Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
George Will: "Countless" Green Jobs, Literally
The Washington Post columnist writes about that recent Spanish study that concluded green investments had led to higher, not lower, unemployment:
Still, one can be agnostic about [such] reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant. When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.
For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenue from economic growth.
Sample the lengthy Reason archive on Obama's "green jobs" here.
|6.25.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Must everything be about beliefs and assumptions? How about some facts? That would be Reason/able.
|6.25.09 @ 10:42AM|#
Oh, that George Will, I bet he would tell Malia and Sasha there is no Santa Claus, that old curmudgeon!
|6.25.09 @ 10:44AM|#
Will is probably the best in the business, but this
And each new [green] job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital.
sounds strangely familiar...
|6.25.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Raybutlers, do you know how much CO2 was emitted to produce all the alcohol H&Rers must now drink because of you?
DADIODADDY|6.25.09 @ 10:50AM|#
Most of the jobs are writing about how great the "Green" world
and how wonderful being "Green" is(or how great it will be.
Not a whole lot of real work gets done.
|6.25.09 @ 10:53AM|#
The basic solution to global warming seems to be to kill off all
the people.
While this might be acceptable to Earth First, the rest of us find
it a little drastic.
|6.25.09 @ 10:54AM|#
I knew that the Lefiti-less paradise of the last few weeks couldn't continue. But I'm still sad.
|6.25.09 @ 10:56AM|#
The basic solution to global warming seems to be to kill off
all the people.
Run them to death on hamster wheels attached to generators. Green
power AND population control in one.
Xeones|6.25.09 @ 10:57AM|#
Raybutlers, do you know how much CO2 was emitted to produce
all the alcohol H&Rers must now drink because of
you?
Not only that, it diverts precious ethanol sources to breweries and
distilleries, and away from green jobs at biodiesel plants!
Homer Simpson|6.25.09 @ 11:00AM|#
"Run them to death on hamster wheels attached to generators.
Green power AND population control in one."
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Naga Sadow|6.25.09 @ 11:00AM|#
it diverts precious ethanol sources to breweries and
distilleries
Change I can believe in Xeones.
Naga Sadow|6.25.09 @ 11:05AM|#
SugarFree,
Are you sure? I mean, total douchebag but . . . the return of the
legend himself? He's like Kane wandering the Earth in search of new
battles to fight?
|6.25.09 @ 11:06AM|#
He's like Kane wandering the Earth in search of new battles
to fight?
With a belt tied around his junk.
Kyle Jordan|6.25.09 @ 11:06AM|#
"Are you sure? I mean, total douchebag but . . . the return of
the legend himself? He's like Kane wandering the Earth in search of
new battles to fight?"
Or a new place to hang out...
Too soon?
|6.25.09 @ 11:15AM|#
And each new [green] job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs
that are either lost or not created in other industries because of
the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic
efficiency -- of capital.
It would be nice if they broke it down by lost v. not created
(maybe they do; I haven't RTFA), but still . . . .
The Spanish study estimates the jobs not created due to inefficient
capital allocation (the opportunity cost of government overriding
the marketplace), which is at least possible to do. Obama's claim
is very different; that macro unemployment would be higher but for
his government spending program. I'm not sure what kind of analysis
could even be done to support that kind of claim; certainly none
has been put forward by the administration.
|6.25.09 @ 11:18AM|#
"To" soon. Not "too". Too means "also" basically.
Huh? "Too soon" is correct. Or did I miss another joke?
Naga Sadow|6.25.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Is it "too"? Or "to", FrBunny? My grammar and usage isn't what it once was but I've always looked on "too" as just another way of saying "also".
|6.25.09 @ 11:21AM|#
It's definitely "too". As in "too much fun" or too tired to get up". But your "also" synonym is right, too. :)
Naga Sadow|6.25.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Thank you, honey bunny. I still get stuff like that wrong no matter how many times its explained to me. Sorta like the gerund nonsense.
Chad|6.25.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Ahh, wild-ass-guess macroeconomic studies. You can always find
one that has numbers that you like.
In the end, all of the claims of "green jobs", or the reverse, are
bunk. Economies in equilibrium will trend towards full employment.
