« Meanwhile in the Wider World -- Open Thread | Main | Whither the Economy -- a long overdue Open Thread »

August 25, 2019

Comments

My impression, FWIW, was that NV was very happy to let gender confusion reign, to the extent that it did, and that s/he might have preferred gender-neutral pronouns. But when discussing with McKinney going to law school, she did refer to depression or other mental health struggles, and that may have been a factor in her eventual decision.

Re personalisation and abuse, not everyone is as blase (don't know how to insert accents) as you, McKinney, and your prescription for how to respond may not suit other contributors who are not as laissez faire as yourself. I hate the idea of banning people (even said so in the case of bob mcmanus!), but we do, after all, have posting rules for a reason. (Mind you, having now checked them, I see that I regularly violate them by not censoring words like "fuck" and "shit", on the basis that we are all adults and there is no need to be mealy-mouthed, but this may be one of those pesky European attitudes, so I guess I shouldn't impose it on the rest of you).

GFTNC--The posting rules do seem to have morphed into 'guidelines' over time (I blame Trump!), which is fine by me--the more folks I'm arguing with tell me about themselves, the better (usually). The ObWi Overlords still speak up when someone gets too aggressive, so there does appear to be some kind of firewall.

exciting times in Parliament today!

(if only we could have a few defections from our Senate majority!)

exciting times in Parliament today!

Yes indeed. And there is now the rumour that Sir Nicholas Soames (Winston Churchill's grandson, and a stalwart Tory) is going to vote against the government. Since I believe Boris Johnson has referred to Tories who vote against the government as traitors, it's going to be interesting to see if he is prepared to call the grandson of his "hero" (I put it in quotes since many think his hero-worship is purely self-serving) a traitor.

On a lighter note, and for those who like amusing anecdotes, I heard the late Clement Freud (grandson of Sigmund Freud, once a Liberal MP, now posthumously revealed as a pedophile) telling the story of how he was in China after a parliamentary trip with another of Winston Churchill's grandsons:

In 1978 I was on a parliamentary delegation to Japan and returned via China during the Cultural Revolution, a choice also made by young Winston Churchill, then the Conservative MP for Stretford. I was debriefed by the Minister for Information who asked if there was anything at all I would like to ask. I said: "Yes. Everything you do, you do with extreme care and precision. When I ask questions that your government does not like, my driver calls for me five minutes later than arranged. When I ask if there are any blind or handicapped children in China, I get cabbage soup for dinner. "Now I am in your country with a colleague, than whom I am older, have been in parliament longer, have held higher positions in our respective political parties: we are both staying at the Peking Palace Hotel and his suite is bigger than mine. Why?"

The Minister, very embarrassed, finally said: "It is because Mr Churchill had a famous grandfather."

It is the only time that I have ever been out-grandfathered.

the more folks I'm arguing with tell me about themselves, the better (usually).

Since I can find nothing in the posting rules against revealing one's own personal information (just as well in my case, since I've already violated them enough with uncensored profanity), I interpret this remark of McKinney's as meaning that those who insult or abuse others are revealing something about themselves. Without calling out anyone in particular, I agree.

"exciting times in Parliament today!"

Yes, indeed.

I've heard that the seats in Parliament between "government" and "opposition" are separated by "two sword lengths".

Someone put Boris in the middle, and have at it.

a surprising glimmer of hope! the woman who used the Bible to justify denying a 'mixed race' couple the opportunity to give her money for the use of her venue did something amazing. she read her Bible!

To all of those offended, hurt or felt condemn by my statement I truly apologize to you for my ignorance in not knowing the truth about this,” the now-deleted apology read. “My intent was never of racism, but to stand firm on what I ‘assumed’ was right concerning marriage.”

“As a child growing up in Mississippi our racial boundaries that were stated were that of staying with your own race. This was never verbally spoken, but it was an understood subject,” it reads.

She added that her husband asked her on Saturday night to find the part in the Bible “concerning biracial relationships.”

After studying and sitting down with her pastor, the owner said she realized she was wrong.

“I have come to the conclusion that my decision which was based on what I had thought was correct to be supported by The Bible was incorrect! I have, for many years, stood firm on my Christian faith not knowing that biracial relationships were NEVER mentioned in the Bible!” she said.

