Macroeconomics & Climate Models

[Riverwind]

It's a really stupid tactic to drape otherwise convincing arguments in the language of the paranoid. You're not going to convince anyone who is trying to understand the issue by doing so.

There is nothing paranoid about suggesting that people have motives other than the ones that they publically state when their actions are not consistent with their stated motives. The alternative would require that one believe they are simply irrational or naive.

[Riverwind]

Yes its always the filthy socialists isn't it? They're every where and are entirely responsible for everything that's wrong with everything.

If they push governments to set up a system that then gets abused then they are partially responsible. That said, I made it clear that it was the bankers who actually abused the system.

[blueblood]

Yes its always the filthy socialists isn't it? They're every where and are entirely responsible for everything that's wrong with everything.

Why aren't we simply rounding them all up and putting them in camps?

The filthy socialists are responsible for a lot that's gone wrong as far as economics are concerned. That experiment is one of the biggest failures of the modern era. Karl Marx should have been thrown in the nut house.

I'd suggest for them to live a month in Venezuela to see how a real socialist country works.

[myata]

Funny how these people never apply this rule to themselves, when say, posting on the war in Afghanistan. Apparently you don't need to be a military or foreign policy expert to comment on those things.

One has to know at least the basics of arithmetics to tell that 2 x 2 is 4 not 5 or 3. Short of that essential knowledge, they could fill pages and megapages of Web forums disputing global scientific conspiracy to skim the answer to the equation to skinny and ugly 4 as opposed to cute, shapely and lovely 3.

No such specialist knowledge is required though to tell that attempt to impose one's will on others by force will be resisted. One doesnt' have to be a scientist to know that violent aggression is always bad and very often counter productive no matter justifications.

[Michael Hardner]

There is nothing paranoid about suggesting that people have motives other than the ones that they publically state when their actions are not consistent with their stated motives. The alternative would require that one believe they are simply irrational or naive.

But you can't look into peoples' hearts, so why even try ? Furthermore, I see these people called do-gooders as well as selfish so which is it ?

They're not irrational or naive - they simply are satisfied that they have enough information while climate change opponents deny that there is. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Positive engagement throws more and more light onto the grey areas, but caricatures do the opposite.

My point is that you undercut your arguments by peppering it with such guesswork. Reasonable people don't need to have that side characterized in order to make up their minds.

[Michael Hardner]

The filthy socialists are responsible for a lot that's gone wrong as far as economics are concerned. That experiment is one of the biggest failures of the modern era. Karl Marx should have been thrown in the nut house.

I'd suggest for them to live a month in Venezuela to see how a real socialist country works.

That's an odd thing to say, considering every capitalist country adopted his ideas and by forging an open capitalist-socialist hybrid were able to defeat communism. Do you think GW Bush's pharma plan for seniors would have ever happened if Marx never existed ?

[myata]

It's enough to show what is wrong with the process, or with the data. Objective people can make their minds up based on facts, not on your opinions of the motivations of activists and businesses.

Ditto. And being unable to analyse facts and arguments rationally and objectively, one is almost by necessity reduced to irrational accusations of all and everything, i.e paranoia.

Edited December 8, 2009 by myata

[Riverwind]

But you can't look into peoples' hearts, so why even try ? Furthermore, I see these people called do-gooders as well as selfish so which is it?

Looking at motivations unavoidable when faced with people that dismiss arguments by claiming 'its a conspiracy theory so it can't be true'. The reality is people are motivated by self interest but self interest can include ego gratification (i.e. the desire to been seen to be doing 'good' things). The only difference between people is how they define their self interest.

[Wilber]

Economic alarmists have no environmental plan, no clue as to what the affect of the environments degradation might cost or how this could affect the societies that are expected to make a living in it and pay the bills etc. They seem utterly and completely oblivious to the need to pace economic growth to the capacity of the world to provide the natural capital that sustains that growth.

Well there certainly has to be a hell of a lot more oversight all right. If you've been followed any of my exchanges on the subject of monitoring with Michael you'll know what I think needs doing.