It really is that simple. Able, willing workers are a resource, and
the market won't leave them lying around indefinitely. If you want
to keep employment levels high, your goal should be to keep the
economy from going through rapid fits and starts, like the one it
is doing now. That, of course, is more easily said than
done...though I would speculate that an economy based on oil, with
its rapid price fluctuations, is unlikely to be as stable as it
could be.
|6.25.09 @ 11:27AM|#
too tired to get up
Good job, HoneyBunny. Naga will definitely know that one.
Anyway, Ray=Lefiti is my assertion and I wait for evidence to the
contrary.
|6.25.09 @ 11:31AM|#
policies that are so invested with righteousness that
methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems
unimportant.
No, no, no.
There are "intangible benefits to be considered. You know, like the
"civic pride" generated by a professional sports franchise playing
in a capacious, high tech stadium with lots and lots of skyboxes.
You can't put a dollar value on civic pride, for crying out
loud.
And you certainly can't put a dollar value on lefty smuggery.
Naga Sadow|6.25.09 @ 11:32AM|#
SugarFree,
My viagra has solved that problem. Stop telling people things I've
told you in confidence.
|6.25.09 @ 11:33AM|#
Stop telling people things I've told you in
confidence.
I told you being my Facebook friend would have consequences.
Xeones|6.25.09 @ 11:34AM|#
Good job, HoneyBunny. Naga will definitely know that
one.
I think you meant "too tired to get IT up," Sweet'n'Low.
|6.25.09 @ 11:37AM|#
And each new [green] job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs
that are either lost or not created in other industries
because
they're evil brown jobs!
Yay!
Fluffy|6.25.09 @ 11:43AM|#
One factor to consider here is that the jobs destroyed by green
regulation will be lost system-wide, in all areas of the economy,
while the jobs that will be created will be concentrated in
easily-unionized industrial sectors, as well as in companies that
will be dependent on government handouts and favorable tax and
regulatory treatment.
Since the Democrats prefer the second type of jobs, from their
perspective this is good. "Real" jobs are those created for
Democratic constituencies, after all.
|6.25.09 @ 12:00PM|#
while the jobs that will be created will be concentrated in
easily-unionized industrial sectors,
A pretty good rule of thumb is that, if it can be made in a (union)
factory, it can be imported from overseas.
So, if we are going to keep all these fab, rainbow-crapping green
jobs in 'Murrica, we will need import barriers.
DHS Thinks I\'m A Terrorist.|6.25.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Gore is now trying to rescue the Waxman-Markey bill Global
Warming Bill from Tenn.
Apparently they want to tank our economy for good.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24193.html
Paul|6.25.09 @ 12:07PM|#
will be concentrated in easily-unionized industrial sectors,
as well as in companies that will be dependent on government
handouts and favorable tax and regulatory treatment.
That's a feature, not a bug.
mark|6.25.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Economies in equilibrium will trend towards full
employment.
I've said this before, but could you please tell your congressman
to stop voting for bailouts and stimuli, because the economy will
be fine without them?
though I would speculate that an economy based on oil, with its
rapid price fluctuations, is unlikely to be as stable as it could
be.
Is it possible that the rapid price fluctuations were more caused
by the Fed distorting the market for money around the world? And
would it help to start drilling in ANWR, etc.?
stuartl|6.25.09 @ 1:20PM|#
Economies in equilibrium will trend towards full
employment.
As demonstrated by 9% unemployment in countries like France and
Germany prior to the recession.
Sean W. Malone|6.25.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Am I wrong in noting that Chad actually said that macroeconomic
studies were crap?
I'd recommend that Chad try ignoring the studies and applying some
basic reasoning skills to this problem to determine the likely
outcome of taking $500,000 - $1,000,000 out of the economy by force
per each new job created, but it seems doubtful that he'd come to
the sensible conclusion.
stuartl|6.25.09 @ 1:25PM|#
Economies in equilibrium will trend towards full
employment.
Admittedly the Soviet Union did have full employment and was at
equilibrium -- there was virtually no growth for decades.
