Saturday, November 22, 2008
Megan McArdle Has Buyer's Regret With Obama
First let's set the stage. In a recent post, Megan McArdle links to this story and quotes the following:
Commenting on the above, McArdle says: "I'm flabbergasted. If true, this is a bloody embarassment [sic]."
Then she tells us at the end of her post:
No Ms. McArdle, I'm sorry, but you can't get away with this. Obama showed quite clearly during the campaign that he would do whatever he needed to win. One day North Korea and Iran are tiny countries that pose no threat to us, and within that same week (possibly the very next day, I'm not sure) he said, "I have always said that Iran posed a serious threat to the United States."
On the whole Jeremiah Wright thing, one day he is practically a father to Obama, and Obama could no sooner disown him than his own parents or the black community. And then Wright gives a speech to the Press Club and Obama throws him under the bus.
Folks, whatever you think of Obama, the one thing you really can't say is, he's an idealistic young man who doesn't play politics like others do. There is no way you come out of Chicago, and then beat Hillary Clinton in the primary, unless you are a savvy politician.
Last thing, Ms. McArdle: I don't care whom he had on his list of advisors. Are you telling me your primary support for Obama was because of his economic views?! Are you out of your mind? Does that include his plan to slap a windfall profits tax on oil companies to lower prices at the pump? What about his plans to raise the capital gains tax, and then saying "It's an issue of fairness" after someone pointed out that it would bring in less revenue? How about the ludicrous "green jobs" programs? Need I mention Joe the Plumber?
Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee -- once the chief economic adviser to candidate Barack Obama -- may be less of a shoo-in to chair Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisers than his admirers once imagined.
The Obama transition team is interviewing to find a woman, perhaps a minority woman, to fill the CEA chair -- a Senate-confirmed position. Informed sources suggest the candidates on the CEA list now include Princeton University economics and public affairs professor Cecilia Elena Rouse, whose specialty is labor economics. The hunt for a woman, explained several sources close to the transition deliberations, is aimed at broadening the white-male cast of the White House team assembled to date (the current tally of announced picks is 3 women, 9 men).
Goolsbee, a respected University of Chicago professor, remains in contention for other administration posts, the sources added.
Commenting on the above, McArdle says: "I'm flabbergasted. If true, this is a bloody embarassment [sic]."
Then she tells us at the end of her post:
More to the point, the worst financial crisis in seventy years is really not the time to see if you can brighten up the CEA offices with a nice, decorative matched set of X chromosomes. Goolsbee has been advising Obama since the beginning; presumably, this is some sort of testimony to the esteem in which Obama holds his competence. Throwing him overboard now makes this look like less of a "plus factor" and more like Obama is much less concerned with competence than painting a pretty picture for voters. Given the stakes, that's more than a little irresponsible.
Needless to say, given that Obama's sterling choice of highest-caliber economic advisors was one of my main reason for supporting him, my regret is mounting faster than ever.
No Ms. McArdle, I'm sorry, but you can't get away with this. Obama showed quite clearly during the campaign that he would do whatever he needed to win. One day North Korea and Iran are tiny countries that pose no threat to us, and within that same week (possibly the very next day, I'm not sure) he said, "I have always said that Iran posed a serious threat to the United States."
On the whole Jeremiah Wright thing, one day he is practically a father to Obama, and Obama could no sooner disown him than his own parents or the black community. And then Wright gives a speech to the Press Club and Obama throws him under the bus.
Folks, whatever you think of Obama, the one thing you really can't say is, he's an idealistic young man who doesn't play politics like others do. There is no way you come out of Chicago, and then beat Hillary Clinton in the primary, unless you are a savvy politician.
Last thing, Ms. McArdle: I don't care whom he had on his list of advisors. Are you telling me your primary support for Obama was because of his economic views?! Are you out of your mind? Does that include his plan to slap a windfall profits tax on oil companies to lower prices at the pump? What about his plans to raise the capital gains tax, and then saying "It's an issue of fairness" after someone pointed out that it would bring in less revenue? How about the ludicrous "green jobs" programs? Need I mention Joe the Plumber?