Truly an exceptional example of someone being willing to check their understanding and admit that they were in error. Good for her -- her position on gay marriage notwithstanding.

And kudos to her husband for asking her to quote her source on interracial marriage!

We progress by baby steps. But at least we do progress occasionally.

Welp!

What does the Kama Sutra have to say on the subject?

What does the Bible have to say about the God-given right to own and use a firearm?

And The Lord said unto Shemp, "Be thou a goodly man with arms of fire, then only thou shall stoppeth the unholy man with arms of fire. So shall you all purchase arms of fire at thy local Wal*Mart."
-- Shemp, 19:42

And if we don't, what happens?

A Moe-Smite?

Enough MPs defect to defeat the government by 27 votes! Parliament takes control of the right to legislate in the next couple of days....

/low whistle.

Boris sure f'ed that up.

and the NC GOP just got a fistful of oh no you don't.

NC could actually become a democracy next year!

So that probably means a general election....
which probably means the opposition will be too split (between Greens, LibDems, Labour) and Ukip will not fight the Tories, which means Boris will probably win.

I certainly hope not.

Rats.

Nicholas Soames confirms on Newsnight that the chief whip, a friend of his, has told him that tomorrow he will have the regrettable duty of writing to him to withdraw the Conservative whip. This means that two ex-chancellors and very many ex-members of the cabinet will also be having the whip withdrawn. (Nicholas Soames says he thinks this is exactly what the BoJo/Dominic Cummings partnership planned all along).

The Conservative Party is collapsing into something else, something much worse.

O tempora. O mores.

a surprising glimmer of hope!

Well done.

So that probably means a general election....

I'm seeing speculation that Boris may not be able to get the necessary 2/3 majority to hold a new election either. Maybe Parliament will just keep going, doing what they want about Brexit, i.e. banning a no-deal Brexit. Without giving Johnson a chance to elect more supportive MPs.

Could be interesting indeed.

Yes, there's lots of speculation about different gambits he might try, including if he can't get the 2/3 majority, many of them depressing and possibly still giving him what he wants. The only hopeful sign is that apparently there is now a huge anti-Dominic Cummings feeling building. This can only be a good thing, though it's probably too late to make much difference.

Fetuses prevented from unionizing, after having post-fetal university education taken away from them as well:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/09/alaska-leading-the-latest-assault-on-unions

Fetuses must become armed and violent.

Gee, I guess if there is no Brexit, Johnson won't be making those big fake payments to the National Health Service.

Then you can join Americans in this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-hospital-treated-these-patients-then-it-sued-them/ar-AAGJvv2

There will be blood.

It must be the hyphenated name:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sit-up-man-jacob-rees-mogg-lambasted-for-lounging-during-key-brexit-debate-in-parliament-2019-09-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

A swift kick in the bollocks is what he likes.

Christianity came up earlier, so I thought I’d toss this in.

An evangelical blog I read sometimes.

https://internetmonk.com/archive/88239#comments

The people in the comments mostly agree that the primitive communism described in Acts wouldn’t work on a countrywide scale but they mostly seem to lean towards a mixed economy.

The host describes himself ( in an earlier post) as a moderate Republican ( doesn’t like Trump). In the comments he supports a mixed economy. To me this sounds like the Sanders- Warren stance. ( I am in the crowd that doesn’t think they are that far apart on policy and hopes their followers don’t succeed in starting a war between them and handing the nomination to good old Joe. But I digress.)

I used to be an evangelical. Now I’m mostly mainline Protestant. I don’t really get what happened to evangelicals—perhaps it was a function of where I live, but in the 90’s they seemed to be moving to the center and there were many Sojourners types who were on the left. Still are, of course, but I had the impression they were more influential then. A far right friend I sometimes mention here was nowhere near as far right then. My impression is that Bush and 9/11 and the rightwing media changed all that, or else I was just engaged in wishful thinking. During the 2000’s my friend started reading that crap and watching Fox. Iirc once he had some book by Ann Coulter that dealt in part with the flaws in evolutionary biology. Yeah, Ann Coulter, leading expert in science. Other times he would be reading Brigitte Gabriel and other Islamophobes. I think I was more aware of Islamophobia years before most because of my friend’s crackpot reading list.

