An Occasion of Sin (Mark Schmitt & Tim Carney)

[Bloggingheads]

[popcorn_karate]

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/374...6:14&out=16:37

picking random numbers out of a hat to like or dislike is not really philosophy, Tim - more like ideology (and a crackpot one at that).

[Starwatcher162536]

Tim remarks about how the unintended consequences of CAFE standards through various mechanisms may have been more environmentally* damaging then the environmental gains accrued by the adoption of the aforementioned standards. Without knowing the relative magnitude of beneficial and harmful consequences of CAFE standards I'm unable to say the likelihood of the negatives overwhelming the positives. This is unsurprising. Anything of import will have good and bad effects. I would welcome a discussion going into Tim's assertion in more detail.

All of this being said, I fail to see the relevance of CAFE standards when discussing the merits of cap & trade. It's like me bringing up the consequences of repealing Glass-Steagall when discussing the merits of GATT. His tailpipe argument also seems bizarre when one considers that electricity, transportation, & cement account for some 75%** of emissions and for practical technicalities have to be produced domestically. Nor is it easy to see how either a carbon tax or cap & trade schema could potentially shift consumption in a way that would increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Tim seemed like a giant Non sequitur to me on that section.

*Ethanol/CAFE standards raison d'etre has always come from the No foreign oil national security camps with environmentalism being just incidental, in my opinion.
**Roughly, I don't recall exact figures

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

Tim remarks about how the unintended consequences of CAFE standards through various mechanisms may have been more environmentally* damaging then the environmental gains accrued by the adoption of the aforementioned standards. Without knowing the relative magnitude of beneficial and harmful consequences of CAFE standards I'm unable to say the likelihood of the negatives overwhelming the positives. This is unsurprising. Anything of import will have good and bad effects. I would welcome a discussion going into Tim's assertion in more detail.

All of this being said, I fail to see the relevance of CAFE standards when discussing the merits of cap & trade. It's like me bringing up the consequences of repealing Glass-Steagall when discussing the merits of GATT. His tailpipe argument also seems bizarre when one considers that electricity, transportation, & cement account for some 75%** of emissions and for practical technicalities have to be produced domestically. Nor is it easy to see how either a carbon tax or cap & trade schema could potentially shift consumption in a way that would increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Tim seemed like a giant Non sequitur to me on that section.

Tim's comments had the ring of truth for me. Not in the details, since I think he was making broad-brush analogies. The truth is that these things are so often more complex than anyone can understand. Things like cap & trade make us feel good that we have taken action against a problem, while we have very little understanding of the actual effect.

You can fault Tim's argument for not making all the logical connections, but the real point is that the connections are not understandable. Not to lawmakers, anyway.

When it comes to the subject of energy consumption, it cannot be over-emphasized how important it is for people to consume energy. You can change the rules, but people will consume energy in different ways. It's a hopeless situation, unless you convince yourself that we can adapt to a warmer planet, or we make a stunning advance in technology like practical fusion power.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

Tim's comments had the ring of truth for me. Not in the details, since I think he was making broad-brush analogies. The truth is that these things are so often more complex than anyone can understand. Things like cap & trade make us feel good that we have taken action against a problem, while we have very little understanding of the actual effect.

The hubris of rationality rears its ugly head once again. The regulatory arbitrage that occurs with environmental law (aluminum) was a good case for understanding.

Life must be bliss for those willfully ignorant of basic economics.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

When it comes to the subject of energy consumption, it cannot be over-emphasized how important it is for people to consume energy. You can change the rules, but people will consume energy in different ways. It's a hopeless situation, unless you convince yourself that we can adapt to a warmer planet, or we make a stunning advance in technology like practical fusion power.

Something will emerge. It always does or not...maybe we've finally hit the wall.

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

When it comes to the subject of energy consumption, it cannot be over-emphasized how important it is for people to consume energy. You can change the rules, but people will consume energy in different ways. It's a hopeless situation, unless you convince yourself that we can adapt to a warmer planet, or we make a stunning advance in technology like practical fusion power.

Not all joule's are created equal, so no it's not a hopeless situation. People moving their joule's origin that currently comes from coal to photo-voltaic, nuclear or some other low carbon energy generation would by itself mitigate much potential warming.

