Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
odograph
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 month ago
in Waxman-Markey on Will Wilkinson
I am not a fan of this cap and trade bill, but I can see it in the context of international negotiation. It starts slow, as any cap or tax program does, and charts a ramp for future emissions. Perhaps with certain international agreements that ramp would be retained, but if not it certainly can all be re-legislated in the climate bill of 2012.
I'm not really buying the argument that I think Will is making, that we can do nothing because "nothing" is the optimum international game strategy.
.. and I certainly don't see any real-world 'non-coercive' successes in carbon emissions.
I'm not really buying the argument that I think Will is making, that we can do nothing because "nothing" is the optimum international game strategy.
.. and I certainly don't see any real-world 'non-coercive' successes in carbon emissions.
1 reply
3 months ago
in Are We Flirting with Fascism? on Will Wilkinson
That's what makes the pendulum swing back and forth over time.
I think we'd only get rank and file call for more government management of business ... if government proved good at it, which I think we agree is unlikely.
I think we'd only get rank and file call for more government management of business ... if government proved good at it, which I think we agree is unlikely.
1 reply
uknowbetter
Not really; people want easy answers. They want the king who can solve all their problems with a wave of his magic wand.
There is always a point when the pendulum swings too far and breaks.
Here is a paper talking about how the more people distrust government, the more regulation they demand:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleif...
Ran across that today in a great rant from Gillespie:
http://reason.com/news/show/130522.html
There is always a point when the pendulum swings too far and breaks.
Here is a paper talking about how the more people distrust government, the more regulation they demand:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/shleif...
Ran across that today in a great rant from Gillespie:
http://reason.com/news/show/130522.html
3 months ago
in Are We Flirting with Fascism? on Will Wilkinson
It's easy for a pundit to say "let them fail" but I can't see any real President letting it happen. Not in this country, not with these voters, not with any election in the distant future.
1 reply
uknowbetter
It's called leadership. Something Obama knows nothing about. Just as he knows nothing about capitalism. Businesses fail all the time.
Bush wasn't much better on this topic although I get the sense that he might not have bailed them out if it was his second term coming up instead of Obama's first.
It's insane that it's easier to waste billions of dollars rather than let companies go into bankruptcy. It's all play money anyways, weeeeee!
Bush wasn't much better on this topic although I get the sense that he might not have bailed them out if it was his second term coming up instead of Obama's first.
It's insane that it's easier to waste billions of dollars rather than let companies go into bankruptcy. It's all play money anyways, weeeeee!
3 months ago
in Are We Flirting with Fascism? on Will Wilkinson
It's my read of where we are as a nation, not what I can (or need to do) personally.
Do you believe the opposite, that we are no longer a freedom and free market loving people? Or that we no longer are a market democracy?
Do you believe the opposite, that we are no longer a freedom and free market loving people? Or that we no longer are a market democracy?
1 reply
uknowbetter
For now. Any more 'solutions' from Obama and we might not be.
3 months ago
in Are We Flirting with Fascism? on Will Wilkinson
FWIW, I think right of center folks are phonin' it in today. This is a convenient complaint, blog fodder, and that's about it.
No one is going to let the US government interfere with healthy (non-bailed) companies.
Though, it does sound like they are going to have to let those healthy companies which were strong-armed into bailouts (if they really were), out of the bag. It might be interesting to see with an offer to let them give equity stakes back, how many would.
No one is going to let the US government interfere with healthy (non-bailed) companies.
Though, it does sound like they are going to have to let those healthy companies which were strong-armed into bailouts (if they really were), out of the bag. It might be interesting to see with an offer to let them give equity stakes back, how many would.
2 replies
DWAnderson
"No one is going to let the US government interfere with healthy (non-bailed) companies."
Maybe you did not intend this to be a broadly stated, but it is absurd on its face. Many industries are subject to extensive regulation and receive various types of subsidies. If those do not constitute interference, then "interference" is so narrow as to be meaningless.