But the people in that thread and at that blog are more like the evangelicals I used to think were typical. A mixture of views going from center right to Sanders left, but not much of this Trumpian ugliness though in other threads I think I have seen some Trump supporters. There have been heated exchanges, but it is more balanced than what you would expect from a subculture where about 80 percent of white evangelicals are Trump voters.

The Elizabeth Bruenig piece linked at that post is also worth reading and going by the polls, more representative of what most white evangelicals support.

I'd like to here from our British friends if this depiction of the Brexit situation is fully on the mark or not:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/09/britain-politics-chaotic-constitution-working/597340/

hear would be less tin-eared.

the opposition Labour Party wants to delay Britain’s exit, negotiate a new deal, and put it back to the people in a second referendum, with the option to scrap Brexit altogether.

That Atlantic piece seems pretty on the mark to me, although I defer to Nigel and Pro Bono who I think have a deeper understanding of it all than I. However, the sentence above seems dodgy to me in this respect: Labour do seem now to have committed to this, but since Corbyn fought tooth and nail to avoid committing to another referendum before now, because he is actually a Brexiteer (unlike the majority of Labour voters), I would not absolutely rule out the possibility that another referendum would be finagled somehow to still ensure some sort of Brexit if Labour was in power, perhaps by the format of the actual questions/options in the referendum.

Marianne Williamson proves that not all Thoughts And Prayers are created equally.

That way, instead of dropping our nuclear warheads into hurricanes, we can use em fer whut they was intended, incinerating republicans.

This two things seem related:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-energy-department-halt-shift-energy-saving-light-bulbs

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/third-trump-administration-interior-department-gas-oil-company

The faster we melt the icecaps and the glaciers, the sooner we can get the mining and oil drilling equipment in there, plus our military, and exploit those areas of the globe, and the more we drill, the faster that pesky ice melts and the faster we can drill.

That is American, Russian, and Chinese government policy. Sort of an unsigned, unspoken international treaty.

Pompeo has said so.

Unless we kill all of them, we're fucked.

Bolsonaro doing his assigned part: burning down the Amazon forest and clearing those savages out a there.

A poison blow dart right in the carotid artery for him.

We don't really need the Bahamas, do we?

They got anything we can use for ourselves?

No? Then fuck em.

I dearly love America:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/driverless-cars-will-lead-to-more-sex-in-cars-study-finds-2018-11-12

And here I was merely thinking the upside was that I would no longer have to prop my book up on the steering wheel on long-distance road trips.

On the way to your place or mine?

We don't really need the Bahamas, do we?

Well, if they don't have a Trump-branded property, what use are they????

I am delighted to see that even a supposed cautious moderate like Harris has come out with a pretty aggressive climate change plan.

Come on, Nigel. Even a reasonably cautious conservative should have an aggressive climate change plan.

You might not feel that a conservative's plan is aggressive enough. But anyone with sense will acknowledge that we have a major problem, and by this time (i.e. after years of delay) it is to take major actions to deal with it. ("Deal with it", by now, is pretty much "minimize the damage" rather than "avoid major effects.")

To not have a plan, you have to be a) blind to reality and b) either a reactionary who sees everything in a "culture wars" context, or a radical libertarian.

Absolutely - but politicians tend to be trimmers, and as a class have been slowtiming climate action for a long time.
(And the conservative in this case is Biden.)

If Trump is not re-elected, it’s just possible to be slightly optimistic.

Don't forget c) member of a Doomsday cult.

That seems to be a Christian specialty. Afaik no other maintstream religion has spawned a significant faction that actually desires and intends to foster the ending of the world. Hindoos may see Shiva destroying the world as a salvation from reincarnation but do not feel themselves called to do it for him. For Jews and Muslims it would be pure heresy. G#d does not need humans for that and humans could not push G#d towards that. But through the centuries there have been Christian theologians that believed in a divine earth-ending mission for the true believers and even in the possibility of forcing G#d's hand on that.