Tim's comments had the ring of truth for me. Not in the details, since I think he was making broad-brush analogies. The truth is that these things are so often more complex than anyone can understand. Things like cap & trade make us feel good that we have taken action against a problem, while we have very little understanding of the actual effect.

You can fault Tim's argument for not making all the logical connections, but the real point is that the connections are not understandable. Not to lawmakers, anyway.

The analogy is critically flawed. In the case of CAFE standards their was the potential from a decrease in consumption in one sector to lead to an increase
in consumption in another sector that is more carbon intensive sector. This potential doesn't exist for something that is increasing the price of carbon emissions itself. Decreases in consumption in one sector, let's say coal electricity generation, that leads to increase in consumption in another sector will inevitably be sector that is less carbon intensive.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

People moving their joule's origin that currently comes from coal to photo-voltaic, nuclear or some other low carbon energy generation would by itself mitigate much potential warming.

I would guess not much, just a little. And this is on a background of rapidly increasing coal consumption world-wide.

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

The analogy is critically flawed. In the case of CAFE standards their was the potential from a decrease in consumption in one sector to lead to an increase in consumption in another sector that is more carbon intensive sector. This potential doesn't exist for something that is increasing the price of carbon emissions itself. Decreases in consumption in one sector, let's say coal electricity generation, that leads to increase in consumption in another sector will inevitably be sector that is less carbon intensive.

Well, yeah, that's a logical statement within your cartoon model, but this is all a big yawn to me. The complexity of commercial activity and the urge to consume energy liberally to increase human efficiently lead me to suspect that you can't understand things with a simple model of "sectors". And hoping to control the actions of companies in the developing world is about as likely as stopping teenagers in China from sharing their MP3s. Wasn't that the point of Tim's aluminum car chassis anecdote?

[Starwatcher162536]

Electricity, transportation, & cement are sectors in which have to be produced domestically so controlling the actions of foreighn factories is not neccassary to meet the policy goal of reducing carbon emissions.

That something is complicated does not mean that one cannot understand basic dynamics.

[piscivorous]

Seems that the hysteria, over global warming, is soon to come to an end as the Chinese have not only managed to halt it but in a few years will have it reversed.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Seems that the hysteria, over global warming, is soon to come to an end as the Chinese have not only managed to halt it but in a few years will have it reversed.

Oh, good. Clever, those Chinese!

[Starwatcher162536]

The "equilibrium residence time"* for common aerosols in the troposphere ranges from a few weeks to two years. For CO2 it is centuries. This means in order for aerosols to mitigate the predicted warming humanity will have to replenish those aerosols every few months for, wait for it, centuries! How we are suppose to do this without adding yet more greenhouse gases and therefore increasing the amount of aerosols needed in the atmosphere is as of now an open question. It's also worth noting that man-made aerosols are estimated to decrease insolation by around .5 Wm^(-2) but a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere** decreases outgoing longwave radiation by 3.7Wm^(-2), therefore, we would need to substantially increase the amount of soot in the air for this to be a "solution" to global warming. Oh well, no biggie, we can all just get used to wearing gas masks when we go outside, no?

*(how long until it is washed out of the atmosphere)
**Which we are well on the way to and will probably substantially pass up without actions to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

The following are from your link;

"It needs to be emphasised that any masking is short-lived, and the increased CO2 from the same coal will remain in the atmosphere for many decades and dominate the long-term warming over the next decades."

But Robert Kaufmann is in no doubt that temperatures will pick up if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

"Even before this paper there wasn't much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don't see any credible scientific contradiction - if people don't believe it, it'll be because they choose not to believe it."

[piscivorous]

It is not I who is making the claim that the last decade or so of non existent warming is due to the Chinese burning of coal; it comes from the camp of the true believers. Any port in a storm I guess. I would like to point out a minor contradiction. You make the claim "The "equilibrium residence time"* for common aerosols in the troposphere ranges from a few weeks to two years. For CO2 it is centuries." yet the quoted source places it in the many decades range, which I suppose could run into centuries but then why not say centuries. I have seen other that placed the half life of CO2 in the troposphere as short as 5 years but then again there must be some scientific consensus out there over this minor detail.

