I appreciate the president’s dilemma. But I don’t think hanging back and letting the Senate take the lead is the right answer. This is a big leadership moment. He needs to confront it head on, because — call me crazy — I think doing the right and hard thing here will actually be good politics, too.
I’d love to see the president come out, guns blazing with this message:
“Yes, if we pass this energy legislation a small price on carbon will likely show up on your gasoline or electricity bill. I’m not going to lie. But it is an investment that will pay off in so many ways. It will spur innovation in energy efficiency that will actually lower the total amount you pay for driving, heating or cooling. It will reduce carbon pollution in the air we breathe and make us healthier as a country. It will reduce the money we are sending to nations that crush democracy and promote intolerance. It will strengthen the dollar. It will make us more energy secure, environmentally secure and strategically secure.
“Sure, our opponents will scream ‘carbon tax!’ Well what do you think you’re paying now to OPEC? The only difference between me and my opponents is that I want to keep any revenue we generate here to build American schools, American highways, American high-speed rail, American research labs and American economic strength. It’s just a little tick I have: I like to see our spending build our country. They don’t care. They are perfectly happy to see all the money you spend to fill your tank or heat your home go overseas, so we end up funding both sides in the war on terrorism — our military and their extremists.”
Such tripe. Any tax, big, little, tiny, huge……it goes into the Washington DC grist mill and becomes politicized money-pronto.
The best thing is for government to get out of the way and let the innovation of the market place take over. Free-for-all competition will let the credible ideas float to the top and be commercialized and the less worthy ideas will be relegated to the dustbin of history. It happens everyday in all sectors of the economy, that is, those parts that the government hasn’t already taken over.
Well, I think Thomas Friedman is partly right. Yes, it’s absolutely essential that America take the lead in developing new energy sources and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But I tend to agree with #1 that new taxes aren’t the way to do it, especially at a time when the economy is in such peril, not least due to out-of-control federal spending and an intolerable deficit. Let existing federal funds be shifted around and redirected to reflect the high priority that energy development rightly has as an indispensable key to securing our future.
David Handy+
What a load of scatalogical hooey! It’s got nothing to do with energy independence. It’s all about increased government control over every aspect of your life.
You want energy independence you can get it. Lease some land from a farmer and contract with him or her to grow high oil yield peanuts. You can get up to 140 gallons per acre. Buy a diesel car and either convert it to run on peanut oil or get together with your neighbors and form a cooperative to convert the peanut oil to biodiesel. It’s not a very hard chemical reaction to perform.
A little ingenuity and self-reliance like earlier generations would go a long way and we wouldn’t have to over tax the productive members of society to provide more teats on the government pig.
One immutable law of economics:
Expenditures always rise to meet income.
Well, perhaps the first step in leading the energy revolution is to force people to stop living in homes as large as Tom Friedman’s.
http://raynoreport.com/2010/01/matt-taibbi-fries-friedman-hes-right-and-heres-why/
Every column Friedman runs hectoring the rest of us with how evil or stupid we are in our use of energy should show a picture of his estate so you can gauge his energy usage. You can find it [url=http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=qh0wg38k42gz&scene=31358550&lvl=1&sty=o&where1=7157 Bradley Blvd, Bethesda, MD 20817-2125]here[/url] on Bing Maps, although you have to move up the driveway to get a sense of how big it is (not to mention the amount of gas it takes just to mow the lawn).
Opps, Steven beat me to it.
[b]4. LeightonC[/b],
That is, to the best of my recollection, a partial quote of [i]Parkinson’s Second Law[/i][b]*[/b]: [blockquote]Expenditures rise so as to meet, and tend to exceed, income.[/blockquote]
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
________________________
[b]*[/b]—[i]The Law and the Profits[/i], C. Northcote Parkinson, 1960.
So…who is in the wings ready to take the lead on alternative energy? I mean, the premise is that we must raise taxes or else some other unknown entity will suddenly leap so far ahead of us on new energy production that we will never catch up. Ok, let’s just assume that this weird lunatic idea has any scrap of truth to it…who is ready to lead the way? Why wouldn’t we be able to catch up to them? (The Japanese not only caught up to us in automobile production, but they surpassed us.)
How would this tax put us in the lead?