Chad|6.25.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Sean W. Malone | June 25, 2009, 1:21pm | #
I'd recommend that Chad try ignoring the studies and applying some
basic reasoning skills to this problem to determine the likely
outcome of taking $500,000 - $1,000,000 out of the economy by force
per each new job created, but it seems doubtful that he'd come to
the sensible conclusion.
It is precisely these kinds of numbers that are crap. If you spend
about $65000 (ie, $50000 plus enough for benefits) on anything,
anywhere, anytime, you create one typical middle-class job for one
year. Or, more specifically, you create an innumerable number of
fractional jobs which add up to one middle-class job, on average.
This is true whether you are the government or an individual.
When the government spends, it also must either borrow or tax that
$65000, which reduces spending somewhere else...eliminating one net
job. Therefore, the first approximation is always zero sum.
Any speculation about the secondary and tertiary effects of any
policy which shifts $65000 around is merely that...speculation. The
only thing you can be sure of is that because only about 2% of the
GDP is in political play at any given moment in time, these
secondary effects are small, and any change they do induce will be
lost in the noise.
Sean. Please tell me how to spend $1,000,000 and only create one
middle-class job. Be specific on what you are going to buy, and
include the entire supply chain. You will quickly realize that this
would be impossible.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.25.09 @ 1:41PM|#
Chad it can't be zero sum.
Think of the energy efficiencies as you go from sun --> plant
--> consumer --> carnivore.
Each only gains ten percent of the available energy, due to 2nd law
of therm.
Similarly, every new stage on the road from confiscation-->
administration--> distribution of the transfer payment eats up a
(large) portion of the value.
Chad|6.25.09 @ 1:48PM|#
stuartl | June 25, 2009, 1:20pm | #
Economies in equilibrium will trend towards full employment.
As demonstrated by 9% unemployment in countries like France and
Germany prior to the recession.
Given their generous welfare systems, that IS full employment for
them.
Chad|6.25.09 @ 1:50PM|#
Fascitis Necrotizante | June 25, 2009, 1:41pm | #
Similarly, every new stage on the road from confiscation-->
administration--> distribution of the transfer payment eats up a
(large) portion of the value.
Which creates jobs for confisticators, administrators, and
distributors. This may be wasteful work, but it is work
none-the-less.
Either way, the collection and administrative overhead is very
small, typically a few percent...no worse and often better than the
private sector.
Chad|6.25.09 @ 2:06PM|#
And read some Bastiat.
Better yet, I thought up his arguments on my own long before I ever
heard of him.
You are missing my point, though. The ~2% transfer from point A to
point B MAY be waste. It may not be. It all depends on how much
much more valuable money is at point A vs point B.
Given that the money the government removes from the economy
largely comes from the marginal expenditures of the upper middle
and upper classes (SUVs, granite countertops, vacations in Las
Vegas, etc), I really don't think it is hard for the government to
come up with better medium or long-term investments. You know, like
the road they are re-paving near my home.
Sean W. Malone|6.25.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Yeahhhh... I thought that was going to happen. Ok Chad, here's
my Econ 101 lesson for you today:
What you're forgetting is that that for a job to be a net producer
it actually has to add value and capital to society. Value is
subjective, and is revealed through things like consumer
preferences. These are extremely complex things which vary person
to person and the combined power of millions of people trading are
the only way to really express that because products are offered
voluntarily... If a product (and consequently the the job which
someone had producing it) is not valued, then that job will be
operating at an economic loss and will eventually (often relatively
quickly) dissipate in favor of something people value more
highly.
Because the market is based on voluntary transactions, that
information is conveyed pretty quickly through profits &
losses... Government can of course, as we've seen, fuck with that
system pretty easily by for instance mitigating the losses that
would have told producers that X or Y jobs were inefficient or not
valued, thus contributing to a decline or a slowdown in generating
real wealth... By which I mean: There will be less stuff
produced that people need or want, and thus more scarcity and
higher costs of living/lower quality of life.
So here's some math:
Take $500,000. A company that's earned that money in profits (in a
free market) has done so by providing a product or service that is
valued by their customers. If it was not valued, then consumers
would have bought something else, right? Because they've earned
profits, the company has received the signal that demand for their
product is high and thus an expansion might be in order. The market
rate, including benefits is - for example - $50,000.