You can't have an environmental plan without an economic plan. The two must go hand in hand or it won't work.

[Michael Hardner]

Looking at motivations unavoidable when faced with people that dismiss arguments by claiming 'its a conspiracy theory so it can't be true'. The reality is people are motivated by self interest but self interest can include ego gratification (i.e. the desire to been seen to be doing 'good' things). The only difference between people is how they define their self interest.

That is a variation on the philosophical question that asks if any act can be selfless. Interesting, but all you're doing is adding this to the attempt to look inside a man's heart. Leave it alone, and just convince me that they're wrong, not that they're evil.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

You can't have an environmental plan without an economic plan. The two must go hand in hand or it won't work.

No, the environment can get along just fine all on its own without the economy but unfortunately you can't have it both ways.

[Riverwind]

That is a variation on the philosophical question that asks if any act can be selfless.

But strangely revelant because this entire debate revolves around the question of whether the consensus of scientists can be trusted to ignore self interest and interpret the data objectively. My opinion is the consensus cannot be blindly trusted because a need for funding, acceptance by peers and promotions will always influence what is perceived to be the 'truth'.

That said, I am talking about the behavoir of the group rather than individuals and there are always individual examples of people making sacrifices to do what they believe to be right.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

No, the environment can get along just fine all on its own without the economy but unfortunately you can't have it both ways.

Any environmental plan you come up will have to be paid for.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Wilber

[Michael Hardner]

But strangely revelant because this entire debate revolves around the question of whether the consensus of scientists can be trusted to ignore self interest and interpret the data objectively. My opinion is the consensus cannot be blindly trusted because a need for funding, acceptance by peers and promotions will always influence what is perceived to be the 'truth'.

That said, I am talking about the behavoir of the group rather than individuals and there are always individual examples of people making sacrifices to do what they believe to be right.

But that's already built in to the peer review system. There's not much else you can do, and certainly other professional bodies (and politicians for that matter) have less control and monitoring over what they do. You can't build a system that assumes 100% trust, but you can't have one that assumes 0% either.

In any case, when we're discussing the points themselves (as opposed to how the system should be designed) then the argument should stand on its evidence alone.

[blueblood]

That's an odd thing to say, considering every capitalist country adopted his ideas and by forging an open capitalist-socialist hybrid were able to defeat communism. Do you think GW Bush's pharma plan for seniors would have ever happened if Marx never existed ?

That is democracy in action. Like just about everything democracy is a two way street, you have to take some good in with some bad; in this case socialist crap.

It wasn't socialism that helped defeat oommunism, it was the essence of socialism itself and how it punishes successful people; the russkies got pissed off and showed them the door.

GW Bush's pharma plan is a pile of malarkey and a huge waste of money. But majority prevailed.

If the founding fathers of the US would see what Obama/Bush have been up to as far as tax and spend, they'd have a coniption fit.

[eyeball]

Any environmental plan you come up will have to be paid for.

Any economy that doesn't plan for its effects on the environment will go bankrupt, the environment on the other hand has no such responsibility.

[blueblood]

Any economy that doesn't plan for its effects on the environment will go bankrupt, the environment on the other hand has no such responsibility.

what economy would that be or did you pull that granola eating hippy crap out of your ass?

[Pliny]

Sub-prime mortgages have two parents who share the blame: bankers and social activists. The bankers were the one who exploited the system for profit but it is the social activitists with their demands for 'equity' that pressured politicians into creating a system that would provide uncreditworthy people with easy access to credit.

IOW - bankers could profit while claiming they were being socially progressive.

Carbon trading 10x worse than sub-prime.

If you look at the role of Bankers and Social activists could you see that they are "special interests"? They are not about engineering society. There is only one agency that is engaged in engineering society - that, is government.

So can bankers really be blamed for doing what they are supposed to do?

Can social activists be blamed for doing what they are supposed to do?