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

It is not I who is making the claim that the last decade or so of non existent warming is due to the Chinese burning of coal; it comes from the camp of the true believers. Any port in a storm I guess. I would like to point out a minor contradiction. You make the claim "The "equilibrium residence time"* for common aerosols in the troposphere ranges from a few weeks to two years. For CO2 it is centuries." yet the quoted source places it in the many decades range, which I suppose could run into centuries but then why not say centuries. I have seen other that placed the half life of CO2 in the troposphere as short as 5 years but then again there must be some scientific consensus out there over this minor detail.

Equilibrium residence time and residence time refer to two different things. Residence time for CO2 is the mean time interval it takes for a single specific CO2 molecule to exit the atmosphere. Equilibrium residence time is the time interval it takes for a perturbed CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to fall back to a rough equilibrium concentration. These two time intervals are not equal since the atmosphere and terrestrial biota/hydrosphere constantly exchange carbon (200Gt...maybe...) and every time a carbon of anthropic origin leaves the atmosphere it displaces a carbon of natural origin that is now going to stay in the atmosphere longer. This back and forth exchange of carbon is referred to as the carbon cycle.

It only takes a few moments of thought to realize that the idea that if we were to stop carbon emissions then the levels of atmospheric carbon could fall as quickly as the either mistaken and/or misinterpreted references you mention is ludicrous. We are emitting a huge amount of carbon dioxide each year. Approximately 9Gt per year (2.1 Gt=1ppm). If carbon were sequestered as quickly as your references state photosynthesis would have ceased hundreds of millions of years ago and none of us would be here. Ergo the rate of long term sequestration of carbon is tiny relative to our carbon emissions. There's a fair amount of confusion on this because a popular denilist meme obfuscated this issue lately.

Moving on to the contradiction you mention. It's hard to say without having access to the paper in question, but it sounds like he is talking about how long it would take for atmospheric carbon concentrations to fall assuming carbon emissions do not affect the carbon cycle. This, sort of first order guess, is stated by the IPCC as between 50 and 200 yrs. However using more realistic assumptions knowing that many of the fluxes from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biota/hydrosphere will shrink or even sign change gives estimates of an equilibrium residence time anywhere from between 600 and 2500 years. There are even a few outliers that postulate the COCO3-sediment feedback will be the only sequestration of carbon of note once we gain a few more Celsius that think it could be as long as 35,000 yrs.

{Edit: When refering to carbon emissions I meant to say 9Gt per year of carbon emissions. Not 9Gt per year of carbon dioxide emissions which is about 27Gt per year}

[piscivorous]

And the science is so settled and exact!

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
According to NASA scientists

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

And the science is so settled and exact!

My previous post mentions that the IPCC is using a range of uncertainty of 50 to 200 yrs on this issue because some of the dynamics which lead to uncertainties ranging from 600 to 2500 years which are probably more accurate are nevertheless highly speculative and hard to quantify. Plenty of uncertainty (=not exact) there. No one suggests otherwise.

There is also much uncertainty (=not settled) regarding climate models, though the implications are probably quite different then what your previous posts would lead me to believe your views are. A little bit of backstory; Climate Models are the Frankenstein of Climate Science. They are the synthesis of vast swaths of little bits of knowledge. This synthesis is done since the big questions such as "How does temperature relate to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide?" cannot be answered by individual studies looking at say the trend in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor content. Trying to would be like trying to tell what a picture is when only looking at a few pixels. Now once all these little bits of knowledge (let's call them parameters) are synthesized we have a crude climate model. Now this crude climate model isn't very useful as the varying levels of uncertainties in the individual parameters combine in such a way that the uncertainty in the crude climate model leads to predictions that are "wider" then the conditions the Earth has ever experienced. As a tool of prediction this crude climate model is useless. Luckily though the story does not end here. It turns out in many cases certain segments of the possible range for some parameter is mutually exclusive with certain segments of the possible range of some other parameter. That is to say we may have one parameter that can be anywhere from 1-100 and we have another parameter (that we have more confidence in our ability to predict) that can be anywhere from 1-20 and through scientific knowledge of the Earth system we know if the second parameter is less then 20 the first parameter must be less then 40. When the uncertainty of a model is lessened like this it is called "tuning the model". Tuning the model also saves much computer processing time because it eliminates how many times a model needs to be run (All model predictions you see are an average of many many model runs in which the inputs & parameters values are slightly adjusted).

Synopsis so far; There are correlations in the parameters that make up climate that let climate scientists get more narrow model outputs by only choosing "parameter sets" that are "Earth-like". Hang on now, long-winded as I can be sometimes I am almost to my point.

