are not detrimental to the environment; these gases feed a healthy environment and are natural; not pollution. It’s a beautiful set up: we exhale CO2, plants breathe and thrive on CO2, and expel oxygen. Increased CO2 in the air is as a result of warming, not the other way around; and it’s nature’s cyclical corrective mechanism that we’re witnessing.
The industrial age didn’t bring about intensive global warming; historical data (ACCURATE HISTORICAL DATA) shows us that. There was a time when there was more CO2 in the air back before the industrial age started; and the temperatures were virtually the same.
We should bear all this in mind with Al Gore and the UN’s power grab coming up.
Thanks to Francis T. Manns, Ph.D., P.Geo. (Ontario), with Artesian Geological Research, who sent me three extremely technical papers on warming, one is a very easy to understand powerpoint presentation, and that’s where this graphic came from. Mirror site where the information is available on a website, here.
Putting it all together: total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect. (Manns, 2003)
The IPCC just happened to leave the sun’s influence, the cooling influence of water droplets and protective cloud cover, and the mediaval warming period out of their models because incorporating them would destroy their predetermined conclusions. That’s not science, that’s politicized junk.
They call it “science”, but what you have in the IPCC is totalitarian political correctness where you’re called a ‘heretic’ if you don’t subscribe to the politically correct line. For crying out loud, those scientists are funded by government money. All you have to do to get grant money today is include ‘global warming’ in your grant application. What you get as a result is models fed with skewed data to achieve the desired result. Hell, the IPCC reported their conclusions first, and then worked on forcing skewed data into the models to back them up. What a bunch of BS.
Source
July 14th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Scientists deny global warming all the time, climatologists are doing it all the time, and even weathermen are doing it all the time. For example, MIT’s Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science:
It’s becoming more politicized, which is why are lot of people are afraid to speak about it, but to my knowledge, the debate on the issue is still hot and heavy. Censorship is happening in terms of open debate, and it’s appalling that Manzi would not only buy into the IPCC’s version of politicized science, but would advocate that we do, too.
It is as Orwell said in Animal farm, “four legs good, two legs bad.”
“Greenhouse” gases occur naturally in mother nature; and there is a purpose for them. By characterizing them as man-made, environazis are leading us to believe that they’re pollutants. They’re not. We make CO2 when we exhale. Plants release CO2 and other GHGs when they die, and when vegetation goes through the normal process of decomposition. The world’s oceans store and release enormous quantities of CO2. Nitrous oxides are greenhouse gases naturally produced in nature in the soil through microbial processes.
Carbon dioxide, in fact, underpins the entire food web. It is a natural fertilizer, in fact, used in agriculture to increase crop yields. It is not a byproduct or pollutant but an intended result of energy production. Efficient combustion of hydrocarbons produces more CO2; just one more reason why those who advocate ‘energy efficiency’ as a global warming solution haven’t quite perfected their argument yet.
Combustion and emissions contribute only about 2% of the ‘GHGs’ that actually KEEP OUR PLANET habitable, while environmentalists focus their diatribes on eevvilll coal mines, SUVs and power plants.
The top graph is the temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for the last 400,000 years from the Vostok ice core. The second is the temperature change from present, degrees centigrade. (Year before present=1950.) If the two graphs were superimposed, as is customary when comparing similar curves, changes in temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2 concentration by about 400-4,000 years. Petit et al (1999) state that during each of the last four interglacial periods, the Earth was warmer than the current warm period. (courtesy, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, 2006)
Even if we totally eliminate our carbon dioxide contribution, and the only way we can do that is to stop breathing–it’s debateable if anything whatsoever will change. Historically, warming happens BEFORE carbon dioxide goes up in the atmosphere, not the other way around. So it’s literally impossible that this ridiculous theory is correct.
Until the UN’s 2001 report, a mediaeval warming period wasn’t controversial at all. It was warmer then by up to 3 degrees centigrade. We know this from logs from c.1000 AD ships where it was recorded they sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is now a permanent ice cap. (Monckton, 2006)
The algorithm of Mann et al. (1998, & UN, 2001) was re-tested by McKitrick et al.. Mann et al left out the dataset that included the mediaeval warming period, storing it in a computer file marked “CENSORED_DATA”. When McKitrick et al. ran the Mann et al. model including the missing dataset, poof! the mediaeval warming period reappeared!!! This is the same dataset which had to be eliminated in order to create the infamous -now debunked- hockey stick graph which produced environazi hysterics. (courtesy, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, 2006)
July 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am
The people who are getting government money are guaranteeing the politically correct results, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
At Frederick Setiz’s “Petition Project” there are links to the petition against our ratifying the Kyoto “global warming” Protocol, a peer-reviewed White Paper on “Environmental Effects Of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” a letter from him on the subject, an explanation, and an alphabetical listing by last names of 17,200 initial signers. At least 2,000 signers are climatoligists.
There is no ‘concensus’ on this among REAL scientists who are not receiving government money.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Matt, I’m confused as to why you’re commenting on this thread about global warming about freakonomics.
