Sandy says Do The Math
Wikimedia Commons
Today’s editorial notes that politicians have had little to say about climate change this year. In fact, Jamie Henn, co-founder of the international climate campaign 350.org notes that the words “climate change” weren’t mentioned in a presidential debate for the first time since 1988.
Perhaps it’s little surprise that climate change has all but disappeared from the public agenda. The fossil fuel industry has spent over $150 million this election cycle to keep up the climate silence. Just last week, Chevron made the largest single corporate political donation since the Citizens United decision, giving $2.5 million to a pro-GOP SuperPAC. Together with the hundreds of millions the industry spends on lobbying during the regular calendar year, this tidal wave of money has been enough to drown out any Congressional attempts at real climate action.
What can voters do when their leaders are silent? Once they have donated to disaster relief, Henn says they can get involved in campaigns to push back against the fossil fuel industry, like the Do the Math tour organized by his group. The closest stop on the tour is D.C. He also encourages people to support urban agriculture and ride their bikes. What are you doing to combat global warming?
November 1, 2012 - 11:42 AM
Well, it was only a matter of time before the Keynesians in the crowd trotted out the Broken Window Fallacy:
The Economic Impact of Hurricane Sandy…Not All Bad News
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/economic-impact-hurricane-sandy-not-bad-news-150458002.html
Outtakes:
Disasters can give the ailing construction sector a boost, and unleash smart reinvestment that actually improves stricken areas and the lives of those that survive intact.
Well, why wait for nature? Let’s firebomb inner cities and other blighted areas all in the name of jump-starting the economy.
…rebuilding after Sandy, especially in an economy with high unemployment and underused resources in the construction industry, will unleash at least $15-$20 billion in new direct private spending…
And where is the $15-20B to come from? Why, it has to be re-allocated from other uses – food, clothing, plant expansion, savings, what have you – that are in response to market demands. So the storm essentially caused mal-investment (unavoidable in most cases, but still mal-investmetn). This is not good for the economy.
I remind everyone of Bastiat’s Parable of the Broken Window:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
The author of this piece teaches economics at the University of Maryland, meaning he has full license to teach the garbage notion that disasters – man-made or natural – are good for an economy. It’s the same sort of rationale that justifies war as an economic stimulus (it’s not).
So the record cold temperatures in Va and feet of snow in WV which happened in October are due to “Global Warming”.
Of course….. anyone can see that. Where did you get this Global Warming idea? Oh yeah. A movie.
More water is retained when the atmosphere is warmer, so yes, that can translate into lots of snow. I never saw Gore’s movie, if that’s what you mean. The overall point was correct but it contained inaccuracies. Too much pressure to juice things up for Hollywood.
#2 Pleas show us where anybody has claimed that global warming will result in the complete end of snow or cold temperatures at unusual times, Henry. Are you one of those guys who thinks they’re really clever when they say something like, “I just finished shoveling a foot of global warming off my driveway”?
Not for nothing, but I do not think it is some evil Keynesian conspiracy that people are looking on the bright side as they see and digest all the destruction Sandy left.
We don’t “firebomb inner cities and other blighted areas” precisely because that is not prosperity and growth. But the necessity of rebuilding that which nature or tragedy has destroyed is just what has to happen. It is not Keynesian v Austrian or good v evil. It just is.
For the record we do sometimes come close to firebombing inner cities and other blighted areas, and yes, they do call it progress. Carilion’s new Medical Complex is just that.
5 – I wouldn’t characterize Keynesianism as a conspiracy, it’s just wrong. It rises to the level of lunacy when economics professors claim it is beneficial to the economy. The broken window fallacy is just that – a fallacy.
During the cap & trade debates in 2009, scientific studies predicted that cutting C02 emissions would curtail a few hundredths of a degree off future temperatures. Total cost would have been in the trillions of dollars. Proposing such a colossal cost for such a tiny alleged benefit is insane!
The main reason Obama stayed away from the issue is that he spent billions of dollars of stimulus money for green technologies many of which failed and was wasted taxpayer money. I won’t list out the details-most of you know the projects. Romney was playing it smart politically. The economy is the mainstream issue in this election and Romney’s ace card, so he made sure to focus on this.
By the way, I like it warm and don’t really care if it stays 80 degrees all winter. I have no problem with folks trying to improve technologies to use less electricity, water and other resources. When newer technologies come out and prove that they are safe, better and cost efficient, I will purchase them. I don’t feel the guv needs to mandate these improvements-supply and demand will dictate these technologies.
89Hoo, if you remember the facts, we are no more truly Keynesian than we are a truly free market economy. Recall for instance that we do not store away the excess in the “good times” to prepare for the bad as Keynes specifically advised. It is a disservice to him to call it “Keynesianism” whether you think it some conspiracy or not. Just as calling most anything in our economy “free market” is also not technically true.
