Why the bad economic news shouldn’t always (or ever, lately) be “unexpected“:
While our economy is enormously complicated, it seems reasonably clear that the current slump has turned into the “worst downturn since the Great Depression” precisely because of the ill-advised policies of the Obama administration. Those policies contradict the lessons of history, and there is no reason why their failure should be unexpected.
But “as any intelligent and informed person would have expected” doesn’t quite fit the media narrative.
The government has a far greater ability to do damage to an economy than to improve it. Within limits, the best thing the government can do is to get out of the way. Obama’s economic policies are those of a moron and it shows.
True, larry. Isn’t it interesting that the very same people who say we aren’t smart enough to attempt to take successful command of the Earth’s atmosphere or any random tropical ecosystem are the first to suggest we can easily take successful command of the entire national economy? An impressively large act of intellectual inconsistency.
Carl, I don’t understand your point. It seems that progressives who push AGW and tinkering to fix it (ie. Gore) are closely tied to the progressives who push central command and control of the economy and tinkering to fix it (ie. Krugman). It may be stupid, but it’s not inconsistent.
I have to agree Thompson. I see a correlation between those that believe we can control Earth’s atmosphere (we’re making it worse by breathing) and those who want central control of economic decisions.
Gore and his associates certainly don’t believe we should tinker with the Earth’s atmosphere, mp. They don’t, for example, agree with Freeman Dyson, who argues that the logical thing to do if you discover an excess of CO2 going up from combustion is geo-engineering, thinking up ways to pull as much CO2 out as is going up the stack. (IIRC Dyson favors boosting algae growth in various ways.)
What Planet Gore folks believe is that we need to stop tinkering entirely, “reduce the carbon footprint,” and indeed all “footprints” of men on nature. We don’t know enough to take command of nature, is their core principle. That’s why it’s all about “reduce, re-sue, re-cycle” for everything from energy use to birthrate. (OK, maybe they haven’t gotten to “recycle” as far as people are concerned.)
So I don’t agree. They are wildly inconsistent. When it comes to complex systems like the entire US economy, or healthcare system, they are supremely confident of their ability to surgically meddle without the slightest unpleasant side-effect. But when it comes to the ability of men to meddle in nature, or even pursue complex technological goals (e.g. nuclear power) — oh no, this is arrogance and folly by greedy Mr. Monopoly men.
We don’t know enough to take command of nature, is their core principle.
I think their core principle is “man is bad”, not “man is stupid”. They’ll use either one if it furthers their agenda, but if they were asked what the main problem is, it would be our existence, not our limitations.
Freeman Dyson, who argues that the logical thing to do if you discover an excess of CO2 going up from combustion is geo-engineering,
Nice strawman. As Leland mentions above, Gore believes we control the atmosphere — which by implication indicates we can tinker with it. Although, I will grant you that Gore’s schemes are less about reducing carbon and more about progressive command and control of energy production while lining their own pockets.
What Planet Gore folks believe is that we need to stop tinkering entirely, “reduce the carbon footprint,” and indeed all “footprints” of men on nature.
When Al Gore and his family reduce their annual carbon footprint below that of my family I may actually believe your statement has even an ounce of merit. Until then, his actions prove he’s just a self-serving, “snake oil” peddling, statist hypocrite.
When Al Gore and his family reduce their annual carbon footprint below that of my family…
Or as Glenn Reynolds always says, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who are telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”
All right, let me rephrase more carefully, mp. When I said “Al Gore and his associates” that’s really a short-hand for “all the millions of footsoldiers in the movement who actually have noncynical motives for adhering to Gore’s philosophy.” WIthout these people Al Gore would never be heard from again — it’s the movement that needs understanding, because it’s the movement that’s dangerous, not its leader.
But I don’t agree with your characterization anyway. Your are mistaking “control” in what I said for “influence.” Yes, the AGW crowd belive we “control” the atmosphere in the sense that we influence it, but they don’t believe we “control” it in the sense that we can make it do whatever we want, with technology ready to hand. Otherwise, as I said, they would unquestionably favor some kind of geo-engineering response to the issue. What madman responds to a leaky roof by deciding he better get used to having the use of only those parts of his house that don’t get wet? Only someone who lacks faith that he can fix the roof. In the same sense, arguing that the correct solution to excess CO2 emission is to simply stop burning fuel or building things out of wood, at undoubted enormous economic and social cost, is a counsel of despair, the kind of thing you advise if the problem is beyond fixing, and can only be avoided.
Anyway, while I don’t doubt Glenn Reynolds is doing a useful thing in pointing out the hypocrisy of the movement’s leaders, I don’t think it’s going to win the struggle, or even contribute that much. The personal sins of the leaders of a movement really have little to do with whether it lives or dies. Popes have been pederasts without destroying Catholicism. Furthermore, almost every leader exhibits at least a smidge of hypocrisy. You’d have to be inhumanly self-disciplined not to. And, finally, this is just taking up the Clintonian left’s politics of personal destruction. Oppose Gorephile policities because they are stupid policies — not because of any personal distastefulness aboiut the behaviour of Gore himself.
Going through school, authority seemed to be the foundation of all subjects except one… math. Math equations were provable.
Economics has some of that in that some actions are provably bad for the economy, but we are left with ‘authorities’ arguing for the merits of really stupid ideas. When will the truth matter?