I’m also confused as to why you’d possibly think my request could have anything remotely to do with your ‘making me look bad’.
I think you overrate yourself and your questions,
July 14th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Levitt clearly believes in the functionality of the free market, I don’t think there are many economists left who do not, certainly none with any respect in academia, of which Levitt has tons. Lott has mislead you. Have you have read Freedomnomics?
You post material supporting your beliefs, I had assumed you did this to persuade americans who do not share your beliefs. Therefore I assumed you would be ok with such people posting in reply unless they were rude or something. I guess I am wrong in this.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Matt, I’m sure Lott would like to know who’s saying that kind of thing about his work. For starters, keep your comments on the post that they apply to. Your comments on Freedomnomics do not belong on a post about global warming.
What you’re doing there is making a sweeping generalization based on no facts. I don’t respond to personal attacks, and if you keep this up, you’re banned.
It’s amazing how leftists are so determined to shut down conservative voices…make slanderous remarks and use devious devices and methods to do it.
Dear Chimpy: Not interested.
People (like you) who find it necessary (or who’ve been appointed) to be the thought police on global warming are not experts in my book. I quoted a scientist above who said total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect. (Manns, 2003)
Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
I don’t profess to be a scientist, but I am in touch with them. As I said previously, Frederick Seitz’s “Petition Project.” is a petition against our ratifying the Kyoto “global warming” Protocol. At that link is a peer-reviewed White Paper on “Environmental Effects Of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” a letter from him on the subject, an explanation, and an alphabetical listing by last names of 17,200 initial signers. At least 2,000 signers are climatoligists.
There is just too much evidence that flies in the face of the global warming nazis who want to crush any opposing view to insure the government money keeps flowing.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Dear Matt Weems:
Could you please give a specific example of what I wrote that is incorrect? Which discussion in my book are you referring to? I provided many long quotes from Freakonomics or other statements by its authors so that people can see what was exactly being stated. If you think that one of those quotes did not adequately sum up their argument, please reference it and let us know what is being missed.
Thank you.
John
July 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Cao
Look at you initial post - this is the last sentence:
“But then they’re not about ‘free markets’–check out the book Freakonomics.”
You introduced Freakonomics into this thread.
John -
I’m not saying anything about your book as I have not read it. If you look at the second comment in this thread Cao quotes some conclusions from it. If you want to post the supporting arguments on your blog I’d be happy to read them and respond.
I would be very surprised if an economist today with any kind of reputation thinks the free market is a bad idea. I certainly did not get that sense from Levitt’s book.
I assume this is a quote from your book? “…experts such as doctors, funeral directors, and life insurance agents as unscrupulous sharks looking to cash in on their expertise by swindling their own clients.”
That’s not the way I remember the real estate agent chapter at all. As I recall Levitt pointed out that the agents have their own interests that conflict with those of their clients in some ways. But it stretches his point past recognition to say he thinks real estate agents knowingly swindle thier clients on a regular basis. Nor do I remember him saying the conflicted interests demonstrate how the free market is a bad thing in general.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Dear Matt Weems:
Well, it would be useful if you actually looked at the arguments that Cao was referring to. Her review didn’t go through this points, and she was just summarizing the points that I had made.
Even if you don’t have any specific examples let me give you two. Here is a simple example of one of many supposed market failures (it is taken from my book):
1) A Sour Lemon Story
“A new car that was bought for $20,000 cannot be resold for more than perhaps $15,000. Why? Because the only person who might logically want to resell a brand-new car is someone who found the car to be a lemon. So even if the car isn’t a lemon, a potential buyer assumes that it is. He assumes that the seller has some information about the car that he, the buyer, does not have—and the seller is punished for this assumed information. And if the car is a lemon? The seller would do well to wait a year to sell it. By then, the suspicion of lemonness will have faded; by then, some people will be selling their perfectly good year-old cars, and the lemon can blend in with them, likely selling for more than it is truly worth.”
–Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner
Nice story—except that it’s wrong. In fact, the widespread perception that a new car loses substantial value as soon as a buyer drives it off the lot is really just a myth, as we shall see.
In a market economy, when anomalies occur like the well-known lemon problem described by Levitt and Dubner, they inevitably create a financial incentive for someone to solve them. Suppose you buy a car for $20,000 and decide for whatever reason to resell it quickly. Assuming nothing is wrong with the car, you have a $20,000 car with just a few miles on it, but according to Levitt and Dubner you can only sell it for $15,000 because buyers believe that people only try to sell a new car so quickly when there’s something seriously wrong with it. What do you do? Do you really sell the car for a $5,000 loss?
Here is the real question: can you convince someone for, let’s say, $4,000 that there is nothing wrong with your car? What about for $500? Could you hire your local mechanic or the car’s original manufacturer to inspect the car and certify that there is nothing wrong with it? If you could do this for $500, and inform potential buyers about the certification in your advertisements, you could likely sell the car for the full $20,000, earning for yourself $19,500—not $15,000.