You can argue about the positive or negative effects of the interference, but it is pretty hard to argue that it does not exist.
Maybe you did not intend this to be a broadly stated, but it is absurd on its face. Many industries are subject to extensive regulation and receive various types of subsidies. If those do not constitute interference, then "interference" is so narrow as to be meaningless.
You can argue about the positive or negative effects of the interference, but it is pretty hard to argue that it does not exist.
uknowbetter
"No one is going to let the US government interfere with healthy (non-bailed) companies."
You are going to stop them? LOL!
What are you going to do? Comment on the internet, get on a soap-box? Hilarious.
You are going to stop them? LOL!
What are you going to do? Comment on the internet, get on a soap-box? Hilarious.
3 months ago
in Are We Flirting with Fascism? on Will Wilkinson
I think it makes a big difference whether an exec goes to Washington to beg, or if he stays home minding his own business.
No one is calling healthy companies to Washington and replacing their execs, not even close.
All that happened was that Washington met some punishment to beggars, which is what we actually need if we still care about moral hazard.
No one is calling healthy companies to Washington and replacing their execs, not even close.
All that happened was that Washington met some punishment to beggars, which is what we actually need if we still care about moral hazard.
1 reply
DWAnderson
Perhaps, but the government has a tendency to make offers that companies can't refuse. This is certainly what happened to Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs with respect to TARP funds. Additionally, if all your competitors are being offered subsides in exchange for doing the bidding of Washington, it is hard to be a holdout. That's why it is best to have rules against this sort of behavior that both companies and the government are compelled to follow. I know that is easier said than done.
3 months ago
in I Am a Dysonite on Will WilkinsonI think poverty might cut in the opposite direction you're implying, given economic growth. If world poverty rates are declining and average income is increasing (so we expect to have more in the future than today), then that pushes for consuming more today. After all, if we're making an argument about transferring from the rich to the poor, well, future generations are richer than the current one, and since we're already discounting the future ...
Except you pulled a fast one on your audience. You called for "optimal extinction" but then made no attempt to define it, or identify the path that would get us there without overshooting the target.
It is the standard half-argument that if there is a limit, we can assume it is way ahead of us, not near enough to worry ... presented without input from ecologists of course.
1 reply
ryan yin
Speaking of "pulling a fast one" and being excited -- it's entirely possible you're misunderstanding what's being said (or that you're being wildly unfair). I didn't "call" for optimal extinction. I pointed out that you can't be a good consequentialist on environmental policy as you claimed if you're ruling out a priori the possibility that the extinction of a species or environmental degradation in general might be optimal. And no, you don't get to say that these might be in principle be okay but only way in the future and that these things are inherently suboptimal in the immediate future. Or at least you don't if you really are committed to being the hard-headed, consequentialist empiricist on environmental & natural resource issues that you insisted to Wilkinson that you were.
I didn't define optimal extinction because I thought it was obvious, particularly given my other comments. You choose policy as best you can (from the set of all policies available to us) to maximize present discounted value, and if it turns out that the policy that best achieves that goal involves one species dying out, you call it "optimal extinction".
Now consider an extreme, very unrealistic example (just as a mental exercise): suppose there were some infinitely lived species that never reproduced at all (so leaving them alone doesn't increase future population) and that had no aesthetic or other value besides eating them. It's very easy to imagine that there would be an "optimal extinction" here (it's basically a nonrenewable resource, and it's not like reasonable people think we should never use them). In fact, if you can scale up your catch cheaply enough, and if the marginal value of the fish doesn't drop off too quickly (or you just expect to be richer and/or have plenty of alternatives in the future), that optimal extinction would be almost immediate.
Now please note that I'm not saying this is a realistic example. But I think it does a pretty good job of laying out the reasons why we would want to preserve a species -- e.g., if there are important (and good) interactions with other species or aesthetics or other value that you can get besides eating a fish, if marginal value drops rapidly, if the species grows or reproduces rapidly (or otherwise increases value), etc. And if you extend it, you can see how it's almost certainly not generally the case that the ideal is to shoot for the maximum sustainable yield.