For Jews and Muslims it would be pure heresy.

does anyone know what mainstream Muslim feeling in the ME about climate change / hydrocarbon pollution / plastic pollution is? given that a major source of income from the region is oil?

(i could look it up, but i'm lazy)

I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.

I am worried about Biden as the candidate:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/04/cnn-climate-forum-biden-228035

I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.

Several third world countries with generally low elevations (e.g. Bengladesh) are seriously concerned -- if you could lose a third to 3/4 of your territory from rising sea levels, you would be concerned, too. Unless you are in Florida and in denial.

Their governments may be concerned. Or just hoping for handouts from first-world countries. Most of the people have much more immediate concerns than climate change which they may know little or nothing about. Even in the US, climate change isn't at the top of most people's lists of concerns.

Perhaps not, Charles, but it should be at or near the top of everyone's list of immediate concerns.
Action now, as opposed to in a decade or so's time, is essential.

And it is largely the less developed nations most at risk from rises in temperature and sea levels, and least able to afford to mitigate the consequences.

Even in the US, climate change isn't at the top of most people's lists of concerns.
Depends on whether you're a Democrat or Republican - along with concern for the environment, it is the issue with the greatest disparity of concern between supporters of the two parties.
Over this decade it is also the issue which has shown by far the greatest increase in concern:
https://www.people-press.org/2019/01/24/publics-2019-priorities-economy-health-care-education-and-security-all-near-top-of-list/

We could have climate chaos, now deliberately encouraged by so-called conservatives for p (creating chaos by ignoring all norms is how p has run his life, and, yes, haven't we noticed Pompeo and company admitting now that global climate change is inevitable, so damn the torpedoes and make money from its consequences) at the same time we experience deliberate political and cultural chaos.

This is the most important political piece you will read during this election cycle, which could be the last, at least as a recognizable political "process" in America:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/trump-voters-chaos.html

Via Hullabaloo and another guy.

Thomas Edsall is a sober observer of the scene.

Folks may think I WANT chaos.

No, I merely want to fulfill these goons' perverted desire for savage chaos and give it back at them good and hard.

Once they get a good taste of real chaotic, dangerous upheaval, of the sort they'll want to hide indoors during, as p and company's heads literally end up on pikes alongside roadsides, they'll go fuck themselves and STFU.

Radical Hutus want to disrupt. They like the suffering.

Disrupt them.

Even in the US, climate change isn't at the top of most people's lists of concerns.

I have friends who are trying to decide whether to keep their house and eventually pass it on to their daughter, or sell it and give her the money. Because it's not unlikely that their lot will be underwater in her lifetime. Beyond unlikely that it will be so in her kid's.

And no, they don't live in some swanky beachfront joint. That whole part of town will probably be underwater.

Talk to some lobstermen around here about climate change.

Speak for yourself, buddy.

Meanwhile, armed for chaos:

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/right-wing-media-threaten-violence-retaliation-gun-safety-proposals

They just MIGHT have to shoot us if we legislate.

Mind you, they won;t be able to help themselves. It's just that their trigger fingers are attached to their assholes, where their principles originate.

If a conservative American EVER attempts to thwart my jaywalking, I will fucking shoot them in their head.

And I've yet to see a jaywalker shoot up a Walmart, a school, a church, or a country music festival, though jaywalking could be an early sign, a canary in the outrage mine, of what's coming to republican conservatism in America.

Republicans think we live in The Economy.
Democrats think we live in The Environment.
Libertarians, I don't know.

Then there's the Christ-is-coming-soon types, who seem to believe that Life, the Dow, and everything is merely an extensive audition for Heaven or Hell, neither of which environments has anything like an economy, so let's have those tax cuts now, dammit.

All these taken together are "people" -- a species which, like any other, proliferates until it chokes on its own waste, "capitalists" and "socialists" together.

--TP

re conservative republican vermin and their second amendment solutions, this could be an incitement to savage killing violence:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-wages-war-asylum-official-demoted

Break all of the fucking laws:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-have-broken-law-by-altering-hurricane-dorian-map-2019-9

That's O.K.