There are in fact many other possible solutions. For example, a person worried about buying a lemon can buy a used certified car. Car manufacturers also allow warrantees to be transferred to new owners. Whether the warrantee is for three years/36,000 miles or five years/60,000 miles, a person who buys a lemon will not be stuck with it, even if he is the second owner. Furthermore, some places allow you to return a used car for a full refund. For instance, CarSense, a certified used car dealer in the Philadelphia area, offers full refunds for cars returned within five days of purchase. And of course, these resale companies want to maintain a reputation for screening out any problematic cars.
Luckily for us, the lemon thesis can be easily tested. I analyzed the prices of . . . .[the evidence does show that the problem that they fear exists]
2( Let me give you another simple example. Freakonomics is filled with claimed cheating by others in the market (virtually all firms are claimed to be committing fraud, real estate agents as analogous to the KKK, people in all sorts of other professions taking advantage of their customers, etc.). What that book doesn’t discuss is how the market solves these problems. The book argues that incentives cause people to cheat others. The book doesn’t mention that consumer’s desire not to be cheated causes firms and individual to have incentives not to cheat them and that markets develop the mechanisms that I discuss in my book. Profits are made by solving the potential cheating problems. Cheating of customers is no where near as widespread as claimed, and incentives are there for people to solve them.
3) My book provides lots of long quotes from Freakonomics and the authors just so it is clear that exactly what he is claiming.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
And Matt, you can’t tell me the title “Freakonomics” all by itself doesn’t say something bad about the American economy.
It indicates - just by the title - that the ‘free enterprise system’ - or what I would call capitalism, is “FREAKY” or “FREAKISH”.
Now maybe not all people would get that from the title, but I would say comparing real estate agents with the KKK is over the top. I think there is an intent to protray people in business as predatory shysters, and the “FREAKY” economy allows them to take advantage of the consumer.
Which indicates to me they don’t understand how the free market works.
Shysters don’t stay in business very long - it’s those with good reputations that build a good business and have return customers. The free market, in fact, incents them to be honest, provide good customer service, and treat their customers fairly. It costs much more to generate a new customer than to get repeat business from an old one. That’s why the free market system actually promotes honesty and trust, and weeds the bad guys out because they don’t have good reputations, can’t get repeat business and are driven out of the marketplace.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
It may be possible to sell a car just bought for 95% of the ticket value, I don’t know myself. But I don’t take the inference that you seem to; that if you can’t the free market is not working properly. It sounds to me like the difference between your position and Levitt’s is that you think the free market is capable of solving more of it’s problems on it’s own than Levitt does.
I got the general impression that Levitt believes there is “fraud” in everyday life the same way Foucault argued there is power and coercion in every day interaction, sometimes blatantly, but most of the time subtly and minutely. No agent’s interests will ever align exactly with his clients, no matter how the rules are written. I think Levitt would agree that fraud is just as commonplace in heavily regulated and non-competative industries like airports, gas and defense, perhaps even more so.
Levitt connects the KKK and real estate agents by the way they use privileged information. I think he named the chapter to create interest in the reader and was “deliberately over the top”. I really don’t see anything wrong with that, and he never implies that selling houses and lynching blacks are morally comparable.
It’s hard to pick an ideological fight with Levitt because he makes no argument about what should be done about anything, he just picks out studies that he thinks would be surprising and interesting to the public. The title “Freakonomics” refers to the randomness of his selection and makes no comment on the free market at all.
There are real battles coming over what the free market should be allowed to regulate, health care being the single largest. I understand you think Levitt has written a book somehow attacking the market as crooked in it’s very nature - but I don’t see it.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
You say
But if it’s regulated, it’s not a ‘free market’ anymore. What you’re suggesting there is government regulating the free market, which is what happens under socialism. A free market would allow business and doctors to compete; a regulated one wouldn’t, and that’s why health care in places like Cuba are in actuality very poorly-run and deliver very low level services. This indicates to me that you don’t understand the principles behind capitalism, and that’s what I’ve been trying to convey to you. Maybe Dr. Lott can do me one better.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
1) p. 63: Levitt and Dubner purport to unveil the “obfuscation, complication, and doownright deceit” that pervades our everyday lives.
2) p. 69: “Levitt and Dbubner argue that the justification given by coporate criminals that “everybody else was doing it,” in fact, “may be largely true.”
July 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
A planned economy is regulated by the government, a free market economy is regulated by supply and demand. Regulation does not require government, it can be effected by economic principle.
Health care will be regulated by something, the question is how much will be left to supply and demand and how much will be legislated.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Who imposes regulations, Matt? Central planners are in socialist countries, not in a free one. I think that’s part of the problem; people are looking at this as though we’re ‘planners’ instead of supporting the free market which corrects itself.
Much like climate change.
People like Levitt et al have no understanding of the free market or capitalist system, which is the entire reason Lott wrote a book that isn’t “FREAKY” but gives us all “freedom” of choice.
I’d like to see Lott’s book become a best seller, and used as a text to draw stories from in economics classes.