Now this "tuning" is, wait for it now, subjective. This coupled with the wide uncertainties in such things as aerosol forcings (to keep this mildly related to earlier posts) and the close agreement of various climate model outputs led some women (don't remember her name offhand) in the mid 90's to question if the models were being "over-tuned". That is to say the models close agreement was not a function of their robustness but instead a result of them copying each other. This lead to something called "perturbed ensemble model physics". What this PEMP is is really just not tuning the model at all and running it for what can be tens of thousands of times varying the parameters (even with non earth like parameter-sets) a little each time. Many things can be learned from PEMP's, but what we are concerned with here is that PEMP's suggest how our estimate of climate sensitivity to perturbations in carbon dioxide concentrations changes as we add bit upon bit of uncertainty. Probably the most well known PEMP was done by climateprediction.net. What did they find? That with a huge increase in uncertainty in a litany of things the climate sensitivity changed from 2-4.7C per doubling of CO2 to 1.7C-11C per doubling of CO2.

So whenever I hear people questioning climate models veracity in the public discourse, I always want to say "You know this makes the problem of climate change MORE urgent not less, right?".

[Starwatcher162536]

Dunno what your link has to do with what we are talking about [Aerosols & Climate]. Whatever.

I've done a real quick overview on Spencer's Paper. Both the paper and the article seem strange to me.

Over 20 coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produce a wide range of warming estimates in response to the infrared radiative forcing theoretically
expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [2].

The first quote says a few things to me. One that your linked article is BS. That's the only thing that can be found about Earth Radiation Budget at top of atmosphere stuff. The estimated current imbalance is .75 W/m^2. Satellites can only measure to within an 1.5W/m^2. The paper in question never mentions anything that could improve satellites accuracy. Another strange thing is Spencer's use of "theoretically". True in a sense I suppose, but all that is needed to find this is to solve the radiative transfer equations across all wavelengths, gases, elevations (lapse rate). A lengthy but from theory perspective rather easy.

Given that it's Spencer and that it is in a respected journal I won't dismiss it and am assuming I'm missing something. The contributions to Climate Science made by Dr. Spencer cannot be overstated. I've talked to actual climate scienticists about Spencer and it's common to hear words like "ingenious" and "brilliant" when talking about Spencer's and Christie's "2LT Channel". It is however also true he has a history of perpetuation what are clearly misrepresentations when in the public sphere to further what I can only assume is a political agenda. Spencer is largely responsible for this "model vs. data" false dichotomy that is so rampant now.

[Starwatcher162536]

If you have something substantive to say that's fine. I won't consider anything you say as substantive unless it lays out your thought process, gives a synopsis of anything you link to in your own words, & explains the wider context (Overall importance) of your post.

I've already danced this dance of one line rejoinder's followed by a link where nothing is explained in enough detail not to have plausible deniability about the intent of the post in question to many times with Whatfur already. If you actually have something to say put yourself out there and actually say it.

...If not, then don't expect a reply as you'll be on my ignore list.

[Starwatcher162536]

A point I forgot to mention; It's hard to see how there could possible be mass hysteria related to Global Warming when the world at large has done the next best thing to nothing in order to mitigate Global Warming.

[piscivorous]

Perhaps you have finally found the vein in which my original comment is offered.

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

Perhaps you have finally found the vein in which my original comment is offered.

Attempting and failing to demolish irevalent strawman?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

A point I forgot to mention; It's hard to see how there could possible be mass hysteria related to Global Warming when the world at large has done the next best thing to nothing in order to mitigate Global Warming.

lightbulbs are big.

PS. Yellowstone might end up being a big help.

[Starwatcher162536]

Are you being sarcastic? That people are going to need to switch from one type of lightbulb to another type of lightbulb that is close to being functionally equivalent is very much next to nothing.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

Are you being sarcastic? That people are going to need to switch from one type of lightbulb to another type of lightbulb that is close to being functionally equivalent is very much next to nothing.

I forgot my smiley face.

sorry.

[aajax]

"All of this being said, I fail to see the relevance of CAFE standards when discussing the merits of cap & trade."

Both are aimed at reducing the environmental and strategic impact of oil consumption.

"His tailpipe argument also seems bizarre when one considers that electricity, transportation, & cement account for some 75%** of emissions and for practical technicalities have to be produced domestically."