Sorry for the overly long response.
I didn't define optimal extinction because I thought it was obvious, particularly given my other comments. You choose policy as best you can (from the set of all policies available to us) to maximize present discounted value, and if it turns out that the policy that best achieves that goal involves one species dying out, you call it "optimal extinction".
Now consider an extreme, very unrealistic example (just as a mental exercise): suppose there were some infinitely lived species that never reproduced at all (so leaving them alone doesn't increase future population) and that had no aesthetic or other value besides eating them. It's very easy to imagine that there would be an "optimal extinction" here (it's basically a nonrenewable resource, and it's not like reasonable people think we should never use them). In fact, if you can scale up your catch cheaply enough, and if the marginal value of the fish doesn't drop off too quickly (or you just expect to be richer and/or have plenty of alternatives in the future), that optimal extinction would be almost immediate.
Now please note that I'm not saying this is a realistic example. But I think it does a pretty good job of laying out the reasons why we would want to preserve a species -- e.g., if there are important (and good) interactions with other species or aesthetics or other value that you can get besides eating a fish, if marginal value drops rapidly, if the species grows or reproduces rapidly (or otherwise increases value), etc. And if you extend it, you can see how it's almost certainly not generally the case that the ideal is to shoot for the maximum sustainable yield.
Sorry for the overly long response.
3 months ago
in I Am a Dysonite on Will WilkinsonWell, first of all, "humanity" doesn't seek anything
You don't think an alien naturalist would find trends here, esp. with respect to future risks?
More to the point, the issue isn't "would we rather have more big fish or not?"
Not to someone who understands fisheries biology, and the degree to which we humans depend on them.
The better question is, is the present discounted value of the amount of extra big fish we get in the future from catching one less today greater than the value of catching said fish? The key point with big fish is that the "return" to leaving it in the water is lower.
No, because fisheries are not abstract mathematical entities. We do not have find control over fishing at the margin (too much cheating and too much by-catch) but even if we did, you would be assuming a single fisher-prey model that does not exist in the real world.
Overall, I'd say that you make the economists worst sort of mistake. You prefer theory to practice, and you don't even bother to know the practice.
1 reply
ryan yin
No, I'm saying that I don't think a (competent) alien naturalist would believe that human have a hivemind. If you want to talk coherently about purposes and goals, you have to talk about individuals.
3 months ago
in I Am a Dysonite on Will Wilkinson
I can accept a "optimal extinction" concept, but I see no indication that humanity is rationally seeking such a thing.
In the newer thread I reference an article on the poor, their dependence on fishing, and (in the case of that paper) climate impacts on those fisheries.
FWIW, I really doubt that the carrying capacity of the earth, for humans, is higher without those big fish, and I really doubt that such a world would be happier.
In the newer thread I reference an article on the poor, their dependence on fishing, and (in the case of that paper) climate impacts on those fisheries.
FWIW, I really doubt that the carrying capacity of the earth, for humans, is higher without those big fish, and I really doubt that such a world would be happier.
1 reply
ryan yin
Well, first of all, "humanity" doesn't seek anything. More to the point, the issue isn't "would we rather have more big fish or not?" That gives a non-interesting answer to a non-interesting question. The better question is, is the present discounted value of the amount of extra big fish we get in the future from catching one less today greater than the value of catching said fish? The key point with big fish is that the "return" to leaving it in the water is lower.
I think poverty might cut in the opposite direction you're implying, given economic growth. If world poverty rates are declining and average income is increasing (so we expect to have more in the future than today), then that pushes for consuming more today. After all, if we're making an argument about transferring from the rich to the poor, well, future generations are richer than the current one, and since we're already discounting the future ...
