Posts
Voodoo Economics? How about Voodoo Climate Science? | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary: "When will our greener friends at the UN learn that it's just not a good idea to make definite predictions about certain disasters?
This time they have been called out on their 2005 prediction that by now there would be 50 million 'climate refugees' — people choosing to emigrate because of bad weather. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) even came up with a global map showing precisely where people would migrate from."
"But the UN named a specific year (2010) which allows for an actual test of their prediction.
Census takers around the world have inadvertently adjudicated the UN's forecast. It was dead wrong. Pretty much every recent census reveals that populations are growing rapidly precisely where everyone was supposed to be migrating from."
"global hurricane activity has recently sunk to its all time measured low, despite the UN's strident statements about more frequent and terrible storms"
"In 2007, the UN famously stated that, if warming continued at present rates (whatever that means — there hasn't been any since the mid-late 1990s), the massive Himalayan glaciers would disappear 23 years from now."
"Dr. Murari Lal, who authored the statement, eventually admitted that it was in the UN climate report to spur the governments of India and China into reducing their carbon dioxide emissions, and that it was not based on anything in the peer-reviewed scientific literature."
"what is odd about the UN is that its gaffes are all in one direction. All are exaggeration of the effects of climate change. In each case, the IPCC was relying upon scientific literature that was not peer-reviewed in the traditional sense. No one has found analogous errors in the other direction (which would be an underestimation of climate change based upon the "grey" literature), and you can bet that people have been looking very hard in an effort to exonerate the UN."
This just shows that the UN is a political organization (not a scientific organization) and its statements aren't scientific but political.
Monday, May 02, 2011
To Work, Ryan's Reforms Need Process Constraints | Jagadeesh Gokhale | Cato Institute: Commentary
To Work, Ryan's Reforms Need Process Constraints | Jagadeesh Gokhale | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Ryan or other similar budget proposals won't be sustained for long without constraints on the budget process to stabilize fiscal policy, and which provide the best environment for rapid economic growth. Historical precedent shows that reforms stick when they are combined with changes in infrastructure — even in just administrative mechanisms. Base closings and welfare reforms of the 1990s stuck because the former involved removal of infrastructure, and the latter changes in administrative mechanisms at the state level; both costly to reverse.
In contrast, reforms such as the TRA-1986 and the BEA-1990 involved legal constraints which were easily modified or reversed. TRA-1986 suffered death by a thousand cuts, and BEA-1990's constraints were simply not renewed. The other, more difficult, way is to combine reform measures with a procedural impediment to reversal by future Congresses. One example is the Senate's Byrd Rule which prevents budget legislation from including changes to Social Security through a simple point of order raised by a single senator, and cannot be overturned without a supermajority in the Senate."
In contrast, reforms such as the TRA-1986 and the BEA-1990 involved legal constraints which were easily modified or reversed. TRA-1986 suffered death by a thousand cuts, and BEA-1990's constraints were simply not renewed. The other, more difficult, way is to combine reform measures with a procedural impediment to reversal by future Congresses. One example is the Senate's Byrd Rule which prevents budget legislation from including changes to Social Security through a simple point of order raised by a single senator, and cannot be overturned without a supermajority in the Senate."
The Moral Issues of Money - Gabriel M. Mueller - Mises Daily
The Moral Issues of Money - Gabriel M. Mueller - Mises Daily: "This is what James is warning against. 'Your gold and silver are corroded,' he writes. James's logic is this: Corrosion of gold and silver is the result of impurities, impurities are the evidence of debasement, and debasement is the practice of fraud and stealing. Therefore, James says, do not debase your money in order to pay your workers or to purchase their goods, because to do so is to commit fraud and theft against them.
Today, we don't have to worry about rich people — that is, our employers — debasing our gold and silver, because we're not paid in gold and silver anymore. No, we face a much greater concern — the government controls our money. In fact, the government controls our money in the same way our dishonest king did: it creates money out of thin air and it debases our money every time it does so."
