The last gasp of the global warming movement?

Corporatism, Environment, Vulgar Politics
Share

Are the global warming climate change oh-god-we’re-all-going-to-die-unless-you-move-into-a-yurt-right-NOW activists breathing their last in their attempt to save civilization by destroying it?  Shika Dalmia seems to think so:

Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s energy legislation, released last Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done!

This is not just my read of the situation; it is also that of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate-turned-Democratic-apparatchik. In his latest column for The New York Times, Krugman laments that “all hope for action to limit climate change died” in 2010. Democrats had a brief window of opportunity before the politics of global warming changed forever in November to ram something through Congress. But the Reid bill chose not to do so for the excellent reason that Democrats want to avoid an even bigger beating than the one they already face at the polls.

Unsurprisingly the Dems’ political mortality is the primary reason for backing off from any significant global warming legislation, as opposed to the very logical conclusion that you can’t regulate people’s demand for energy by taxing its production any more than you can regulate their demand for meth by hiding the Sudafed behind the pharmacy counter.

Dalmia goes on to point out that, contra Paul Krugman’s condemnation of the greedy energy companies, they are just as hosed by the demise of global warming initiatives as the greenies:

The truth is that there never has been an environmental issue that has enjoyed greater corporate support. Early in the global warming crusade, a coalition of corporations called United States Climate Action Partnership was formed with the express purpose of lobbying Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It included major utilities (Duke Energy) and gas companies (BP) that stood to gain by hobbling the coal industry through a cap-and-trade scheme. Meanwhile, the Breakthrough Institute, a highly respected liberal outfit whose mission is to rejuvenate the progressive movement in this country, points out that environmental groups spent at least $100 million over the past two years executing what was arguably the best mobilization campaign in history. Despite all of this, notes Breakthrough, there is little evidence to suggest that cap-and-trade would have mustered more than 43 votes in the Senate.

Not only are Democrats and Republicans unwilling to touch cap-and-trade legislation, but they’re finally waking up to the fact that related boondoggles such as the ethanol subsidy, which has fattened the coffers of Big Ag for years, ain’t worth it either.

As more doubts are raised about the integrity of the science behind global warming (hint: it’s not just about Climategate), the less it seems likely that the global warming alarmists will gain the political leverage to put their disastrous economic plans into action.  But there’s always another IPCC report just around the corner, ready to stoke the flames of climate change fear once more.  Perhaps the planet would cool off for a bit, were it not for all the gas escaping from climate scientists and politicians.

The last gasp of the global warming movement? Read Post »

Mimi & Eunice: Marximalism

Humor, IP Law, Mimi & Eunice on IP
Share

[This strip isn’t about intellectual property, but it does make an amusing observation and co-blogger JFC did recently analogize Objectivists on IP with Marxists. — GAP]

How many new suffixes can Libertarians add to the word “Marx”?

***

This is a syndicated post, which originally appeared at Mimi and EuniceView original post.

Mimi & Eunice: Marximalism Read Post »

“I think, therefore I own” – Objectivists as NeoMarxists of sorts

(Austrian) Economics, Corporatism, IP Law, Libertarian Theory, The Right
Share

The usual apology for IP (“intellectual property”) privilege is that effort has to be rewarded in an advanced society if justice is to be made to creators and producers.

Interesting: Marxists say the very same thing. They claim that previous effort (“frozen labor”) is that which gives value to economic goods. Well, Objectivists are doing the same in a more fashionable — yet equally flawed — way. They claim economic value is derived from frozen…thoughts. Yes, frozen thoughts. See, Objectivists consider labor performed inside our heads1 the source of economic value, and thus being the very core of value creation it has to be rightfully protected at all costs, right?

Wrong. The source of value is the customer’s valuation of said good during the time of sale.

Yes, ladies and gentlement, it is sales (that mundane and sordid act) that which generates an income in a free society (i.e. the division of labor). Sales are the only way in which demonstrated preference tells us that which is valuable to others. And if it is, they surrender certain amount of another good by giving it to us in exchange for what they need and want. That good is generally one of general acceptance (the most marketeable one), in other words, money. So in order to make money one has to sell. It does not suffice to sit, philosopher style (see pic), and wait for money to come to oneself. One has to know how to turn the idea into an attractive and/or useful product, which requires a whole different set of skills. Or find able partners for the risk-taking endeavor. Even choosing an adequate partner/team for production, distribution, and sales require entrepreneurial skills far beyond the usual thinker’s.

But in any case, it is not “who thought of this first?” that makes people buy more of brand X. The customer couldn’t care less either way. It is the positioning of brand X in the customer’s mind that creates what we call a true market niche for a product. Thus, it follows that it is opportunity, quality and ultimately demonstrated preference (sales) that determines commercial success. Alas, Capitalism is not the social system of thinkers (nor was Socialism, as it was predictably taken over by power-mongers): it is the social system of merchants. Yes, lowly, mundane, and anti-intellectual merchants.

This, to the despair of (Objectivist) NeoMarxism and Marxism, two philosophies founded  by intellectuals who wanted to highlight the role of people like themselves.


  1. A substantially less sweaty form of labor, of course 

“I think, therefore I own” – Objectivists as NeoMarxists of sorts Read Post »

Scroll to Top