The tailpipe argument was about looking at only one part of the life cycle of oil consuming equipment. It had nothing to do with whether something was produced domestically or not. Of course, to the extent that a regulation such as CAFE or cap and trade might make the American economy more costly to operate in, it could be expected to drive industry off shore.

"Nor is it easy to see how either a carbon tax or cap & trade schema could potentially shift consumption in a way that would increase greenhouse gas emissions."


A global carbon tax or cap&trade might not do so, but unilateral action could drive industry to, say, China, where the same industry would cause more pollution.

"Tim seemed like a giant Non sequitur to me on that section."

Not really, as shown above.

[Starwatcher162536]

Originally Posted by aajax

Both are aimed at reducing the environmental and strategic impact of oil consumption.

So what? Measures to reduce litter and CAFE standards are both environmental policies. That doesn't mean they are at all analogous and one can predict what the outcomes from one would be based on the outcomes of the other.

The tailpipe argument was about looking at only one part of the life cycle of oil consuming equipment. It had nothing to do with whether something was produced domestically or not. Of course, to the extent that a regulation such as CAFE or cap and trade might make the American economy more costly to operate in, it could be expected to drive industry off shore.

A global carbon tax or cap&trade might not do so, but unilateral action could drive industry to, say, China, where the same industry would cause more pollution.

Which is why as I explained in my previous post why I'm focusing on economic sectors that cannot be outsourced.

[Rathertired]

I'm going to try to not get too snarky here, but how many libertarian puppets for rightwing billionaires do we have to be subject to on Bloggingheads?

There was a period when we couldn't go a week without getting two or three libertarian flunkeys in the employ of the Koch brothers' Cato Institute. Now we have some crackpot who works for something called The Washington Examiner.

A three second Google search reveals The Washington Examiner to be a free newspaper put out by conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz.

Well, I guess we should be grateful for the variety!

Not just liberterian stooges for rightwing billionaires from Kansas who inherited their father's oil business (the Koch brothers, Cato), now we're also getting a libertarian stooge for a Colorado billionaire who inherited his father's oil businesses (Anschutz, The Washington Examiner)!

My, what range of thought on Bloggingheads! Puppets in the employ of rightwing Kansas oil billionaire heirs and now - now a puppet in the employ of a rightwing Colorado oil billionaire heir as well! Truly, the full spectrum of contemporary intellectual thought in the Western world!

Look, it's not that complicated. Bloggingheads perennials like Peter Suderman, Megan McArdle, Julian Sanchez, Nick Gillespie and Will Wilkinson represent an economic philosophy that's been brutally refuted by the financial collapse of the past decade. Their beloved Ayn Rand is ludicrous kitsch; their take on free will, juvenile and out of step with contemporary science (as well as 125 years of philosophy.) Their socially liberal, economically conservative, open borders, anti-regulation orientation is shared by a tiny minority of the American populace, but they make good lackays for the corporate interests and lunatic billionaires that fund them. That's why they have jobs, blogs, the opportunity to spout their silliness on this site.

Paul Krugman has a blog. John Cassidy of The New Yorker has a blog. Brad DeLong of Berkeley has a blog. These are real economists, genuinely well educated and intelligent people, much too intelligent to have ever taken 'Atlas Shrugged' seriously and much too accomplished to be in the employ of some risible Montgomery Burns figure. There are many, many more.

A serious effort should be made to lose the silly libertarian stooges who haunt this site and to get some grown-up economists - many with blogs - who aren't working for billionaire loons to come on and talk.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Rathertired

I'm going to try to not get too snarky here, but how many libetertian puppets for rightwing billionaires do we have to be subject to on Bloggingheads?

There was a period where we couldn't go a week without getting two or three stooges in the employ of the Koch brother's Cato Institute. Now we have some crackpot who works for something called The Washington Examiner.

A three second Google search reveals The Washington Examimer to be a free newspaper put out by rightwing, conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz.

Well, I guess we should be grateful for the variety!

Not just liberterian stooges for rightwing billionaires from Texas who inherited their father's oil business (the Koch brothers, Cato), now we're also getting a libertarian stooge for a Colorado billionaire who inherited his father's oil businesses (Anschutz, Washington Examiner)!

My, what range of thought on Bloggingheads!

