Matt Welch | May 29, 2008
Schumpeter, after all, has been dead for six decades. The problem is that Al Gore is very much alive.
−Czech President Vaclav Klaus, wrapping up his (very good) speech at last night's Competitive Enterprise Institute annual gala.
* This is from my notes; a word or comma might be off.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
"very much alive" is an overstatement in regards to Al Gore. "Has not yet been clinically proven to be dead" would be a better description.
Al Gore can never die, he will just become Emperor of the Moon and write Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth.
Matt Welch,
Was he suggesting that former's influence was somehow
detrimental?
Is he making a comparison to Bobby Kennedy's assassination and
saying that he hopes that Gore will be shot?
Isn't he really saying "WILL NO ONE RID ME OF THIS MEDDLESOME
PRIEST?"
I find it terribly disgusting that Reason is endorsing a
Fatwa.
It's totally gone downhill since Joe Bob Briggs stopped writing for
the magazine.
Worked for Henry II, didn't it? Anyone ever hear about Becket's
successor?
Not that I advocate such things today, of course.
http://www.euportal.cz/Articles/2774-vaclav-klaus-presentation-of-the-book-blue-planet-in-green-shackles-.aspx
I read this yesterday through a different website, but the content
is the same.
My central concern is - in a condensed form - captured in
the subtitle of this book. I ask: "What is Endangered: Climate or
Freedom?" My answer is: "it is our freedom." I may also add "and
our prosperity".
The book was written by an economist who happens to be in a high
political position. I don't deny my basic paradigm, which is the
"economic way of thinking", because I consider it an advantage, not
a disadvantage. By stressing that, I want to say that the Climate
Change Debate in a wider and the only relevant sense should be
neither about several tenths of a degree of Fahrenheit or Celsius,
about the up or down movements of sea level, about the depths of
ice at North and Southern Pole, nor about the variations of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
The real debate should be about costs and benefits of alternative
human actions, about how to rationally deal with the unknown
future, about what kind and size of solidarity with much wealthier
future generations is justified, about the size of externalities
and their eventual appropriate "internalization", about how much to
trust the impersonal functioning of the markets in solving any
human problem, including global warming and how much to distrust
the very visible hand of very human politicians and their
bureaucrats. Some of these questions are touched upon in my
book.
kinnath,
It seems to me that if one is going to discuss costs and benefits,
etc. then one will be debating the scientific findings and
predictions.
Colin, you should direct your comments to Czech President Vaclav
Klaus.
The text was in italics to indicate that it was quoted from the
link I posted immediately before. I apologize if you could not make
the connection.
But seriously, Matt, are you new here? Have you any idea how
many joe and NM posts you have invited by quoting someone who spoke
ill of their Dear Leader, Sacred High Priest, Academy Award Winner,
Albert His Greeneness Gore, Jr?
Ever since the ending of Project Bluebook, those types have been
trying to find some wacky cause to get funded. Yetti did not work,
exterrestrials are out of style (thus the demise of that Project
Bluebook fad), so now they are after OUR vehicles with another
silly end-of-the-world-story. At least some of them got distracted
by that 9/11 Truther nonsense, but not much, seems a lot of those
guys worship Lord Gore too.
Or . . . could this be a clever Californian ploy to increase
traffic . . .
The Truth is out there.
kinnath,
I understood that. Just thinking "out loud" about the statement and
wondering what you thought about my thought.
I don't know about you, Neu Mejican, but the fact that Guy
Montag keeps drawing attention to the fact that my position is the
opposite of his is really, really embarrassing.
Also, I do not wish to be thrown bodily into a patch of briars.
Colin,
There is no problem with discussion of the scientific findings and
predictions except that the current body of work, by ignoring
economics, assumes static culture and static technology. This is
the same horrible error that Erlich made in the 60's.
He assumed static culture and static technology regarding
population growth and food supply. His rational
scientifically-based recommendations were to abandon technological
innovations that allowed population growth and to forcibly restrict
population growth. Where his recommendations were ignored,
population growth halted (and reversed in places) due to cultural
and economic influences. Meanwhile, technological innovations have
made famine something that only happens as a result of political
forces.
It's a conundrum; perhaps he wants us to creatively destroy
Former Vice President Goraculus.
I say we put Wile E Coyote on the job.
I say we put Wile E Coyote on the job.
Might need to reenforce him with The Boys from Brazil and, perhaps,
The Powerpuff Girls.
I tried to post a long description of context, but the squirrels -- and not the ones in Wayne Allyn Root's pants -- ate the comment, so Reader's Digest version: Klaus gave a speech chewing on his hero Joseph Schumpeter's ultimately inaccurate prediction that capitalism would succeed so well that it would fail. As part of the speech, Klaus elucidated his belief that the biggest threat to capitalism right now is global warming hysteria, which he sees as equiavalent to, and comming from the same mental space as, Marxism. Most of the speech was about the Schump; some was about Radical Greens; this was his conclusion.
Given the size of our government, I'm not sure that Schumpeter
was entirely inaccurate in his prediction.
After all, by the standards of his day, we are socialists.
comming from the same mental space as,
Marxism.
You are one generous soul Matt Welch.
My favorite quote from anyplace on the interwebs: "Marxism is the
opiate of dumbasses."
Guy,
Dear Leader, Sacred High Priest, Academy Award Winner, Albert
His Greeneness Gore, Jr?
I have never thought too highly of Al Gore.
Environmentalists I admire:
Paul Hawken
http://www.paulhawken.com
Amory Lovins
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51
E. O. Wilson
http://www.eowilson.org/
Max Oelschlaeger
http://www.bookfinder.com/author/max-oelschlaeger/
RimFax,
...except that the current body of work, by ignoring economics,
assumes static culture and static technology.
If I am not mistaken a lot of climate studies, etc. do assume
advances in technology. Indeed, it would be strange if they didn't.
As for cultural change, that's kind of a broad topic, but I would
assume they also often take into account things like population
increase, resource use, etc.
Rimfax,
You are assuming, perhaps, a static climate science?
I would be surprised if a single factor you can come up with has
not been considered in one way or another in the discourse among
climate scientists.
The economists are behind the curve, of course, and haven't done
the work needed to understand the potential consequences of policy
decisions in this arena. When Nordhaus's DICE is as good as you've
got, then you have a lot of work to do.
The IPCC scenarios, for instance, include various assumptions about
cultural and technological changes.
joe,
I don't know about you, Neu Mejican, but the fact that Guy
Montag keeps drawing attention to the fact that my position is the
opposite of his is really, really embarrassing.
I mostly just find his posts ironic.
Occasionally funny.
Never worth engaging intellectually.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245