If Governments are the agency engineering society then they are responsible for the conditions society finds itself in, that is the only logical conclusion. I don't agree that sub-prime mortgages were hatched in a "feverishly deregulated environment". What would override the prudence of banking interests that have been in the industry for a century? Simply said government guarantees. What would allow social activists the ability to aid under-employed or the working poor to obtain mortgages that they could not afford? Simply said government guarantees.

The results of trying to please the social activists and provide homes for the poor while guaranteeing Bankers the risks will be minimal is a formula for disaster.

Bankers do want to make a profit, as any corporation does. That is business. Social activists want government favours. That is social activism. Make no mistake, government provided them the opportunity to exceed their aspirations. The role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) must be considered as the primary factors in creating the "moral hazard" that brought the sub-prime mortgage debacle to fruition. Those things allowed Bankers to sell bad mortgages to the government, and gave social activists a reason to believe in themselves.

Although the problem had been noticed under the Bush administration nothing was done and after the 2006 primaries when the Democrats took hold of Congress, any concerns were swept under the rug.

It is Politicians willingness to please the voting "special interests" and their lack of foresight in their policies that cultivate these economic disasters. They create the boom and economic reality creates the bust.

I don't see them doing any better economically with appeasing the Environmental movement.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Any economy that doesn't plan for its effects on the environment will go bankrupt, the environment on the other hand has no such responsibility.

The person who has the best plan for the environment is the people who own it. I'm sure you would do a better job of looking after kelp stocks than the government would - your livelihood depends upon it. As long as the government did their job of ensuring thieves and externalities didn't destroy your property and if they did, that you were reasonably compensated for any losses and your property was restored to the state necessary to your ability to sustain yourself and your property, then what more could you ask for. The problem arises when government is determining what is best for the "collective good". Your property is no longer your property to do with as you please. They assume you are not going to be doing the right thing and heavily intervene in the process of you performing the functions of your business. It isn't your property so they can tell you what you to do. In such cases the government becomes the only thief and idiot externality you need fear. Not only that but they won't be accountable for any losses you sustain because of their policies.

[Pliny]

That is a variation on the philosophical question that asks if any act can be selfless. Interesting, but all you're doing is adding this to the attempt to look inside a man's heart. Leave it alone, and just convince me that they're wrong, not that they're evil.

No one is evil, Michael. All evil must ride on the coat-tails of goodness in order to exist at all. That means it is a matter of perspective and valuation. That also means that good is a matter of personal perspective. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and any evil-doer you care to mention had only good interest to justify their evil acts, just ask them. The only way to judge is to weigh the amount of destruction against the amount of creation.

Obviously, our human needs and our frailties weigh heavily upon our decisions of good and evil.

Hitler and Stalin destroyed millions of lives in the name of the State. The destruction far outweighed the benefit, in the short-term and in the long-term. Look in their heart and they were good - you need only ask them. Their acts were mostly evil.

You must understand that if we are human, any human is capable of anything within the capability of humans. In other words, you must rethink the concept that you can't know what is in someone's heart you must assume they are good and have the best intentions but you must get to know how they view the people around them.

Environmentalists have the best intentions for the environment. I have learned not to expect their prime concern to be the welfare of humanity. They say we will all die if we don't listen to them and if we don't I'm sure they will do their best to prove themselves right. They will unleash their own environmental disasters. Will they make the planet uninhabitable to prove themselves right and to realize their aspirations of a pristine environment without the human carbon footprint? We cannot deny that there may be someone who will go to that extreme - all out of the dream of saving the planet.

I don't know the people who say the public is stupid or that individuals can't look after themselves and need state intervention to do so. But I can assume that their distaste or poor opinion for the public will not result in the most positive policies towards them. They have to like people and what they are doing in order to promote humanity. But both of those views must be tempered with each other. A Creative-destruction? Perhaps. It is equally irrational to only be able to create as it is to only be able to destroy.

Could someone have the thought that the planet can only be saved if man is destroyed? I think there are some people who think that. Some may wish to merely depopulate the planet somewhat, some may wish to stop population growth, they are all degrees of the same thing. The opposite end of the scale is to encourage population growth and human development and exponential growth of economies.