It serves as precedent for the means of wiping the worldwide conservative nationalist movement off the face of the Earth.

Too bad p's brother is dead:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/boris-johnsons-own-brother-resigns-in-protest-at-his-handling-of-brexit?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

Speak for yourself, buddy.

Even if the "most people" formulation is correct, so what? Most people aren't climate experts or national leaders. Most people are oblivious to what their local governments do, even though their local governments have a more direct impact on their daily lives than many of the other things they concern themselves with. Most people are largely ignorant of the mathematics of personal finance.

Oh, but really poor people in Third World countries don't have the time or the need to concern themselves with those things, so those things must not be important. You know, like open-heart surgery isn't important because they can't afford it.

As concerns climate change, very poor people in Third World countries will be no less dislocated or dead when it hits them, regardless of their lack of "preoccupation." Maybe that's why other people should be worrying about it for them.

I really don't know what "point" was being made with that comment.

Too bad p's brother is dead:

But his sister isn't.

She's supposed to be a lot saner than he is. But I haven't noticed her speaking out like this.

I really don't know what "point" was being made with that comment.

The point I took, perhaps incorrectly, was that we are being self-indulgent by worrying about this. I.e. it isn't really worth wasting time over it.

yep: "a first-world luxury"

Guess they're standing their ground
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/09/05/nra-rips-san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-after-being-labeled-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/

NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter called the resolution a “worthless and disgusting ‘soundbite remedy’ to the violence epidemic gripping our nation.”

NRA's mad SF is using their playbook?

Official religious declarations about climate change via the UN:

https://unfccc.int/news/islamic-declaration-on-climate-change

Islamic; Catholic; Anglican; Buddhist; Jewish; and a Hindu response that was forthcoming at the time of the release in 2015.

Don't think we haven't heard what the republican party and the worldwide conservative movement have been saying about us these last many decades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSh1zpafboM

I speak their language.

Fly, my pretties!

Of course they are:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/umm-theres-a-whistleblower-about-the-presidents-tax-returns

JDT, the talkingpointsmemo article asks why this isn't a bigger deal. The obvious response is that this administration breaking the law has become so commonplace that an additional instance is barely news. How far we have fallen.

From the TPM article:

Democrats shouldn’t be in the business of mimicking the nonsense of the Benghazi or Dan Burton eras. But it goes without saying that if the shoe we’re on the other foot probably 60% of Fox News would be about this.

Yep.

and it's not just that we're used to it; a further problem is that everybody realizes there will be no consequences.

Trump and the Senate GOP have formed a criminal conspiracy to allow him to get away with anything he wants, so long as he's nice to the Senators.

the Dems can hold hearings, but everybody knows they will amount to nothing but frowns and wagged fingers.

what we have here is a Constitutional failure (which created by a Electoral College failure).

f James Madison

Well, that went well....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/05/mike-pence-ireland-shat-on-the-carpet

BTW, can we not speak of Brexit for a while ?

At last! A solution to the gun violence we've been seeing:
https://youtu.be/dCf4_qQOKgQ

"Make guns gay" What a concept!

Their governments (you know, those shithole countries-ed) may be concerned. Or just hoping for handouts from first-world countries.

Yes..."handouts". The condescension, it burns.

By burning carbon, the "advanced" world got through the industrial revolution first. They reaped huge first across the line advantages that they still enjoy. But yes, those left (or pushed) behind....they are just asking for "handouts".

Fuck that.

what we have here is a Constitutional failure (which created by a Electoral College failure).

Comparisons to the 1850's may apply here, and thus the Constitution is doing exactly what it was designed to do in a political crisis...i.e., ensure political gridlock.

Doing nothing is a political choice, and generally favors the powerful, the well off and the comfortable.

My Brexit sermon follows.

Yes..."handouts". The condescension, it burns.

I suspect that the handouts, or whatever you want to call them, will be evenly distributed to not their populations, but their Swiss bank accounts.

By burning carbon, the "advanced" world got through the industrial revolution first. They reaped huge first across the line advantages that they still enjoy. But yes, those left (or pushed) behind....they are just asking for "handouts".

Fuck that.

Indeed. Financing renewable energy projects in developing countries is a win/win idea.