Comments:
Oh! Oh! And you forgot to mention Obama's stated wish that "dirty" coal burners would go bankrupt. What a ridiculous, economically-illiterate, rights-violating idea! Everyone knows that one of our sacred rights as individuals is the right to jam toxic fumes into others' lungs! How dare he, how DARE he suggest that this VITAL engine of our economy not be viable!
Why, if Obama thinks that your business should fail just because it gives a thousand children asthma, he believes in an arbitrary government veto over all economic activity whatsoever!
Right?
Why, if Obama thinks that your business should fail just because it gives a thousand children asthma, he believes in an arbitrary government veto over all economic activity whatsoever!
Right?
You're stupid Silas, and the worst thing is you try too hard.
Congrats on your straw man. That must've taken you several hours.
Congrats on your straw man. That must've taken you several hours.
Many times while reading Megan McArdle and I have wanted to scream in disgust. She insists on stating that she is a libertarian. She can, many times, be the definition of a vulgar libertarian. Often I read wishing that she has read Roderick T. Long's article at Cato Unbound
But this is Megan's problem. She expounds how important it was to bailout the financial sector and denying the American based auto companies a bailout of their own. You can not possibly justify one and not the other without feeling the least bit hypocritical. We had no idea how many jobs would have been lost, if indeed as she insists we are in a credit crunch, but surely we could say how many jobs would be lost should all three are completely liquidated. Not that its likely to happen, but just supposing that it could.
Moral and regulatory hazards are a problem in both industries. How one type of intervention is justified and another is not is beyond my understanding.
Megan's post about Obama is just another example of her poor, muddied thinking.
But this is Megan's problem. She expounds how important it was to bailout the financial sector and denying the American based auto companies a bailout of their own. You can not possibly justify one and not the other without feeling the least bit hypocritical. We had no idea how many jobs would have been lost, if indeed as she insists we are in a credit crunch, but surely we could say how many jobs would be lost should all three are completely liquidated. Not that its likely to happen, but just supposing that it could.
Moral and regulatory hazards are a problem in both industries. How one type of intervention is justified and another is not is beyond my understanding.
Megan's post about Obama is just another example of her poor, muddied thinking.
# posted by 
: November 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM
: November 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Silas,
Your argument is a straw man. Obama's perspective is almost entirely driven by fear of carbon output. I don't believe that carbon is a significant toxin, only a presumed agent of climate change. If he was talking about limiting toxins or carcinogens, that would be different.
The oft quoted, "There are no solutions, only trade offs" is apt here. Pollution is necessary for our current levels of output, and perfect internalization of externalities is not even remotely possible. For me, it does not make someone horrible in wanting to continue the downward trend in toxic pollution, but being cavalier about the destruction of a necessary cog of modern society is dangerous. Obama does not appear patient enough to pluck the low hanging fruit available to reduce air pollution, he wants to hack away like some damned fool crusader.
Your argument is a straw man. Obama's perspective is almost entirely driven by fear of carbon output. I don't believe that carbon is a significant toxin, only a presumed agent of climate change. If he was talking about limiting toxins or carcinogens, that would be different.
The oft quoted, "There are no solutions, only trade offs" is apt here. Pollution is necessary for our current levels of output, and perfect internalization of externalities is not even remotely possible. For me, it does not make someone horrible in wanting to continue the downward trend in toxic pollution, but being cavalier about the destruction of a necessary cog of modern society is dangerous. Obama does not appear patient enough to pluck the low hanging fruit available to reduce air pollution, he wants to hack away like some damned fool crusader.
Brian_Shelley: What is it with people incorrectly using "straw man"? Please read the link. Show me where Bob gives some kind of acknowledgment of *any* of the legitimate reasons why someone would dislike "dirty" coal-burning. It's fine if he wants to use whatever excuse he can to justify why the Bengals or the kids with asthma can just stuff it, but at the point where he pretends that their complaint just doesn't exist, he goes too far.
Bob clearly did equate, in the discussion, desire to restrict coal with a desire to have arbitrary veto over business.
If you're going to accuse someone of strawmanning, you *kinda* have to be able to distinguish the criticized view from the target's actual view.
As for this: Obama does not appear patient enough to pluck the low hanging fruit available to reduce air pollution, he wants to hack away like some damned fool crusader.