Well – Al Gore brought us the internet – Looking at the gulf it looks like President Obama is bringing us cars that will run on seawater
Mr. Friedman is what the British refer to, quite fittingly I think, as a “prat” which I presume to have the same or similar meaning to its use in the term “pratfall.” And he is a highly opinionated one at that.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Now in fairness to Mr. Friedman he got his money the old fashioned John Kerry way – he married it – so we certainly shouldn’t expect him to respect the wealth real people earn through hard work. George H. W. Bush may have been born with a “silver foot in his mouth” as then-Gov. Ann Richards noted, but Mr. Friedman’s silver foot came to reside in his mouth through matrimony. But Mr. Friedman quickly learned to forget how the ‘little people’ live just as though he was legitimately ‘to the manor born.’
The real answer to solving the problems Mr. Friedman wrings his hands over is to:
1. Drill, Baby! Drill!
2. Mine, Baby! Mine!
3. Pump, Baby! Pump!
4. Nuke, Baby! Nuke!
5. Solar, Baby! Solar!
6. Wind, Baby! Wind!
7. Hydo, Baby! Hydro!
8. Whatever else, Baby! Whatever, else!
Just do the above, but do so by getting the Federal Government OUT OF THE WAY and WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. If it makes good economic sense smart American investors will flock to produce one whale of a lot more energy for us and the world than can every be produced by any Government program.
Sorry, typo in the last sentence.
Should be – any STUPID Government program.
[b]12. Dilbertnomore[/b],
Actually, the real solution(s) only include a few of the enumerated items you list. Nuclear, solar, wind and “whatever else” are not currently economically viable—they, like using ethanol to replace coal and gas to fire the boilers to run the turbines, cost more than the value of the electric energy that they can produce. So, they only work for the people, like a certain Mr. Gore, who have the money to form companies to make money off of the government subsidies offered for these [i]faux[/i] solutions.
The real answer to the immediate problem is that stated at comment [b]1.[/b] by [b]Capt. Deacon Warren[/b]. Namely, get the government out of redistributing wealth to some backers of favored technologies and let the market tell us what will be the most cost-effective solution to the shortage.
Furthermore, there is NO WAY in the modern world that any nation today can become “energy independent.” The price of petroleum is governed by a largely free world market in unrefined petroleum, which sets the price. And we don’t produce enough to satisfy present needs, and don’t have the proven resources to remedy that lack. Answers to the problem which you clearly understand, based on the last two sentences of your referenced comment makes abundantly clear.
Someone with a credible public voice needs to counter the lies being told by politicians on both sides of the aisle so that the voting public begins to understand the factual nature of the issue. I am not sanguine that we have both such a person or the medium
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
MA, we are closer than you may think. But for #1 = #4 above there is little economic or practical reason for serious consideration, but if someone wants to put his PERSONAL wealth at risk to give it a try – Three Cheers from me.
Perhaps energy independence is infeasible. It most certainly is infeasible when we limit our energy options in the face of an ongoing energy crisis. (Did I mention I regard AGW to a total crock that will needlessly drag us down if we let it?) With regard to solving energy, if more Government restrictions or higher taxes is the answer, it must be a pretty darn dumb question.
I saw that a large windfarm was approved off the coast of Nantucket and had to laugh when the news anchor remarked that it was a project that Ted Kennedy was vociferously against. Very typical of the lefties. They want “alternative energy” but they don’t want it near them.
I also laugh when Obama shows up at little factories in the North that may gain a dozen jobs if they retool to service the wind industry. Down here in Texas, we’re going full speed ahead with wind energy and hit a milestone several weeks ago when wind provided 20 percent of our electricity. We’re currently updating the transmission lines so we can increase that figure. Right now, our turbines are producing more energy than we can handle, so half of them have to be shut off. And about 30 miles down the road, a company is working to build a clean coal plant. There has been some opposition — and doubts about the “clean” technology — but it will probably go through.
The alternative energy industry is alive and well in, gasp, the “Red States.” We’re doing the infrastructure, attracting companies that provide technical support, and creating educational partnerships to train workers and provide more research. Weird that Obama and Co. never show up here, eh? LOL. And I should mention that I’ve personally seen my electric rates drop 5 cents per Kw/H in the past three years, with the incredible growth of the windfarms.
Yes, alternative energy is doable, as long as the government doesn’t get overly involved. Oh, and as long as people like Ted Kennedy deem such projects as more important than the view from their expensive properties.
[b]Dilbertnomore[/b],
You hadn’t mentioned your views on AGW, but please know that I share them. In large part, because of the extreme shortness of the climate records—of the 17 identified periods of glaciation in the past 2 million years, climate data from drilling through the polar ice caps only goes back to 600,000 years at the maximum—I am essentially in the same camp on [b][i]A[/i][/b]GW, albeit still willing to examine new evidence if it is both unambiguous and compelling. I am also a graduate of an M.S. program in Oceanography & Meteorology as well as holding a B.A. in Geology & Geophysics, so I tend to look at claims of past global events on rather lengthy time scales. Further, I have some not inconsiderable experience in the use (& misuse) of computer numerical models of geophysical fluids (oceanic, atmospheric and those two regimes interacting) and of the interpretation (& misinterpretation) of their results, which informs my skepticism.