Charles is fighting the battles of a generation back.

I suspect that the handouts, or whatever you want to call them, will be evenly distributed to not their populations, but their Swiss bank accounts.

But that is very much a function of how the support is structured. To take the obvious (and probably not directly relevant) example, nobody gets rich off foreign aid in the form of Peace Corps volunteers. But in fostering education, improved agricultural practices, etc., they still manage to do a lot of good.

Not to say that there isn't a good chance of the aid being in a form that can be corruptly stolen. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's conceivable that we might have learned something....

Some third world countries are already using over 80% renewable energy. Of course, it's dung and anything else organic that they can scrounge.

Some of the third world countries biggest problems are barriers to imports from each other and from the rest of the world. And the hundreds of billions of dollars in dead capital due to weak to nonexistent property rights.

This
I suspect that preoccupation with climate change is largely a first-world luxury.

followed by this

Some of the third world countries biggest problems are barriers to imports from each other and from the rest of the world. And the hundreds of billions of dollars in dead capital due to weak to nonexistent property rights..

Ahh,got it. climate change is a first world problem. The real problem is property rights!!

Being wealthy makes it much easier to deal with climate, changing or not. People in poor countries struggle with the climate conditions they currently have. Never mind the possible changes in those conditions. Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.

The gift that keeps on giving:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/is-trump-strong-arming-ukraines-new-president-for-political-gain/2019/09/05/4eb239b0-cffa-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html

Putin's ROI for Trump just keeps growing.

That article I linked to with religious responses to climate change also included a bit about the concept of Climate Debt that addresses CharlesWT's First World/Third World framing (and flips the bird to the president's response to the CNN Climate Forum. Yes, the US uses cleaner tech than a lot of the world -- so what? We still owe for past action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_debt

CharlesWT: Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.

Yes. It would allow their rapacious oligarchs to open bigger Swiss bank accounts than even their corrupt politicians that you postulated earlier.

But this snooty attitude toward poor countries, as a simple assertion of a generalization of a prejudice, will not do.

Which countries do you have in mind specifically? What property rights do people there have or not have? What is their historical foundation in colonialism? Who drew their borders and called them "countries" in the first place? Let's not have a mash-up of the laws, traditions, and histories of different "poor countries" into one Platonic Ideal of a "poor country". Let's discuss specific cases. Educate before you preach.

--TP

"Dead capital is an economic term related to property which is informally held that it is not legally recognized. The uncertainty of ownership decreases the value of the asset and/or the ability to lend or borrow against it. These lost forms of value are dead capital.

The term dead capital was coined by Peruvian Economist Hernando de Soto Polar.

De Soto estimates there is US$ 9.3 trillion in dead capital globally. The US$ 9.3 trillion are assets owned by poor or middle-class people in emerging economies which cannot be realized due to poor policies, procedures or bureaucracy.

If these assets in the informal sector were recognized and brought into the mainstream, market economy, they could become the key to fostering development."
Dead capital


"Experts have found out a direct correlation between a nation’s wealth and having an adequate property rights system. This is because real estate is a form of capital and capital raises economic productivity and thus creates wealth. In a number of countries, too many citizens cannot access this capital because their ownership rights are not adequately recorded. This makes it a “dead capital” that cannot be used as collateral for a loan which might be used to start a business, for example. According to the famous Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, the value of the extralegal property worldwide is largely in excess of 10 trillion dollars! In Peru, he led a far-ranging and very successful administrative reform that resulted in giving titles to more than 1.2 million families and helped some 380,000 firms to enter the formal economy."
Unlocking the Dead Capital

CharlesWT: Strong property rights would allow them to grow wealthier much faster.

Tony P: Yes. It would allow their rapacious oligarchs to open bigger Swiss bank accounts than even their corrupt politicians that you postulated earlier.

I was writing a similar response. Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice. If you don't have that prerequisite in place, they are irrelevant.

Property rights are great. Not being underwater, also great.

Bangladesh, at 1 and 1.5 meters sea level rise.

At 1 meter sea level rise, 15 million people are displaced. At a meter and a half, it's 18 million. And that is just Bangladesh, which is probably the most concentrated population that is likely to be affected, but it is far from the only one.