Well, I think most people can and do have a balanced view of things. They will tolerate some destruction to promote creation. They don't look at others as threats to their existence because of the stupidity or greed in hogging resources of those others, at least in a general sense. Calling the public stupid is a little imbalanced and a bit irrational. It reveals a certain disdain for people or minimally an egotistical arrogance. I would not trust this person to have my best interests at heart even if I too did not consider myself a member of the public.

[Michael Hardner]

Environmentalists have the best intentions for the environment. I have learned not to expect their prime concern to be the welfare of humanity.

How so ? Do you have an example of an environmentalist who capped his argument with something like "I don't care about people, you know, only the planet !".

They say we will all die if we don't listen to them and if we don't I'm sure they will do their best to prove themselves right. They will unleash their own environmental disasters. Will they make the planet uninhabitable to prove themselves right and to realize their aspirations of a pristine environment without the human carbon footprint? We cannot deny that there may be someone who will go to that extreme - all out of the dream of saving the planet.

And are they lying ?

I don't know the people who say the public is stupid or that individuals can't look after themselves and need state intervention to do so. But I can assume that their distaste or poor opinion for the public will not result in the most positive policies towards them. They have to like people and what they are doing in order to promote humanity. But both of those views must be tempered with each other. A Creative-destruction? Perhaps. It is equally irrational to only be able to create as it is to only be able to destroy.

Those views can be tempered. I think that it's possible to like people who can't look after themselves.

Could someone have the thought that the planet can only be saved if man is destroyed? I think there are some people who think that. Some may wish to merely depopulate the planet somewhat, some may wish to stop population growth, they are all degrees of the same thing. The opposite end of the scale is to encourage population growth and human development and exponential growth of economies.

Well, I think most people can and do have a balanced view of things. They will tolerate some destruction to promote creation. They don't look at others as threats to their existence because of the stupidity or greed in hogging resources of those others, at least in a general sense. Calling the public stupid is a little imbalanced and a bit irrational. It reveals a certain disdain for people or minimally an egotistical arrogance. I would not trust this person to have my best interests at heart even if I too did not consider myself a member of the public.

The public is stupid sometimes, and smart at other times but there is no better custodian for the public interest than the public.

Those who are not able to read and understand scientific literature go to other sources for information, and so information flows out from the scientific community through these other sources of opinion. Those sources include informed people such as MLW posters, and public figures such as Al Gore or Fox News.

That's the information topology we're dealing with. In order for the best decisions to be made, the opinion-makers need to be as objective and open minded as possible, and not have other agendas.

A journalist, or a commentator trades in their own honesty and intelligence, however also needs to be controversial to get viewers/readers/listeners. A scientist trades on their discovery of knowledge, and being correct, however they need to also get funding. A politician needs to be a leader, but has to choose how/when to make unpopular decisions.

With Global Warming, it seems to me that the scientists are in consensus and only 50% of the people agree. My solution would be to bring the information to the people directly, and to engage the opinion makers.

[eyeball]

My solution would be to bring the information to the people directly, and to engage the opinion makers.

Bring the water to the horse so to speak.

Making an opinions sounds a lot like generating a consensus. I have my doubts this is really what you meant.

[Michael Hardner]

Bring the water to the horse so to speak.

Making an opinions sounds a lot like generating a consensus. I have my doubts this is really what you meant.

Engage the opinion makers.

[eyeball]

Engage the opinion makers.

Isn't that what we're doing right here? Otherwise you sound like you're referring to someone who manufactures an opinion for people. Perhaps you mean we need to call the opinion makers to account for their opinions.

In any case we still need decision makers, who are actually willing to start making them.

[Michael Hardner]

Isn't that what we're doing right here? Otherwise you sound like you're referring to someone who manufactures an opinion for people. Perhaps you mean we need to call the opinion makers to account for their opinions.

In any case we still need decision makers, who are actually willing to start making them.

We're doing it, but we're mere foot soldiers, compared to giant opinion makers like Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh et al. They need to be held to account, and they are.

Rush was raked across the coals early on for his inaccuracies early on, and picked up his game.