Do you not understand the whole point of tradeable caps or carbon taxes, as opposed to randomly banning "inefficient" stuff? It's so that businesses incorporate demand for the various goods in determining whether they'll still be produced, given the (now clearly visible!) cost of CO2 emissions.
The benefit of such policies is that they cause the lowest-hanging fruit to be picked first! If carbon-using goods now show up as having an additional price, and there's currently a carbon-free alternative consumers prefer just as much, the cap/tax will cause that (very-)lowest hanging fruit to be picked. All without a bureaucrat having to classify it as "inefficient"!
Am I not stating the obvious here?
So, I don't see how you're accusing Obama of "wildly crusading" instead of "sensibly" doing the easiest stuff first, when that's exactly what caps would do. And, not to defend Obama, but in the video, he quite clearly reveals understanding of this mechanism: (paraphrasing) yes, you could still build a coal plant (i.e. no new regulation at that level), but you'd soon find you couldn't do it profitably.
Why do I always have to point this stuff out?
Bob clearly did equate, in the discussion, desire to restrict coal with a desire to have arbitrary veto over business.
If you're going to accuse someone of strawmanning, you *kinda* have to be able to distinguish the criticized view from the target's actual view.
As for this: Obama does not appear patient enough to pluck the low hanging fruit available to reduce air pollution, he wants to hack away like some damned fool crusader.
Do you not understand the whole point of tradeable caps or carbon taxes, as opposed to randomly banning "inefficient" stuff? It's so that businesses incorporate demand for the various goods in determining whether they'll still be produced, given the (now clearly visible!) cost of CO2 emissions.
The benefit of such policies is that they cause the lowest-hanging fruit to be picked first! If carbon-using goods now show up as having an additional price, and there's currently a carbon-free alternative consumers prefer just as much, the cap/tax will cause that (very-)lowest hanging fruit to be picked. All without a bureaucrat having to classify it as "inefficient"!
Am I not stating the obvious here?
So, I don't see how you're accusing Obama of "wildly crusading" instead of "sensibly" doing the easiest stuff first, when that's exactly what caps would do. And, not to defend Obama, but in the video, he quite clearly reveals understanding of this mechanism: (paraphrasing) yes, you could still build a coal plant (i.e. no new regulation at that level), but you'd soon find you couldn't do it profitably.
Why do I always have to point this stuff out?
Silas,
Yes, cap and trade is more efficient than blunt restrictions. It is the level of caps that matters though. Obama is clearly indifferent to the economic consequences to the coal industry.
You talk about "children with asthma" and "toxic fumes". This has nothing to do with carbon cap and trade. To limit exposure to carcinogens and toxins, we would have to install cap and trade on those pollutants. A carbon cap and trade would only mitigate this by coincidence.
A reasonable cap will achieve the lowest hanging fruit. An unreasonable cap, supported by a crusader, will cause more economic damage than gains.
It is little different than the person who claims that a new shopping center will "destroy" their home values. You could say that this externality is a property rights violation, but the home owner completely blows the damage out of proportion, just as many libertarians believe climate change is blown out of proportion. The true damage of carbon output is percieved to be almost zero.
Yes, cap and trade is more efficient than blunt restrictions. It is the level of caps that matters though. Obama is clearly indifferent to the economic consequences to the coal industry.
You talk about "children with asthma" and "toxic fumes". This has nothing to do with carbon cap and trade. To limit exposure to carcinogens and toxins, we would have to install cap and trade on those pollutants. A carbon cap and trade would only mitigate this by coincidence.
A reasonable cap will achieve the lowest hanging fruit. An unreasonable cap, supported by a crusader, will cause more economic damage than gains.
It is little different than the person who claims that a new shopping center will "destroy" their home values. You could say that this externality is a property rights violation, but the home owner completely blows the damage out of proportion, just as many libertarians believe climate change is blown out of proportion. The true damage of carbon output is percieved to be almost zero.
So basically, your objection comes down to believing that Obama didn't care enough about an extremely dirty industry being bankrupted, because his proposal that would bankrupt them, doesn't specifically target the dirty aspect?
Then I don't follow: those positions aren't contradictory.
And if you want to criticize someone for his attitude, it should be Bob_Murphy, who refused to even acknowledge the existence of a legitimate reason not to like coal.