But these are new jobs so they'll have to hire 1 new manager, and
an HR person as well, lets say they're both worth $75,000.
SO... Our company hires 1 HR person, who hires 1 manager, and 7 new
workers.
Those workers then spend their salaries on everything you talked
about above. Overall, this has been an activity which adds value to
society, since 1. Consumers provided proof that they wanted/needed
what's being sold, 2. The company's business model is efficient
enough that profits aren't eaten up by operating cost, and 3. More
of the right (for that moment) stuff is now being produced, thus
increasing everyone's ability to get said product. Now, I know
you're probably thinking about "CheapChineseCrap" or "SUVs", but
imagine that this company is producing Flu Vaccines instead. We now
have +7 workers creating the vaccine.
Now... look at the government side:
First. They have no way of effectively knowing if what they want to
produce is needed or wanted, because instead of a profit & loss
mechanism or a free price system, their "profits" are collected
involuntarily, and prices are set either by some market-mimicking
standard as the USSR did it, or by arbitrary fiat like Hugo Chavez.
Ignoring the fact that this requires an inordinate amount of
force... which I know you don't really care too much about, the
point is that there's no automatic way to know what's actually
needed at any given time.
So instead of acquiring the information naturally through
observation of prices and profits - we have to hire "experts" to
tell us what's needed, and we need someone in charge of determining
what prices are. Since everyone in government is funded by taxes
instead of via voluntary payments then you also need a
tax-collector. Let's say that the "expert" can be responsible both
for what gets produced and at what price they'll sell it and he
manages to discover that we need more flu vaccines and ties the
sell price at market value. Everything being equal to the private
company, let's get back to the math model:
Same $500,000 but this time taken by force via taxation.
Government has to first hire someone to collect the taxes... say
$50,000 to that person. The expert commands $100,000 but that's
very important, so we'll accept that too. Then they still have to
hire a manager, at $75,000 and an HR person do to that hiring at
$75,000 - and finally, as many workers to actually produce the
vaccine as they can with the remainder.
So where does this leave us? With 1 Expert, 1 Taxman, 1 HR guy, 1
Manager, and... Well gosh, only 4 workers. I
should also note that I'm being extremely generous, since
government would probably opt to work at a loss to provide the
vaccine at a nominally cheaper price, they would be paying far more
than $50,000 to some unionized work force complete with life-time
pension guarantees, and it wouldn't take 1 "expert", but a whole
team. But for my scaled down purposes... this will be fine.
So, I notice in a later post, you claim "So what? Everyone has a
job right?"
Sure... Well, actually one fewer people has a job than in the
private scenario, but you're right, everyone has a job. But you
know what the world doesn't have??
Enough Flu Vaccine.
Thank you for playing.
mark|6.25.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Chad, I take issue with your contention that taxes are only
taken away from "marginal expenditures of the upper middle and
upper classes". First of all, those expenditures are part of
economic activity and thus some people rely on them. Second, even
if most of the marginal money was wasted, some would still be
accumulated as capital and re-invested in new productive capacity.
And lastly, when that money is spent, there is an entirely
different process, mostly political and therefore corrupt, for
distributing that money. If the money only goes to a certain use
instead of the public good, there is a much greater chance for
abuse.
And please, economics in one
lesson.
stuartl|6.25.09 @ 3:41PM|#
Given that the money the government removes from the economy
largely comes from the marginal expenditures of the upper middle
and upper classes (SUVs, granite countertops, vacations in Las
Vegas, etc), I really don't think it is hard for the government to
come up with better medium or long-term investments.
Not really into freedom, are you chad? Obviously you think you know
what is best for the rest of us. I like the car I drive and the
improvements I make on my house. I happen to know that both the
salesguy for car and the guy doing the home improvements to my
house are sending their kids to college with a healthy portion of
the money they are making. But obviously that is not the proper
investment a government could come up with. You make it hard not to
godwin a thread.
As demonstrated by 9% unemployment in countries like France and
Germany prior to the recession.