And I wholeheartedly agree that the investment of personal funds is OK, but hold very strenuous objections to the use of public funds. So, we are basically singing from, if not the same, at least closely related, sheets of music on this topic.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
In my #1 post on this thread I missed the chance to advocate getting rid of my (not) favorite Federal Gov’t department…..the ironically named DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY……which in 40 some odd years of existence has not produced 1 watt of free energy (energy above and beyond that expended to actually generate something).
I could be appeased if it were accurately name changed to the DEPARTMENT OF STUPIDITY……but that could be a lot of Gov’t agencies, so it would be confusing…….awwwww, just kill it.
MA, glad we got that straightened out. I’m sure I’d enjoy hoisting a beer with you.
Dilbertnomore,
Nothing against beer (German or English) as you may already have inferred that I am largely of German ancestry, but my general preferences lean to Scotch whisky, particularly single malt. Either way, I suspect it would be a mutually enjoyable encounter.
Keith Töpfer
_____________________
“[i]The common belief that whisky improves with age is true. The older I get, the more I like it[/i].”—[i][Ronnie Corbett][/i]
[b]18. Capt. Deacon Warren[/b],
Couldn’t agree more. Well, not entirely true. We could also do without the Dept. of Education, much of Dept. of Health & Human Services, much of Deptartments of Commerce (excluding Census Bureau), Transportation, Labor, probably a few others. But axing Energy would be a good starting point.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
MA, is 15 year old Balvenie OK?
#14 – Nuclear Energy is economically viable in ways that wind and solar are not. Current nuclear plants (including the ones that employ me) are often cheaper than coal. It is true that the post-TMI plants that sat idle for several years with their investors paying twenty plus per cent interest on several hundred million dollar loans wound up costing billions and this, combined with questions about public perception, have scared off Wall Street. But there really is no actual lack of economic viability (again as in the case of wind, solar, biomass, etc.) afflicting our industry. I do agree with you though that in an age of international corporations, “energy independence” is more than a mite chimerical. The uranium for a typical reload for one of our plants generally comes from at least four different countries.
Realistically, you can’t keep the Feds from being involved in any project, good or bad, involving infrastructure, transportation, communications or energy. So give that up. You’re better off either a) co-opting the Feds or b) placing your bets with them. Period. Everything else is ideological hooey. Proof? Railroads. Coal. Nuclear power. Telegraph. Telephone. Television. Radio. Cars. Trucks. Highways. Oil. You name it. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s the reality. You know why? Because the “free markets” screw people eventually. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s what happens, so there’s a need for checks an balances. The government almost always gets it wrong. The government almost always makes it worse. You can’t live with it… you can’t live without it. If there was such a thing as “free markets” it might actually work. There isn’t such a thing. Work with what’s actual and what’s real folks. Peace out.
#24 – I’m not sure the statement, “the ‘free markets’ screw people eventually”, amounts to much of an argument. The reality of regulation, historically, is that industries and services deemed necessary for civilized life and requiring significant infrastructure have been run as regulated monopolies – which is the case with most of the examples you cite. You failed to mention ice delivery, however, which is an interesting case. Pretty much every metropolitan area had a more or less heavily regulated monopoly (similar to the phone company and electric utility) that procured and delivered ice to iceboxes. Then some joker invented refrigeration and ended the reign of both the ice companies and the government agencies that regulated them. There’s an example of government getting smaller.
The electric power industry in which I am privileged to serve has been in a rather fitful transition from regulated monopoly to competitive, “free market” industry for some years now. Things have not gone smoothly, but the fact remains that the circumstances that dictated a regulated monopoly in the electric power industry no longer obtain, so the circumstances will change.
We are heavily regulated in the nuclear industry, of course, and this circumstance surely results in its fair share of inefficiency. However, in our case a centralized regulator makes sense. There are only a little over 100 operating nuclear plants and they rely on fairly consistent principles of operation. However, there are a lot of industries the regulation of which would be better managed without a centralized bureaucracy (many of those cited above, including education, energy, etc.). I suspect that what many here are calling for is not a completely unregulated “free market”, in your terms, but rather a greater sensitivity to subsidiarity, the need for government responsiveness to remain it its most localized, and hopefully least intrusive, level.