"Why are we not talking about the ethics — the right or the wrong — of money production in America? If James condemned the business owner that debased the wages of workers, why are we not condemning a government that exploits the money of its citizens? And which violation is greater? At least the cheated worker can move onto a new employer to preserve his/her wealth and dignity. How is the citizen ever able to escape the injustice of his or her government?"
Today, we don't have to worry about rich people — that is, our employers — debasing our gold and silver, because we're not paid in gold and silver anymore. No, we face a much greater concern — the government controls our money. In fact, the government controls our money in the same way our dishonest king did: it creates money out of thin air and it debases our money every time it does so."
"Why are we not talking about the ethics — the right or the wrong — of money production in America? If James condemned the business owner that debased the wages of workers, why are we not condemning a government that exploits the money of its citizens? And which violation is greater? At least the cheated worker can move onto a new employer to preserve his/her wealth and dignity. How is the citizen ever able to escape the injustice of his or her government?"
Happy Mother Earth Day, Citizen! - Ben O'Neill - Mises Daily
Happy Mother Earth Day, Citizen! - Ben O'Neill - Mises Daily: "The proposed UN treaty will recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to 'dominate and exploit.'"
If humans have sought to dominate and exploit the earth, then all organisms have also done that. What about how organisms on earth have tried to dominate and exploit the light from the sun?
"Since rights are a moral concept, it follows that they can only pertain to things that have some interests and will of their own. In particular, it is clear that moral obligations can only accrue to beings in need of moral guidance and are capable of sufficiently high levels of abstraction to understand and apply moral principles. Such beings must be conscious and must also be capable of sufficiently high levels of abstraction to understand moral principles and obey them — in short, they must be rational, conscious beings. If they are not, then they lack the means to understand and apply moral principles, and it is senseless to ascribe such principles to them."
"There can be no rights without corresponding moral obligations"
"In fact, it is highly dubious even to classify the Earth as a living thing. It is an entity composed mostly of nonliving material, and covered, relatively sparsely, with living plant and animal life."
"The Earth-rights doctrine has no basis in reason. It is pure mysticism, resting, as it does, on the attempt to ascribe interests and moral prerogatives to a nonconscious entity. Nor is the actual purpose of this doctrine the protection of the environment. Its real purpose is the acquisition of power, not for nature, but for people — or rather, for certain people."
"Since all physical resources required for human survival come from the Earth, and are a part of this 'living system,' this implies that humans cannot do anything — they cannot even exist on Earth — without the permission of the Earth. And if governments are the representatives of the Earth in exercising its rights, then this logically implies that people cannot do anything without the permission of their government."
"The fact remains that the principle of Earth rights leads logically to the conclusion that these rights must expand, and expand, to the point that they eradicate human rights."
"Some would probably argue that the state-representation doctrine is just a practical means of allowing for the Earth to exercise its rights." "Once we are through the looking glass, I suppose it is just as 'practical' to say that Morales is the representative for talking walruses as to say that I am. Nevertheless, the point remains that any such representation is a fantasy"
"This theory (which is itself hopelessly flawed) holds that the state is the representative of 'the people' by virtue of their ability to vote in its elections, and from their choice not to leave its jurisdiction. Clearly both of these are impossible for the Earth, and for the plants that live upon it."
"The notion that governments should 'represent' the will and interests of a giant ball of minerals with no mind or desires is the outcome of environmentalist philosophy in action. It is as absurd as a ficus tree running for Congress, or a barrister attempting to take instructions from a blade of grass."
If humans have sought to dominate and exploit the earth, then all organisms have also done that. What about how organisms on earth have tried to dominate and exploit the light from the sun?
"Since rights are a moral concept, it follows that they can only pertain to things that have some interests and will of their own. In particular, it is clear that moral obligations can only accrue to beings in need of moral guidance and are capable of sufficiently high levels of abstraction to understand and apply moral principles. Such beings must be conscious and must also be capable of sufficiently high levels of abstraction to understand moral principles and obey them — in short, they must be rational, conscious beings. If they are not, then they lack the means to understand and apply moral principles, and it is senseless to ascribe such principles to them."
