A Melange of Today's Politics!
A literal gold mine of thought provoking columns!
"Harry's War", todays WSJ editorial, explains how the Dems should be careful or they may get what they wish for!
Tony Blankley explains the real division in todays world: "Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance." Read the whole thing here, paying particular attention to his last paragraph.
In "Environmental Alarmists Have It Backwards" John Stossel explains how adding 1) human ingenuity and 2) time to the environmental equation your conclusions can be quite different than the environmental alarmists. His final paragraph: "If we care about human life, we should celebrate Economic Progress Day." Not Earth Day!
I'm interested in your comments on all three, particular the Stossel column!
"Harry's War", todays WSJ editorial, explains how the Dems should be careful or they may get what they wish for!
Tony Blankley explains the real division in todays world: "Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance." Read the whole thing here, paying particular attention to his last paragraph.
In "Environmental Alarmists Have It Backwards" John Stossel explains how adding 1) human ingenuity and 2) time to the environmental equation your conclusions can be quite different than the environmental alarmists. His final paragraph: "If we care about human life, we should celebrate Economic Progress Day." Not Earth Day!
I'm interested in your comments on all three, particular the Stossel column!
Labels: Global Warning, Iraq, Politics
posted by Jim | 9:18 AM
10 Comments:
On the Stossel article:
I agree with his basic point that it's human ingenuity that can solve problems (and create new ones!), and that science and technology are part of the solution.
But I'd say he goes too far in a number of assertions. While it is true that a number of pollution measures in the U.S. are dropping, it's also true that there's less heavy manufacturing in the U.S. In China, pollution measures are all on the upswing, and I suspect that's true worldwide.
This line seemed particularly elitist to me: "Stakeholder participation means that busybodies would be permitted to intrude on private transactions." The whole point is that one is a stakeholder if the private transactions have externalities that impact you. While not every stakeholder action may be reasonable, I think it's definitely healthy to have some participation in these decisions.
Stossel says: "anything that retards economic progress -- including measures to arrest global warming -- will bring incredible hardship to the most vulnerable on the planet." I think he has an important point here... but on the flip side, I'd say some measures to attempt arrest of global warming will in fact unleash & harness some of the great human powers of ingenuity that he's trumpeting.
(As an example; note that Toyota has pushed past GM in total sales. They appear to be using a lot more ingenuity, in part spurred by Japanese standards for fuel efficiency).
A paragraph by paragraph retort to your comment:
1. Glad you agree - I hope you would also agree the net of solving/creating problems is significantly toward the solving
or we would not be progressing - and you do believe the world is progressing. Right!
2. I agree with your comment on heavy manufacturing, however do not know its contribution vs cars, trucks, airplanes, etc. - all of which have expanded significantly and over the past 50 years while total pollution has decreased. Chinese ingenuity will decrease their contribution as time goes by - as well as all other developing countries. I am going to research if worldwide pollutants are increasing or not - leaving CO2 out of it. Do you know?
3. "The whole point is that one is a stakeholder if the private transactions have externalities that impact you." Be careful - literally all private transactions make us all stakeholders. Example: interest rates are going up; should all us "busybodies" intrude in these private bank transactions and is this "healthy to have some participation in these decisions." What would this do to the world financial markets?
By the way: what is your opinion of the banning of DDT? It is pretty well proven that it has cost millions of lives in Africa. Agreed? Was it worth it?
4. I agree totally with your comment, but the difference between you and Stossel is "TIME".
His comment assumes forcing action in the short term - like DDT.
Your comment will absolutely happen over time by the free market - our disagreement is can this be "forced" in the short term (and does it need to be). I think a strong NO. You probably think a strong YES.
5. I agree with your example, but would say the "in part spurred" is probably a marginal contribution since I am sure their biggest market is the US and it is common knowledge we typically don't care about fuel efficiency.
Anyway, those are my thoughts today. You didn't comment on his and Julian Simon's comments on sustainable development. Any thoughts?