Given their generous welfare systems, that IS full employment for
them.
So you think paying the able bodied not to work is employment? And
you also think working to send your kids to college is a bad
investment. Interesting.
Chad|6.25.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Sean, after trying to read your multi-page rant, I just about
burst out laughing when I realized that you don't even grasp that
the government buys more flu vaccine than anyone. In any case,
people will not give up flu vaccines. They will give up the
countertops. Your analogy is wrong.
And btw, a company that has one HR worker for every seven employees
is DoA. Your numbers are completely made up, and actually in denial
of the facts. Overhead for government agencies compares very
favorably to the private sector.
Sean W. Malone|6.25.09 @ 3:55PM|#
Not to hawk my own book above, Stuartl, but you are merely recognizing that Chad doesn't understand that "job" and "production" aren't the same things. So he's always perfectly happy to pay people to do nothing at all with money forcibly taken from those of us who do contribute. But if you look at it like a Keynesian, you might be tempted to agree... Jobs = spending, spending = more jobs in perpetuity. Of course, jobs digging ditches may very well put people "to work", but since they don't produce anything anyone values society isn't any better off for it... and in fact, we're worse off by such gross misallocations of capital.
Sean W. Malone|6.25.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Wow Chad... That is positively amazing. You missed 100% of the
point of the above novella.
Congratulations.
Sean W. Malone|6.25.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Leave it to Chad to take the completely inconsequential,
hypothetical parts of an analogy literally - complain about them,
and utterly miss the principles involved.
Jesus H. Christ.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.25.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Chad's assertion that governmental waste only affects "~2%" of
the energy transfers it supervises is cute. Got some extraordinary
evidence for that extraordinary claim? A career in government made
me libertarian, kid, and bullshit ain't worth much here.
I don't think he's really educable at this point, so I won't feed a
troll. But maybe when he grows up more in this great big world
he'll learn more about the ways of reality and come around.
Or else bullshit his way into positions of escalating authority
over all of us!
Sean W. Malone|6.25.09 @ 6:21PM|#
It makes me sad though Fascitis... I took the time to write out
a basic lesson in the difference between a company earning profits
voluntarily in a free price system and government operating with
stolen money and no means of obtaining decent knowledge about what
they need to be producing, and all he can get from it is "But
Vaccines are bought by government"??
Weak. I only used the word "vaccine" because I knew if I left it
open, Chad would say that consumers valuing products made in China
or large vehicles wasn't good and he'd have missed the main point.
It turns out that no matter what product I talk about, no matter
how "good" for society, Chad was going to miss the point either
way.
roy|6.26.09 @ 1:19AM|#
actually Sam, I quite like your story... thanks for writing
it.
i'm always looking for ways to make economic calculation in the
socialist commonwealth simple for people like chad...
Chad|6.26.09 @ 9:35AM|#
Sean W. Malone | June 25, 2009, 3:55pm | #
Not to hawk my own book above, Stuartl, but you are merely
recognizing that Chad doesn't understand that "job" and
"production" aren't the same things. So he's always perfectly happy
to pay people to do nothing at all with money forcibly taken from
those of us who do contribute. But if you look at it like a
Keynesian, you might be tempted to agree... Jobs = spending,
spending = more jobs in perpetuity. Of course, jobs digging ditches
may very well put people "to work", but since they don't produce
anything anyone values society isn't any better off for it... and
in fact, we're worse off by such gross misallocations of
capital.
Sean, where am I advocating breaking windows, building pyramids, or
digging ditches? I am not.
I am pointing out that
1: People do NOT make rational or optimal decisions. This has been
demonstrated countless times by a thousand and one psychological
studies.
2: There are certain goods and services which individuals CANNOT
buy, even if these goods and services are a much better value for
the money than things these individuals buy with their final,
marginal dollars. I can't head off to Walmart and buy public
transportation.
3: In innumerable circumstances, the assumptions of free market
theory are violated, and even fully rational individual choice does
not lead to optimal outcomes for the group.