Dilbertnomore,
In answer to your question “is 15 year old Balvenie OK?” I am forced to answer in the negative!
I have found no bad single malts, only those few that I would not go out of my way to have again. The remainder lie on a spectrum that runs from [i]moderately enjoyable[/i] through [i]quite good[/i], [i]very good[/i], [i]outstanding[/i] and [i]superb[/i] to [i][b]unbelievably good[/b][/i]. The latter would be characterized by a 62 year old Dalmore of which I had about 2 drops (from an eyedropper).
15 year old Balvenie would be in the [i]very good[/i] to [i]outstanding[/i] range, making it much better than just OK.
🙂
Keith Töpfer
A truly free market, in the sense that it is used by economists (particularly those of the Austrian school), requires a number of conditions which, sadly, have become seriously diminished in the Western industrialized world, including in the U.S. Among these are the [i]Rule of Law[/i], [i]strong property rights[/i] and the minimization of specific types of [i] government regulation[/i].
In the case of the former and the latter of the three conditions is that both law and such regulation as is required meet several tests. Among these tests, the two that are probably most critical are that both the law and regulations be [i]proscriptive[/i] rather than [i]prescriptive[/i]. Stated in simpler terms, the laws and regulations should specify what types of actions within the market are prohibited, rather than what types of actions are required. This is, to cite just one example, one of the major flaws in the recently enacted health care financing reform, [i]e.g.[/i], it specifies what everyone MUST do, buy a plan or suffer a legal sanction (a fine in this instance).
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Specifically to Mr. Muth’s assertion, if you honestly believe that government interference in the marketplace, contra the sorts of government activity suggested in my comment at 27, is not the source of many of the ills in our economy and our society, I would suggest you read the short book [i]Free to Choose[/i] by Milton and Rose Direktor Friedman (the Friedmans who are knowledgeable economists, as opposed to the pontificating Thomas of the same surname). Then come back and tell us where they have erred in their thinking. The appalling thing about Thomas Friedman, among others of his ilk, is not what he doesn’t know, it is what he knows that isn’t so!
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Mr. Töpfer – Much thanks for the kind book recommendation. I have always respected Milton Friedman and very much hope that the author of the subject article (whose odd idea of wisdom seems to be to answer a plausibly real challenge to American technological hegemony and via a superfluous energy tax) is not a relative. Alas, I’m not sure which of my comments you were referring to. In #23, I disagreed with you on the economic viability of nuclear power and in #25 I responded to what I thought was an oversimplification by the author of #24. Perhaps he’s the one you are referring to. I’m in general agreement with regard to proscriptive vice prescriptive regulation. Our industry sees plenty of the latter, but we are a special case and heavy, all-too-often prescriptive, regulation is for us the price to be paid for consumer confidence. Best regards – DWM
Hi Keith,
I find the idea that “government interference in the marketplace” is a bit broad. The government buys and sells and participates in the market place. We make bids between boeing and lock-heed martin. We invest in new technologies through NASA and the defense department.
Friedman’s taken it pretty rough these days. I did enjoy Free to Choose when I read it as an undergraduate (and I don’t remember much), but my impression is that recent studies on behavior and economic thinking reveal that we’re not very rational – we often make bad choices. Although there are good reasons to critique the state, empirically speaking there were no major crashes during the years of Keynesian policies.
As long as there is a democracy, most people will not want an unfettered free market. What’s interesting is that the places that have adopted Freidman’s economic systems are generally dictatorships. There will always be some tension between democracy and unregulated markets. But this tension is fruitful, and provides for more opportunity.
Friedman isn’t the last word in economics. Iceland and even the current economic crisis have caused many notable libertarians to rethink regulation.
Mr. Muth,
My apologies to you. I failed to march up the page to verify the author, and thereby misattributed the position I was attacking. My comment was to the commenter Daniel, whose [i]nom be blog[/i] does not include a surname. Please forgive my misattribution.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Mr. Wilkins,
I didn’t object to government participation in the marketplace, but rather to government interference therein. I object to the constructive rationalism, described by Hayek and attributed by him to the successors of Descartes, which operates from the premise that society is best served by systems of laws and regulations which consist of the codification of the designs of human intellect. Hayek’s argument is a bit long for repetition here, but is best summarized in an address he delivered, the text of which was republished under the title [i]The Result of Human Action, But Not of Human Design[/i] by the University of Chicago in the volume [i]Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics[/i]. That particular volume includes a number of addresses which stress the proper structure of the [i]Rule of Law[/i] and the historical fact that an unhampered market economy produces outcomes that are successful; and they are successful as a result of the fact that they are unplanned, hence the title. Regulating without stifling the possibilities for the discovery of more productive ways of providing for society’s needs is a very challenging undertaking. As a result of reading Hayek, I have come to an understanding that [i]progressives[/i], who frequently and misleadingly label themselves as [i]liberals[/i], are those philosophical descendants of Descartes, and we have seen the pernicious result that such “planned” economic activities produce—in all of the planned economies, and in the planned features of our own government-instituted or government-directed economic enterprises (Social Security and government encouragement of third-party purchased health care financing are perhaps the two examples with which most people are most familiar) .