Lots of ideas here, and while I wish I could research more of these issues, I just want to comment on this one aspect for the moment:
You write: 'Your comment will absolutely happen over time by the free market - our disagreement is can this be "forced" in the short term (and does it need to be). I think a strong NO. You probably think a strong YES.'
My basic position is that there are imperfections in 'free markets' (not that any really free markets exist, but even if they did); these imperfections are reflected in externalities (some negative, some positive). I believe that carefully thought out policy can indeed push things in a direction that lessens negative externalities. I don't think it can cure all ills, and I recognize that poor policy can do more damage than good.
As an example, I'd point to car pollution. No single auto maker had much incentive to tackle the problem of emissions, and I'd argue that a large reason that cars are less polluting these days is due to the Clean Air Acts. Smog in LA was much worse in the 1960s, but due to a push from policy some effective changes were made to help improve the situation. I think the market left to its own devices would be very slow to act in such cases.
Since you ask about my thoughts on sustainable development & Simon, here goes...
I think Stossel/Semmens mischaracterizes the goals of 'sustainable development' somewhat. The most widely used definition: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." So it's about thinking long-term, and trying to assess impacts of current processes and technologies.
I don't think sustainable development folks are particularly anti-technology. And I think they are very much in favor of ingenuity! They do focus on the attempt to reduce waste & increase efficiency. They don't just focus on nonrenewable resources; they are equally focused on sustaining renewable resources (so, for instance, we don't get lots of repeats of the collapsed North Atlantic cod fisheries).
Re: Simon. I have read a bit of Simon, and I think he has some valuable insights about the impact of rising prices/scarcity and about substitutes. Whether he has found 'economic laws' that are true in all cases seems very debatable. At the moment many commodity prices are high, largely because of China's great demand. Will all these prices drop back down? We shall see...
To say that all resources are 'manmade' seems to overstate the case. I'd agree that man finds new ways of using raw materials, and that's part of the substitution effect. Perhaps one day we really will be able to mass produce the raw materials we need, through some sort of molecular construction nano-machine. But so far we're kind of stuck with the elements we find near the surface of the earth!
Re: your comments to my retort to your earlier post - I'll comment on sustainability later.
"I believe that carefully thought out policy can indeed push things in a direction that lessens negative externalities."
I will cut to the quick: the generators of this "...carefully thought out policy..." are human and they will turn their efforts into a reach for POWER - as our politicians do. The "free market" - which I agree does not exist in its pure form (thank god!) does not allow this individual taint!
But it takes more time. A good trade-off? I believe it is! Your thoughts?
Re: sustainability
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Your definition stops me cold. How can we know what future generations need to meet their own needs? Since you can't know this -but can only make assumptions based on todays knowledge - might you not make a mistake? Is this worth it?
My answer is no - you can't take actions effecting our well being based on assumptions about the future. I think this is Stossel's and Simon's point. The phrase you disagree with about "resources are manmade" is a larger point than you are allowing - that is, if there was no men, there would be no resources - agreed - and therefore resources are man "defined" and change with time.
When you first mentioned your interest in Sustainability I read the definition in Wikipedia - not the best source, but usually an adequate one - and it stopped me cold with one objective of Sustainability being "eliminating poverty." Eliminating Poverty? You have to be kidding! (I reread Wikipedia today and could not find that phrase - but I remember quite will it was there. If this is not considered an objective, I apologize for mentioning it!)
On the tradeoffs of policy vs. the market:
1. Yes, of course policy can go bad, due to power grabs or various other reasons; I acknowledge this, and we must be vigilant against overreach.
2. My claim, I suspect supported by the vast majority of economists, is that markets can have imperfections, and sometimes are very difficult to achieve: if public goods are involved, if information is not flowing well, if transactions costs are high, if incentive structures don't make sense, if private property rights can't be established, etc. While I do believe that markets can be very effective under the right circumstances, I don't believe markets can be effectively achieved in all cases. This leads to externalities, which I claim can be lessened through good policy.