I think poverty might cut in the opposite direction you're implying, given economic growth. If world poverty rates are declining and average income is increasing (so we expect to have more in the future than today), then that pushes for consuming more today. After all, if we're making an argument about transferring from the rich to the poor, well, future generations are richer than the current one, and since we're already discounting the future ...
3 months ago
in I Am a Dysonite II on Will Wilkinson
I'm sure you know Will, that your dear wife should stay away from certain types of seafood, because of their mercury content, that comes in increasing part from coal. Swordfish is the prime example.
Are you aware that the "bad fish" list grows each year, and are you genuinely ok with that?
I'm more an environmentalist of the Ducks Unlimited type than the Vegan type. I respect the later, but I still think one good reason to keep a good and healthy nature ... is that it's good to be able to kill it and eat it.
Actually, I believe the current carrying capacity by the earth of humans is very much reliant on there being fish fit to eat.
Are you aware that the "bad fish" list grows each year, and are you genuinely ok with that?
I'm more an environmentalist of the Ducks Unlimited type than the Vegan type. I respect the later, but I still think one good reason to keep a good and healthy nature ... is that it's good to be able to kill it and eat it.
Actually, I believe the current carrying capacity by the earth of humans is very much reliant on there being fish fit to eat.
1 reply
odograph
I think maybe I buried my lede there.
Many Poor Countries Will Suffer as Climate Change Damages Fisheries
It's not just the climate change of course. There are other environmental pressures on fish populations, including simply over-fishing. What that paper should show though is how much the poor are dependent on "environmental services" like good fisheries.
Many Poor Countries Will Suffer as Climate Change Damages Fisheries
It's not just the climate change of course. There are other environmental pressures on fish populations, including simply over-fishing. What that paper should show though is how much the poor are dependent on "environmental services" like good fisheries.
3 months ago
in I Am a Dysonite on Will Wilkinson
Fragment:
Well, in the sense that he thinks he identifies groups like these, perhaps, but in the sense of that being the best argument, no.
There are plenty of people who can phrase global warming or any other environmental problem in terms of "environmental services.:"
It's just factually correct that we net-net lose those services every day. There are fewer big edible non-polluted fishes in our oceans to eat. There are fewer old hardwoods from which to build our furniture. Those are just facts.
Dyson's judgment is apparently that the rate of loss is acceptable. I'm not convinced, especially when we consider the quality of future life. Is it important for your children to eat tuna, ever? Sushi, ever?
Dyson has said that it all boils down to “a deeper disagreement about values” between those who think “nature knows best” and that “any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil"
Well, in the sense that he thinks he identifies groups like these, perhaps, but in the sense of that being the best argument, no.
There are plenty of people who can phrase global warming or any other environmental problem in terms of "environmental services.:"
It's just factually correct that we net-net lose those services every day. There are fewer big edible non-polluted fishes in our oceans to eat. There are fewer old hardwoods from which to build our furniture. Those are just facts.
Dyson's judgment is apparently that the rate of loss is acceptable. I'm not convinced, especially when we consider the quality of future life. Is it important for your children to eat tuna, ever? Sushi, ever?
1 reply
ryan yin
Odograph,
Sure, those are facts, but I'm not sure they have the policy implications you seem to be assuming. If you have a consequentialist view of environmental issues, there's no reason why, for instance, being able to prevent the extinction of a big edible fish implies that you ought to prevent it. (That is, the natural resource econ literature explicitly allows for an "optimal extinction.")
Though I may be misreading you and merely stating the obvious.
Sure, those are facts, but I'm not sure they have the policy implications you seem to be assuming. If you have a consequentialist view of environmental issues, there's no reason why, for instance, being able to prevent the extinction of a big edible fish implies that you ought to prevent it. (That is, the natural resource econ literature explicitly allows for an "optimal extinction.")
Though I may be misreading you and merely stating the obvious.
There are, indeed, no real-world non-coercive successes in reducing carbon emissions (other than, perhaps, pushing nuclear power). However, given that Will's argument is that this bill won't make any coercive success either that's not a compelling counter, is it?