And, as I do when debating Bob_Murphy, I'm going to pretend you didn't just a) equate dumping toxic fumes on others property in a way that gives their young children irreversible lifelong asthma, with "slight loss of property values from a mall"; and b) assert total omniscience in what ecological harms count as "too much".
Then I don't follow: those positions aren't contradictory.
And if you want to criticize someone for his attitude, it should be Bob_Murphy, who refused to even acknowledge the existence of a legitimate reason not to like coal.
And, as I do when debating Bob_Murphy, I'm going to pretend you didn't just a) equate dumping toxic fumes on others property in a way that gives their young children irreversible lifelong asthma, with "slight loss of property values from a mall"; and b) assert total omniscience in what ecological harms count as "too much".
Again with the strawman.
Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with asthma. Cap and trade of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with asthma. Obama's position in support of carbon cap and trade has nothing to do with asthma. Criticism of Obama's support for carbon cap and trade has nothing to do with asthma.
My analogy was belittling carbon dioxide fears, not the real and 100% scientifically verified side effects of various other pollutants. If you care utmost for children afflicted by pollution related diseases, you should be angry that Barrack Obama cares more about carbon dioxide, that has no health effects, than he does other pollutants.
If you were using the equally emotionally charged accusation that carbon output was killing children in the Sahel region of Africa.
Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with asthma. Cap and trade of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with asthma. Obama's position in support of carbon cap and trade has nothing to do with asthma. Criticism of Obama's support for carbon cap and trade has nothing to do with asthma.
My analogy was belittling carbon dioxide fears, not the real and 100% scientifically verified side effects of various other pollutants. If you care utmost for children afflicted by pollution related diseases, you should be angry that Barrack Obama cares more about carbon dioxide, that has no health effects, than he does other pollutants.
If you were using the equally emotionally charged accusation that carbon output was killing children in the Sahel region of Africa.
Brian_Shelley: The term "strawman" has an actual, well-known meaning. It refers to the case where someone crticizes an argument different from the one the target actually made, while intending to refute the target. So, you shouldn't use the term "strawman" until you can identify an argument I've criticized, and show how it differs from the one that was actually made.
However, despite my request that you do so, you don't seem to be able to do this. Rather, you simply label anything as a "strawman" on the basis that you disagree with it or don't understand it.
And that's not what the term means.
So let's go over this again: whether or not you feel *sympathy* for a business failing, is a separate question from whether they are failing for the "right reason". Can you grasp that concept yet? For example, I have no sympathy for Al Capone being put away, even though it was for tax evasion rather than the shakedowns.
Furthermore, Bob_Murphy showed ignorance of *any* legitimate reason to object to coal, not just the global warming issue, in his original post. Even after pimping his phony skepticism, he refused to deal with the issue of its actual, real "dirtiness".
Second, Obama most certainly does care about the other pollutants; it's just that it's not as easy, politically, to get more restrictions on them. You are making an invalid inference to level of care. Now, do you know why it might be politicially difficult to keep coal burners from giving small children asthma? Or, phrased differently, have you looked in a mirror recently?
If you were using the equally emotionally charged accusation that carbon output was killing children in the Sahel region of Africa.
If you wrote complete sentences.
Post a Comment
However, despite my request that you do so, you don't seem to be able to do this. Rather, you simply label anything as a "strawman" on the basis that you disagree with it or don't understand it.
And that's not what the term means.
So let's go over this again: whether or not you feel *sympathy* for a business failing, is a separate question from whether they are failing for the "right reason". Can you grasp that concept yet? For example, I have no sympathy for Al Capone being put away, even though it was for tax evasion rather than the shakedowns.
Furthermore, Bob_Murphy showed ignorance of *any* legitimate reason to object to coal, not just the global warming issue, in his original post. Even after pimping his phony skepticism, he refused to deal with the issue of its actual, real "dirtiness".
Second, Obama most certainly does care about the other pollutants; it's just that it's not as easy, politically, to get more restrictions on them. You are making an invalid inference to level of care. Now, do you know why it might be politicially difficult to keep coal burners from giving small children asthma? Or, phrased differently, have you looked in a mirror recently?
If you were using the equally emotionally charged accusation that carbon output was killing children in the Sahel region of Africa.
If you wrote complete sentences.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]