I am sorry, but you just have your head stuck in this little
libertarian game world, where everything flows with absolute
certainty from a few core assumptions. That sort of intellectual
consistency is fun for geeky teens, but fails in the real world
BECAUSE THE ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.26.09 @ 10:50AM|#
Sean, if it makes you feel any better, Chad is in all likelihood
19 years old. He's just getting introduced to economics and
political theory and is only really comfortable as-yet with the
leftist water that young college fish swim in. There might be a 25%
chance of him figuring shit out if he ever has to do real work with
real professional responsibilities.
I know because I was somewhat like him when I was in college, just
smarter and more thoughtful. (And no doubt taller, handsomer and
more sexually successful.) But the facts-o-life aren't kind to
intellectually honest progressives.
And Chad, if you're a day older than 24, shame on your ignorant
mind.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 11:56AM|#
Sean, if it makes you feel any better, Chad is in all
likelihood 19 years old. He's just getting introduced to economics
and political theory and is only really comfortable as-yet with the
leftist water that young college fish swim in. There might be a 25%
chance of him figuring shit out if he ever has to do real work with
real professional responsibilities.
Actually, I was an Ayn Rand quoting college kid back in the days.
Then I grew up. Your conjectures were wrong in just about every
way.
Your "thoughts" are a little mini-game which are nothing more than
a logically consistent theory based on false premises.
I don't believe people are rational, or indeed, all that smart in
most cases. I don't believe markets would work in many cases even
if people were rational. I don't believe any market theory properly
accounts for future generations. I don't believe GDP "growth" is
necessesarily a good thing. I don't believe the distinction between
positive and negative freedoms is anywhere near as important or
clear as libertarian theory makes it out to be.
In short, your theory simply fails because its assumptions are dead
wrong in the real world. Everything that follows from your
assumptions is then suspect. Markets are useful for solving certain
types of problems, but completely fail at others, and often choose
the wrong problems to solve in the first place.
mark|6.26.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Markets are useful for solving certain types of
problems
Like allocation of resources without resorting to privilege-based
systems. Have you read Hayek?
Chad|6.26.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Like allocation of resources without resorting to
privilege-based systems. Have you read Hayek?
No, markets are actually pretty darned bad at allocating resources,
as the current bubble yet again shows.
And not only that, markets often aren't even trying to solve the
right problems in the first place. Spending trillions on SUVs and
granite countertops is hardly a rational investment of our money
(or worse yet, or childrens' money). Of course, you would never
admit this, as your theory clearly indicates that, not matter how
idiotic it appears, whatever the market did MUST be right because
the market could never be wrong. Therefore, your theory is
unfalsifiable.
|6.26.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Hey Chad, the last time I checked, the only group that was
capable of spending "our children's money" was the government. The
last time I tried getting store credit on the future income of my
non-existent children, I was rejected. Maybe I shouldn't have been
trying to buy weed, but that's another story.
As far as your assertion that spending trillions on SUV's and
granite counter tops is irrational, I ask you how spending
trillions on health care for old people is rational? The only old
people I give a shit about are my parents. And guess what, they are
both only in their early 60's, so they don't get shit from
medicare/social security right now. So, from my perspective, how
the f*ck is that rational? How the heck is spending trillions on
corporate welfare for poorly run companies rational? Or the
billions spent on agricultural welfare/ethanol subsidies? My last
experience with ethanol left me almost running out of gas in the
South Dakota badlands, due to the shitty mileage it gives!
At least in the case of the SUV's and countertops, it is the end
consumer who makes the end decisions, and not who is the most
politically connected. I.e. I'd rather have a million wrong free
choices, rather than compulsory "correct" ones.
Chad|6.26.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Kyle Roberts | June 26, 2009, 3:08pm | #
Hey Chad, the last time I checked, the only group that was capable
of spending "our children's money" was the government.
You didn't check very thoroughly then. The private sector is up to
its eyeballs in debt as well, and my parents and grandparents have
sold everything but the shiny new countertops.
The last time I tried getting store credit on the future income
of my non-existent children, I was rejected. Maybe I shouldn't have
been trying to buy weed, but that's another story.
Actually, the low interest rates you have been paying are due to
the government's ability to borrow on our childrens' income.