Puppets in the employ of rightwing Texas oil billionaire heirs and now a puppet in the employ of a rightwing Colorado oil billionaire heir as well! Truly, the full spectrum of contemporary intellectual thought in the Western world!

Look, it's not that complicated. Bloggingheads perennials like Peter Suderman, Megan McArdle, Julian Sanchez, Nick Gillespie and Will Wilkinson represent an economic philosophy that's been brutally refuted by the economic collapse of the past decade. Their beloved Ayn Rand is ludicrous kitsch; their take on free will, juvenile and out of step with contemporary science (as well as 125 years of philosophy.) Their socially liberal, economically conservative orientation represents a tiny minority of the American populace, but they make good stooges for the major money, corporate interests and lunatic billionaires that fund them. That's why they have jobs, blogs, the opportunities to spout their silliness on this site.

Paul Krugman has a blog. John Cassidy of 'The New Yorker' has a blog. Brad DeLong of Berkley has a blog. These are real economists, well educated and intelligent people, much too intelligent to have ever taken 'Atlas Shrugged' seriously and much too accomplished to be in the employ of some risible Montgomery Burns figure. There are many, many more.

A serious effort should be made to lose the silly libertarian stooges who haunt this site and to get some grown-up economists - many with blogs - who aren't working for billionaire loons to come on and talk.

You may be rather tired, but thanks nonetheless for that rant that surpassed mere snark. Helloooooo bhtv ... is anybody listening ...

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by graz

You may be rather tired, but thanks nonetheless for that rant that surpassed mere snark. Helloooooo bhtv ... is anybody listening ...

Second that with applause and standing ovation!

(I'm trying hyperbole for this weekend).

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Rathertired

I'm going to try to not get too snarky here, but how many libertarian puppets for rightwing billionaires do we have to be subject to on Bloggingheads?

There was a period when we couldn't go a week without getting two or three libertarian flunkeys in the employ of the Koch brothers' Cato Institute. Now we have some crackpot who works for something called The Washington Examiner.

A three second Google search reveals The Washington Examiner to be a free newspaper put out by rightwing, conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz.

Well, I guess we should be grateful for the variety!

Not just liberterian stooges for rightwing billionaires from Texas who inherited their father's oil business (the Koch brothers, Cato), now we're also getting a libertarian stooge for a Colorado billionaire who inherited his father's oil businesses (Anschutz, The Washington Examiner)!

My, what range of thought on Bloggingheads! Puppets in the employ of rightwing Texas oil billionaire heirs and now - now a puppet in the employ of a rightwing Colorado oil billionaire heir as well! Truly, the full spectrum of contemporary intellectual thought in the Western world!

Look, it's not that complicated. Bloggingheads perennials like Peter Suderman, Megan McArdle, Julian Sanchez, Nick Gillespie and Will Wilkinson represent an economic philosophy that's been brutally refuted by the financial collapse of the past decade. Their beloved Ayn Rand is ludicrous kitsch; their take on free will, juvenile and out of step with contemporary science (as well as 125 years of philosophy.) Their socially liberal, economically conservative, open borders, anti-regulation orientation is shared by a tiny minority of the American populace, but they make good lackays for the major money, corporate interests and lunatic billionaires that fund them. That's why they have jobs, blogs, the opportunity to spout their silliness on this site.

Paul Krugman has a blog. John Cassidy of The New Yorker has a blog. Brad DeLong of Berkeley has a blog. These are real economists, genuinely well educated and intelligent people, much too intelligent to have ever taken 'Atlas Shrugged' seriously and much too accomplished to be in the employ of some risible Montgomery Burns figure. There are many, many more.

A serious effort should be made to lose the silly libertarian stooges who haunt this site and to get some grown-up economists - many with blogs - who aren't working for billionaire loons to come on and talk.

Welcome to bhtv! Please do a diavlog - or a monovlog, now that Bob is lowering the standards. Watch out - there's a Koch-funded lecture coming your way. You'll be dreaming of the days when you would be lucky if there were a sycophant in the second box who still wouldn't challenge or question, but who would at least break up the monotony.