Have you read this?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/13/john-maynard-keynes-conservative-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
The left/progressive POV (obviously including minions down to Ms. Nuckols)….what’s wrong with the world is the Citizens United (free speech) SCOTUS decision.
After which, the 5th column can no longer control the substance of debate.
PAC’s are whose ox is being gored (no pun intended). Like minded people contributing time & money (does anyone really think money can be removed from politics? Should it be? Don’t we in all things “vote” with our dollars? I digress).
The rules are the same for all PAC’s. If I “vote” for the NRA & “you” vote for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence….so be it.
If “your” side is being out-”voted” perhaps it’s because more people disagree with your position. Yes, I’m aware of the flaw in the one-man one-vote….versus one-dollar one-vote analogy. But that’s OK, we can’t all have George Soros on “our” side.
All the talk about the NRA. 4 million members contributing a dollar here & a dollar there. A common cause, democracy in action.
Something the 5th columnists can’t stand (and I believe there is an ongoing thread as to newspapers raising prices, perhaps beyond market sustainability, as they loose market & influence). Dead oxen.
gdad
I’m just sayin’. That Global Warming sure is cold.
8 – Sandi, I have read that piece by Bartlett, but in order to fully respond, I need to clarify some definitions. When Bartlett talks about conservatives, he’s not talking about the classical conservatives, those who promote a small, unintrusive federal government, a humble foreign policy and military, and a free market economy that protect private property rights, with sound money and a tax policy that does not punish achievement. Think Calvin Coolidge. Or Ron Paul. Let’s call these Free Marketeers, and they share a lot of common philosophy with classical liberals.
He’s talking about the modern neoConservatives, those who actually promote a robust federal government, a belligerent foreign policy, and croney capitalist economy that rewards political patronage (no, not the same thing as a free market), and they don’t understand or care about sound money, and only tinker with tax rates enough to draw a thin distinction between themselves and their modern liberal counterparts. Think Bush (any of them), McCain, Romney, Reagan, Nixon…pretty much any mainstream GOPer from the last forty years (and including Bruce Bartlett). Let’s call these neoCons, and note they have much more in common with the modern liberal than with the free marketeers; the modern incarnations of both sides of the aisle have much more in common with each other than either does with its classical forefather. And when Bartlett says conservatives, he is really talking about neoCons.
With that out of the way, from a neoCon standpoint, Bartlett is exactly right; Keynes is more neoCon than he is liberal, kind of a version of Marx acceptable to neoCons. Bartlett even quotes Peter Drucker,
“…a [neo]conservative admirer of Keynes…”…Keynes was the real father of neoconservatism, far more than Hayek.”
Well Hayek had very little in common, philosophically, with Keynes, so comparing them in that sense is a bit like saying that “George Washington was the real Father of our country, far more than Peter the Great.” Apples and oranges; no one with any sense would link Hayek with the actions of the neoCons.
But yes, Keynes’ economics are embraced by neoCons today (neoCon foreign policy has its roots in Strauss and Trotsky, wholly compatible with Keynes); the fact that neoCons, on the one hand, expend a lot of hot air shunning him, and on the other, embrace his policies, points both to their venality and to their economic ignorance. In terms of governance, in other words, they are no different from modern liberals.
Six feet of snow in Nicholas County WV. Yeah Global Warming did that. Of course it did.
http://www.register-herald.com/todaysfrontpage/x1501141977/NICHOLAS-CRUSHED-BY-SNOW
#11 Nevertheless ‘Hoo, one of two candidates will be our next president.
The sick patient will get sicker by degree. At some point, the degree will be too great.
One last time, and once again, not proselytizing…..the difference in degree (and some honest, “absolute” differences) are real. Including 3-4 SCOTUS appointments.
Three to four more SCOTUS appointments like John Roberts? The liberals well salivate but not me. No thanks.
#12 Gee, Henry, I guess that FR has brainwashed you so thoroughly that you even use this lame stuff. Sad. Next thing we know, you’ll be saying, “Yup, by golly, I just done finished shoveling a foot of globul warmin’ outta muh driveway.”
13, 14 – For anyone who is pro-life, the difference should be obvious. Which candidate is most likely to nominate pro-life justices? Certainly not Obama.
‘Hoo….in all honesty, if you don’t see the huge difference between Roberts, and, Kagan/Sotomayor, then, if too many people agree with you, we will get 3-4 more of the latter. Goodbye Constitution.
Sorry, but you can’t order a tailor-made president. A third party vote is a vote for Obama. Sad….but true.
#16 TOR….the 2nd Amendment would be in great peril. Recent SCOTUS victories laying the explicit foundation of the individual constitutional rights protected were 5-4.
BTW ‘HOO…..Roberts supported both Heller & McDonald. Sotomayor dissented in McDonald. Neither Kagan or Sotomayor were on the court for Heller. In each case their anti-2nd Amendment views are well known.