As far as your assertion that spending trillions on SUV's and
granite counter tops is irrational, I ask you how spending
trillions on health care for old people is rational?
Most of it is, some of it isn't. Health care needs to be rationed
in some way.
The only old people I give a shit about are my
parents.
One thing I do love about a lot of libertarians is how openly
greedy and self-centered you are. It makes shooting down your
arguments all the easier.
How the heck is spending trillions on corporate welfare for
poorly run companies rational? Or the billions spent on
agricultural welfare
I don't support such subsidies.
/ethanol subsidies?
Ethanol should be subsidized as much as gasoline on a BTU basis.
Zero subsidies would be best, equal subsidies are a must.
My last experience with ethanol left me almost running out of
gas in the South Dakota badlands, due to the shitty mileage it
gives!
It's not my fault you can't do math.
At least in the case of the SUV's and countertops, it is the
end consumer who makes the end decisions, and not who is the most
politically connected. I.e. I'd rather have a million wrong free
choices, rather than compulsory "correct" ones.
Why?
mark|6.26.09 @ 3:56PM|#
as the current bubble yet again shows.
Perhaps the current bubble was a response to the overproduction of
fiat money? If the market for money is not free, how will you be
able to properly allocate resources?
Chad|6.26.09 @ 4:43PM|#
Perhaps the current bubble was a response to the overproduction of
fiat money? If the market for money is not free, how will you be
able to properly allocate resources?
Ahh, the other classic libertarian argument
"When the market screws up, find some government program or policy
that is in any way connected to the problem, and blame that".
This is a great line of argument because you can always find
some element of government that will serve your
purpose.
Combined with your prove-the-negative argument of "When the market
screws up, just assert that it really DIDN'T screw up and that what
it did was actually rational in some magical way that we just can't
understand", you guys have got a lock on the unassailable
arguments.
|6.26.09 @ 5:55PM|#
You didn't check very thoroughly then. The private sector is
up to its eyeballs in debt as well, and my parents and grandparents
have sold everything but the shiny new countertops.
So, what you are telling me is that, for example, Starbucks can
send me a bill even though I don't buy their coffee, and I have to
pay it? And also that any debt that your parents die with, which
can't be paid off by the estate, will be passed on to you? Last I
checked, the only group that could do that was Uncle Sam.
Actually, the low interest rates you have been paying are due
to the government's ability to borrow on our childrens'
income.
Maybe, to a certain extent. But it's probably far more influenced
by the fact that I pay my bills every month, on time, and I don't
take out any loans I can't afford. Hell, after I finish paying off
my student loan this month, the only one I'll have left is a car
loan that I can finish off with the money sitting in my checking
account. And you know why? Because I don't spend money I don't
have.
Health care needs to be rationed in some way.
How? Base it on need? Who determines the need? What about people
who don't take care of their bodies? Base it on "worth to the
community" then? Who determines that? Base it on age; oldest first,
or youngest? Or just straight-up ER triage? I await with bated
breath on your answer.
One thing I do love about a lot of libertarians is how openly
greedy and self-centered you are. It makes shooting down your
arguments all the easier.
Hmm... got anything other than ad-hominem attacks? As far as being
greedy, how many times have you put your life on the line for
complete strangers, 'cuz if you look at my email address, that'll
give you an indication as to what I've been doing for the past
couple of years. How many refugee columns have you
(single-handedly) prevented from being murdered? I know I've got at
least one under my belt.
I don't support such subsidies.
Holy shit! Something we can agree on.
It's not my fault you can't do math.
More ad-hominem, as well as false. Last I checked I was one course
short of a math minor in college. I also regularly play poker. I
also do this thing that is very strange to most people which
involves math: balance my checkbook! Hence my earlier
sentiments.
As far as the ethanol goes, when your car regularly gets 360-ish
miles (highway) on a tank, there's no reason for the tank to be on
fumes at 260 miles. Well, there is: shitty ethanol based
gasoline.
And as to your final question to me, are you perhaps implying that
freedom and free choice is bad? If so, just come out and say it.
It's O.K. You're allowed to have that opinion, it's part of being
free. But you'd better expect some resistance when you try to
enforce that on others.
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