You forgot to mention the panoply of podcasts around, too. I'm beginning to think good people won't do diavlogs because it's like running a gauntlet of shills, exactly the human detritus many academics and journalists want to avoid becoming or knowing. Either that, they're just cowards who don't want to leave any unfiltered, unedited, and permitted verbiage on record. And, Bob, podcasters have audiences! And, blogs! And, jobs! The more I think about that abortion of a Commenter Klatsch, I just want to kiss Bob on the lips, to awaken whatever is left of his conscience. R.I.P, bhtv!

A kind word for Wilkinson, though. He does good work for The Economist.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

Welcome to bhtv! Please do a diavlog - or a monovlog, now that Bob is lowering the standards. Watch out - there's a Koch-funded lecture coming your way. You'll be dreaming of the days when you would be lucky if there were a sycophant in the second box who still wouldn't challenge or question, but who would at least break up the monotony.

You forgot to mention the panoply of podcasts around, too. I'm beginning to think good people won't do diavlogs because it's like running a gauntlet of shills, exactly the human detritus many academics and journalists want to avoid becoming or knowing. Either that, they're just cowards who don't want to leave any unfiltered, unedited, and permitted verbiage on record. And, Bob, podcasters have audiences! And, blogs! And, jobs! The more I think about that abortion of a Commenter Klatsch, I just want to kiss Bob on the lips, to awaken whatever is left of his conscience. R.I.P, bhtv!

A kind word for Wilkinson, though. He does good work for The Economist.

Passionate as always, Joseph. They might just succeed in spite of themselves -- stay tuned for tech-heads. Remaining in the "A's", I'll add abomination to your assessment of the "klatch". I know that your hyperbole wasn't intended to suggest actually striking Bob (a banning might ensue). But it was a slap in our collective listening (watching) faces for them to act so clueless and present such a poorly produced "show". Maybe that's their design after all -- bhtv: propaganda, poor production and foundation welfare. They must have decided to forego sustained effort at booking some time ago. Also, nice tell on their part to act as if it was the first time any thoughts or suggestions for improvement were offered in the forum.

Hey, I wouldn't blame them if they ignored us generally, except for the part where they continue to solicit us to spread the product like meme. The other option is to actually offer a great product. Genius, I know.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by graz

Passionate as always, Joseph....I know that your hyperbole wasn't intended to suggest actually striking Bob (a banning might ensue).

That was an unedited moment. I've changed the offense to something even more incendiary. But, so what? Getting banned might become a badge of honor now.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by Rathertired

Paul Krugman has a blog. John Cassidy of The New Yorker has a blog. Brad DeLong of Berkeley has a blog. These are real economists, genuinely well educated and intelligent people, much too intelligent to have ever taken 'Atlas Shrugged' seriously and much too accomplished to be in the employ of some risible Montgomery Burns figure. There are many, many more.

A serious effort should be made to lose the silly libertarian stooges who haunt this site and to get some grown-up economists - many with blogs - who aren't working for billionaire loons to come on and talk.

Once again the pleas for censorship come from the left. How amusing is it that someone complaining about stooges nominates three that rival Moe, Larry and Curly?

Save your blog-diving and instead just keep chanting "government isn't spending enough, we need more union membership, government isn't spending enough, we need more union membership". You can add "people who make $250k/year have no business owning a private jet" but nobody listens to that hogwash.

The current economic situation (especially in the democratic-dominated states and their party/union-generated financial disasters) refutes everything you say but keep chanting anyways, they are depending on people like you.

Ignore the reality that even (some) dems are facing up to in NJ, OH and MN, move along, nothing to see here.....

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

Once again the pleas for censorship come from the left. How amusing is it that someone complaining about stooges nominates three that rival Moe, Larry and Curly?

I really do wonder why this is. I mean, no one is being forced to watch anything. So instead of watching Tim Carney from the Washington Examiner, one could perhaps go and re-read Krugman posts.

Are the people who are complaining offended that this type of information (bullshit in their estimation) is out there? Don't they understand that at some level the truth will eventually win out and that people should be allowed to sift through to find out what the truth is. I just don't understand the panic.

[Rathertired]

Oh, I'm not a leftist. Not at all. I'm just anti-Rand.

And while I find titles like "senior political columnist at the Washington Examiner" to be rather sweet and endearing (it's a free newspaper put out by a conservative billionaire oil heir. Its "senior political columnist" is thus, lo and behold, opposed to income taxes. How droll. Who could've seen that coming? A free market zealot, he - like the majority of Bloggingheads libertarians - chooses to work under a system of feudal privilege for a company that will never turn a profit), I, nonetheless, have to despair for a world where people who take Ayn Rand seriously are allowed to further stir up the yahoos.