3. So - if, as it seems to me, you think that we can somehow rely on markets to solve every problem, then I disagree.
4. I think the best policy tends to create goals or targets, and steers clear of specifying the means of implementing a solution. This can allow for market-based competition to drive toward innovative solutions.
5. I cited my example of a policy (clean air acts) that achieved the goal. I'm interested in how you think that air pollution problem would have been solved by the marketplace.
Re: On the tradeoffs of policy vs. the market:
First, let me share with you the reason I believe so strongly in "free markets" - which of course are never totally "free" and we agree when we diverge from markets to policy we must be vigilant:
One of Thomas Sowells books spends three or four pages on this example (I think I referred you and others to this in the past): think of the millions of people on the island of Manhattan including you as a visitor; you and they can get anything you want anytime you want - its MIRACULOUS if you sit back and ponder this fact - and it is due to the "free market" in the U.S. What do you think Manhattan would be like under Soviet Central Planning?
I believe this "central planning" is in many cases similar to your desire for "policy", and may be abused in the same ways. I prefer Manhattan whenever possible!
You cannot rely on markets to solve every problem and that is why we have city, county, state and federal governments, who have the responsibility of regulating where necessary along with other defined responsibilities: defense, emergency services, utilities, etc.
But you have to introduce "time" into the equation when you decide to interfere with the "free market". Interference should only be introduced after the problem occurs (i.e. three commercial fire fighting companies in a city can't define which houses each will protect - so the city government sets up a city ran department to protect the citizens).
To try to project a fix to a non-existant problem will lead to abuses. How do you monitor the results? (You can monitor the effects, but not the results as you will never know what would have happened with no interference).
Re: your 5. regarding clean air acts: being a child of the 1950's Los Angeles basin, where soon after I left children could not play because of the smog levels, I believe the clean air acts are good and were implemented to protect the populace. But, the market would have fixed it over TIME because people would have relocated, technologies would have been developed, etc., but all at a slower pace than the clean air acts.
Do you believe any bureaucrats or politicians have abused the clean air acts - perhaps getting donations from particular technolgy companies or from the automobile companies wanting to slow them down after the "goals or targets" were set?
This is the tradeoff we face! I don't pretend to know the answer, but I lean towards minimal interference with the "free markets", because they are MIRACULOUS!
I agree that soviet-style central economic planning is simply not a workable system! And it's true that the markets can achieve amazing things.
But in cases where neither producers nor consumers have much incentive to change their habits, and a public good (such as the air we breath) is being poisoned, I think a policy response is called for. Will it be mis-used? yes, probably. But then again markets can be mis-used, and we need to be vigilant on both fronts.
With regard to your questions: "How can we know what future generations need to meet their own needs? Since you can't know this -but can only make assumptions based on todays knowledge - might you not make a mistake?"
It's certainly true that there is uncertainty about the future. Yet I'd argue that there are some basic necessities that we do know future generations will need: for example clean water, clean air. And there are other things that we as a society can generally agree are worth preserving for the future; one example goes right back to Teddy Roosevelt in terms of national parks.
I take this idea to mean that we should think carefully before taking actions today that have the ability to eliminate things from the world of the future; for example the mis-use of renewable resources drives species extinct or collapses certain eco-systems. Not to say that there's never a reason to do so, but I think we should try to be aware of what we are doing before plunging ahead. I consider this a rather 'conservative' approach, myself.
Granted, we may make mistakes. But I find the alternative, which urges going forward without much regard to future impacts, to be a more risky approach.
Final Comments:
I think we have clarity on this subject, which, to quote Dennis Prager, is the most important thing.
Government policy is required in instances of "public good."
Markets can be mis-used, but they are self correcting. Government policy typically is not. Time is required for the market to correct, but at least it is possible.
We'll agree to disagree - but do watch the government policies you support for another possible DDT! "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Post a Comment
<< Home