"There can be no rights without corresponding moral obligations"
"In fact, it is highly dubious even to classify the Earth as a living thing. It is an entity composed mostly of nonliving material, and covered, relatively sparsely, with living plant and animal life."
"The Earth-rights doctrine has no basis in reason. It is pure mysticism, resting, as it does, on the attempt to ascribe interests and moral prerogatives to a nonconscious entity. Nor is the actual purpose of this doctrine the protection of the environment. Its real purpose is the acquisition of power, not for nature, but for people — or rather, for certain people."
"Since all physical resources required for human survival come from the Earth, and are a part of this 'living system,' this implies that humans cannot do anything — they cannot even exist on Earth — without the permission of the Earth. And if governments are the representatives of the Earth in exercising its rights, then this logically implies that people cannot do anything without the permission of their government."
"The fact remains that the principle of Earth rights leads logically to the conclusion that these rights must expand, and expand, to the point that they eradicate human rights."
"Some would probably argue that the state-representation doctrine is just a practical means of allowing for the Earth to exercise its rights." "Once we are through the looking glass, I suppose it is just as 'practical' to say that Morales is the representative for talking walruses as to say that I am. Nevertheless, the point remains that any such representation is a fantasy"
"This theory (which is itself hopelessly flawed) holds that the state is the representative of 'the people' by virtue of their ability to vote in its elections, and from their choice not to leave its jurisdiction. Clearly both of these are impossible for the Earth, and for the plants that live upon it."
"The notion that governments should 'represent' the will and interests of a giant ball of minerals with no mind or desires is the outcome of environmentalist philosophy in action. It is as absurd as a ficus tree running for Congress, or a barrister attempting to take instructions from a blade of grass."
Are Speculators Gouging Us at the Pump? | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary
Are Speculators Gouging Us at the Pump? | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary: "If this is going on we would expect to see some sort of inventory buildup. While crude inventories in the U.S. are increasing, they always increase at this time of year, and this year's increase is well within the normal range. More important, gasoline inventories are decreasing and decreasing much more rapidly than normal. Hence, there's no evidence that speculators are reducing the supply of crude or gasoline through increased storage."
"The loss of Libyan crude — about 2% of global supply — has reduced the amount of oil available in the market and gasoline prices track global crude oil prices.
Prices must necessarily rise to reduce global oil consumption because we can't consume what isn't there. How much do prices need to rise to reduce oil consumption by 2%? It takes a big increase in gasoline prices to get us to drive even a little less. Economists estimate that prices must rise anywhere from 10 to 20 times the percentage reduction in quantity to reduce demand enough to equal the lower supply. Thus for a 2% supply reduction, prices must rise between 20% and 40%. Average gasoline prices have risen 20% since early February, on the low end of what economists predict."
"The loss of Libyan crude — about 2% of global supply — has reduced the amount of oil available in the market and gasoline prices track global crude oil prices.
Prices must necessarily rise to reduce global oil consumption because we can't consume what isn't there. How much do prices need to rise to reduce oil consumption by 2%? It takes a big increase in gasoline prices to get us to drive even a little less. Economists estimate that prices must rise anywhere from 10 to 20 times the percentage reduction in quantity to reduce demand enough to equal the lower supply. Thus for a 2% supply reduction, prices must rise between 20% and 40%. Average gasoline prices have risen 20% since early February, on the low end of what economists predict."
Madison Protest: Unions Are Angry - But Wisconsin Should Go Even Further | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary
Madison Protest: Unions Are Angry - But Wisconsin Should Go Even Further | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Unions certainly have free speech rights to voice their opinions about public policy. But collective bargaining gives unions the exclusive right to speak for covered workers, many of whom may disagree with the views of the monopoly union. Thus, collective bargaining is inconsistent with the right to freedom of association."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)