Especially after the financial crash of the past few years has left their ideology in such disgrace.

Frankly, it's bad enough you people have talk radio.

And Fox News.

The very last thing you need is Ayn Rand.

[DWAnderson]

I actually looked at the comments expecting some substantive discussion of the points in the Diavlog here...

So here goes, I suspect the reason that Tim doesn't want an income tax (and presumably prefers a consumption tax) is that the income tax skews consumption/investment decisions away from what they would be absent taxes, resulting in less happiness for everyone.

This is also the reason why in an ideal world, you would tax capital gains at 0%, because it is mathematically equivalent to exempting investment (i.e. non-consumption expenditures) from the income tax. In other words it would be an attempt to bring the current income tax system closer to a consumption tax.

The problem with working with the income tax in this way is that it tends to breed a bunch of inefficient attempts to game the system, e.g. by turning ordinary income into capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate.

Pure consumption taxes are not without their issues, but they don't start with the disadvantage of trying tax consumption by taxing a income as a proxy for consumption.

Unfortunately, Mark appears unaware of all of this when he blithely asserts that capital gains are taxed at a different rate that ordinary income because the Republican Party is the party of capital. Please.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Rathertired

Oh, I'm not a leftist. Not at all. I'm just anti-Rand.

And while I find titles like "senior political columnist at the Washington Examiner" to be rather sweet and endearing (it's a free newspaper put out by a conservative billionaire oil heir. Its "senior political columnist" is thus, lo and behold, opposed to income taxes. How droll. Who could've seen that coming? A free market zealot, he - like the majority of Bloggingheads libertarians - chooses to work under a system of feudal privilege for a company that will never turn a profit), I, nonetheless, have to despair for a world where people who take Ayn Rand seriously are allowed to further stir up the yahoos.

Especially after the financial crash of the past few years has left their ideology in such disgrace.

Frankly, it's bad enough you people have talk radio.

And Fox News.

The very last thing you need is Ayn Rand.

Don't mind harkin, he's limited to a single message - some variation on the following: "Harumph! Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong, immoral and stupid!. And has bad breath."

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Don't mind harkin, he's limited to a single message - some variation on the following: "Harumph! Everybody who disagrees me wrong, immoral and stupid!. And has bad breath."

Heh.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Rathertired

Especially after the financial crash of the past few years has left their ideology in such disgrace.

Not sure how the financial crash has much to do with libertarian ideology since it was government involvement in the market and lax regulation enforcement (also on the part of the government) that was a big part of the mayhem that ensued. Please note that I'm not implying there weren't other factors.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Not sure how the financial crash has much to do with libertarian ideology since it was government involvement in the market that was a big part of the mayhem that ensued.

The parts of this claim that are true are irrelevant, and the parts that are relevant aren't true. For one, there's no such thing as a free market financial system. One way or the other, Government has to set monetary policy and issue currency, and last I checked things like the FDIC are correctly taken for granted as a good thing. So yes, government was deeply involved in what happened, but only because government is intimately involved in everything that happens in high finance.

But then there's also the implied claim that either Fannie & Freddy, a bill passed in the Carter Administration, or both forced the free market to foolishness that it otherwise wouldn't have engaged in. But in fact conservative claims about the importance of Fanny & Freddy to the whole debacle are nonsense. Fanny and Freddie were actually dramatically reducing their involvement in subprime mortgages from 2002 until 2005, i.e. when the bubble was inflating, and didn't securitize most of the problem mortgages. This is an nonsense narrative that exists because there is a political and ideological need for the defenders of the Wall Street plutocracy needed something, anything, to say in their defense. Now, I ordinarily would put more caveats around that assignation of motives, but in this case there's a jackass on the financial crisis commission that went out and gave the game away:

…on November 3, 2010, the day after the mid-term congressional elections in
which Republicans took control of the House, Republican Commissioner Peter Wallison emailed Republican Commissioner Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “It’s very important, I think, that what we say in our separate statements not undermine the ability of the new House GOP to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank.”

On the one hand, I respect the Mitch McConnell-esque levels of honesty. But really, if you're going to pull a stunt like this you should take a cue from Syndrome and refrain from monologuing about it.