I don’t think anyone sane believes in what I would understand to be meant by an “unfettered free market.” What I do believe is that Hayek was a remarkably shrewd observer of human economic and social history, and that his basic conclusions are borne out by historical experience. But he was most insistent on the absolute necessity of both the [i]Rule of Law[/i] and of strong property rights as necessary conditions for the prospering of any human society and its members.
Please note again that I did not suggest an “unfettered” free market, nor did I say there should be no regulation.
On the question of the Friedmans’ did address in [i]Free to Choose[/i], which, to the best of my knowledge, remains unchallenged, is that there are four, and only four, ways in which our money can be spent. And only one of them is in any way likely to produce results desirable to all of the individual economic units (person or family, [i]e.g.[/i]).
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
I’m slowly remembering the book, Keith, but I wonder how they would have responded to Arrow’s impossibility theorem. Ideas?
I remember a lecture by the economist Paul Heyne – a libertarian – that is located on one of the Mises / Hayek sites. He argued that the market is a system of coordination, presenting that a better word for “capitalism” is a “commercial society.” Broadly, I agree that a commercial society represents political and economic freedom and fairness.
But he also said that it tends to undermine other virtues that communities bring. I don’t need to know my neighbors – I can purchase eggs 24-7. He also argued that governments can’t enforce community. It’s a virtue that churches have to teach.
There is, however, another alternative – and that’s the Red Tory movement. It is ideologically 180 degrees from you I suspect, but I find it more empirically compelling (although I don’t agree with it completely).
I also suspect that Hayek is the last word for you, as Arrow/Keynes is the last word for me. I’d be fascinated to know what you thought of Posner’s article on Keynes.
Did you see this video?
http://www.youtube.com/user/EconStories#p/a/u/0/d0nERTFo-Sk
John,
I will give it a read during the coming week and try to get back to you, either on this thread or via Private Message on this site. I wouldn’t exactly say that Hayek is “the last word for” me, but his arguments are compelling from the perspective of my 64 years of life experience and knowledge of history. And he is far more balanced and humble in his assertions than many libertarians—one of the reasons I prefer to use his term “old Whig” to describe myself. I am much more in the camp of Hayek, Smith, Ferguson, Burke than most current public thinkers.
Also, I agree with your description of Heyne’s views concerning what a free market can do to civil community, and particularly what the Church has to teach. The thing about agreeing with all of the Old Whigs is that they effectively place no limit on what contributions the church and natural law can make to society, short of permitting the criminalization of activities by any person that do not directly harm other persons (commonly referred to by many libertarians as the “[i]no harm rule[/i]”). [/i]
I also think Hayek’s description of the history of human progress is far more accurate than that of any of what he called the [i]constsructive rationalists[/i]. Hayek also explicitly stated that “capitalism” was a wholly inappropriate term for a free society whose economic system was what I would term a [i]legally-constituted free market, [/i]i.e.[/i], one constituted on the basis of the [i]Rule of Law[/i], as that term is commonly understood, and strong property rights. He based that assessment on the fact that it doesn’t have much of anything to do with the economic concept of [i]capital[/i]. What is important is to allow people to experiment with how they arrange their activities, always subject to the [i]no harm rule[/i] and respect for the property rights of others, so that the wrong ways of doing things can be most quickly found and avoided by society. This is an issue Hayek discussed in quite a bit of detail in a number of his works, including the [i]Studies[/i] already cited. [/i]
On Arrow and Posner, I am not familiar with their arguments, nor would I know what to read to get the best understanding of the Red Tory movement. If you are aware of any links to the Posner article on Hayek to which you refer, or other online resources that accurately summarize the ideas of the Red Tories, I would be pleased to read them and give you my reactions. I will tell you, that anyone who thinks that a nation can be successful and free when run based on a managed economy, I am unlikely to be convinced of any other fallacies they might propose.
I will take a look at the video in the next day or two, and get back to you on that as well. Things are, to put it mildly, a little hectic in our house at the moment.
Keith Toepfer [/i]