Obama has already indicated his intent to re-instate the “assault weapons” ban….a completely bogus excercise that has/had no affect on crime prevention or prosecution, and a ruse to ban everday/old-tech, commonly owned semi-auto weapons.
I have shown Obama’s gun views/history many times before. An Obama re-election & SCOTUS picks would be disastrous for the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution.
18 – Jim, I agree 100%. Romney is not the ideal candidate, for a number of reasons. But for reasons stated here, if for no other reason, the choice is clear.
To #17 (Jim Lucas): Actually, a vote for a third-party candidate is not the same as a vote for Obama. A vote for Obama is +1 for Obama. A vote for Romney is -1 for Obama. A vote for a third-party candidate is +0 for Obama. Also, consider similar discussions that liberals are undoubtedly having right now, probably something along the lines of “A third-party vote is a vote for Romney.” How can a third-party vote be a vote for Obama and a vote for Romney simultaneously?
Because of his horrifying accumulation of national debt (along with various policies that encourage homeowners and students to accumulate excess personal debt), Barack Obama clearly does not deserve a second term and will not be getting my vote. However, I’m skeptical that Romney deserves my vote either.
A vote is a very personal thing, but seriously some of the “reasons” stated hear do not sound like informed votes but merely bias votes. Hyperbole as point is weak.
Citizens united unleashed “the 5th column” they have absolutely controlled “the substance of debate”, and the results have further divided this nation. Still peddling George Soros as the bogeyman is simple, easy and wrong, by a mile.
There is NOTHING, nothing at all in Romney that will appoint conservatives, fight for conservatives or not add to the debt, continue the deficits and possibly mire this nation in WWIII in the bargain. That is fantasy based on his actual record. He, just like Obama, will get to the debt and deficit eventually, because eventually is all there is. This crisis will require more than eight years to resolve, no matter who is president.
“Throughout history, rich and poor countries alike have been lending, borrowing, crashing–and recovering–their way through an extraordinary range of financial crises. Each time, the experts have chimed, “this time is different”–claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters. With this breakthrough study, leading economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff definitively prove them wrong. Covering sixty-six countries across five continents, This Time Is Different presents a comprehensive look at the varieties of financial crises, and guides us through eight astonishing centuries of government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes–from medieval currency debasements to today’s subprime catastrophe. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, leading economists whose work has been influential in the policy debate concerning the current financial crisis, provocatively argue that financial combustions are universal rites of passage for emerging and established market nations. The authors draw important lessons from history to show us how much–or how little–we have learned.”
http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640
No matter who is president, Roe v Wade and the second amendment are not “in danger” that is hyperbole and fantasy combined.
Vote for whomever you like but pretending reasons is just plain silly.
Stop dissing on third party votes too. This nation will never have a solid third party until people do vote for them in numbers too big too ignore. In most cases, the third party voter will stay home rather than pledge their vote to someone they do not support. They do not harm the vote for anyone.
#20 ‘Hoo knows I was talking about Goode, or other libertarian/constitutional, etc., candidates.
By “vote” I meant the affect toward who wins. This is why we vote.
When a third party vote goes to someone who cannot win, if one assumes the vote would have otherwise gone to one of the viable candidates, that is a net loss for the latter, and a net gain for the other viable candidate.
20 people at the polls
11 vote for Romney
9 vote for Obama
Romney wins
What if 3 Romney voters instead vote for Goode?
9 for Obama, 8 for Romney, 3 for Goode.
No, I do not assume all Goode votes would have otherwise been for Romney. Any more than I assume all Nader votes in 2000 would have gone for Gore.
Yet I think most would agree as to the relatve, aggregate affect. Perhaps I should have said, third party voting for Goode benifits Obama, and conversely hurts Romney.
Again, different third party candidates in different races will have different impacts.
#21 Mrs. Saunders……no one said one’s vote was not “personal” (you’re the one telling us how you are going to vote) .
You have “reasons”, others have “bias”. Got it.
I mentioned Soros as a bumper against the inevitable (inaccurate) rebuttal that, right of center PAC’s dominate PAC spending. (However, you might want to check Soros’ history as to various PAC support). Huge, and very enlightening.
“No matter who is president, Roe v Wade and the second amendment are not “in danger” that is hyperbole and fantasy combined.” So glad we can dismiss the “War on Women”. You are very wrong about Obama & the 2nd Amendment. Court cases across the nation are deciding the future of the 2nd Amendment. Heller & McDonald hang by 5-4. Mrs. Saunders, who appoints federal judges?
Mrs. Saunders, I will express my opinion on “third party votes” whenever I wish. Your permission or approval notwithstanding.
#21 Mrs. Saunders….Hyperbole? Fantasy? Boogeyman?
http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/george_soros.asp
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-george-soros-super-pacs-20120927,0,7428688.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/soros-donates-15-million-to-pro-obama-pacs/2012/09/27/6c8cb472-08e4-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81762.html
Many, many more.