Where are they gonna go? Assume their property rights in the land they live on, or their house, or their livestock, or whatever moveable property they might own, are recognized, what are the value of those things when they are underwater?

Are you going to buy a Bangladeshi's house?

Are you going to buy a Bangladeshi's house?

Perhaps more to the point, are you, or any bank, going to lend him money with his house (and the land under it -- soon to be under water as well) for collateral? Gives a whole new perspective on the term "sunk cost"

Looks like people in Bangladesh don't legally own very much.

Property Rights Index in Bangladesh compared to Asia

I notice this paragraph in the linked article:

The index also assesses the likelihood that private property will be expropriated and analyzes the independence of the judiciary, the existence of corruption within the judiciary, and the ability of individuals and businesses to enforce contracts. [emphasis added]
Which is pretty much the point I was making.

Charles, I don't think too many people here would argue against basic property rights. Many if not most (if not all) of us actually own private property of some form.

And yes, the more wealth you have, the better positioned you are to avoid or mitigate the consequences of climate change, to you, personally.

None of that addresses - or rather, all of that ignores - the most obvious of those consequences. 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate because the place they used to live is underwater is still 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate. Even if they have money, it's a big lift.

And 15 to 18 million people needing to relocate is just the tip of the iceberg, both in terms of the number of people affected and in the nature of the effect. The situation of Bangladesh is often cited when people talk about this stuff, it's only one of many similar situations.

Property rights are great. They don't address the thing we're actually talking about.

Property rights are great. They don't address the thing we're actually talking about.

that's because you're not thinking like a libertarian.

The dominant approach to environmental policy endorsed by conservative and libertarian policy thinkers, so-called "free market environmentalism" (FME), is grounded in the recognition and protection of property rights in environmental resources. Despite this normative commitment to property rights, most self-described advocates of FME adopt a utilitarian, welfare-maximization, approach to climate change policy, arguing that the costs of mitigation measures could outweigh the costs of climate change itself. Yet even if anthropogenic climate change is decidedly less than catastrophic - indeed, even if it net beneficial to the globe as whole - human-induced climate change is likely to contribute to environmental changes that violate traditional conceptions of property rights. Viewed globally, the actions of some countries - primarily developed nations (such as the United States) and those nations that are industrializing most rapidly (such as China and India) - are likely to increase environmental harms suffered by less developed nations - nations that have not (as of yet) made any significant contribution to global climate change. It may well be that aggregate human welfare would be maximized in a warmer, wealthier world, or that the gains from climate change will offset environmental losses. Such claims, even if demonstrated, would not address the normative concern that the consequences of anthropogenic global warming would infringe upon the rights of people in less-developed nations. A true FME approach to climate change policy should be grounded in a normative commitment to property rights. As a consequence, this paper suggests a complete rethinking of the conventional conservative and libertarian approach to climate change.

What Tony P said yesterday at 9:04:

Republicans think we live in The Economy. Democrats think we live in The Environment. Libertarians, I don't know.

Except I'd say that Libertarians think we live in The Market. A universe of free and equal beings, exchanging things of value without coercion of any kind and with perfect knowledge about the up and downsides of every transaction.

Sounds great, where do I sign up?

Sensible people understand that we live on a planet, the only planet we are ever going to live on, and which offers us and every other thing that lives here ample but finite resources with which to sustain ourselves.

And sensible people understand that everything we do or don't do has an effect on that irreplaceable and finite system.

It's an enormously resilient system, but our preferences will count for exactly nothing in its calculus of how to balance itself. Free market, no free market, property rights, no property rights - these are not questions that the planet ponders.

If the ice melts, the water rises. The rest is commentary.

when all you've got is a market, every problem is a market failure.

One factor notoriously ignored by libertarian theory is the limited human lifespan. Some of the arguments might be valid if humans possessed relative immortality (=do not die unless killed). Absent that maximizing personal benefits would mean to exploit the resources owned in exact accordance with one's lifespan (=use them and/or the benefits derived from them up in a way that they are gone the exact moment you die).
Also delayed damages are outside possible calculation. If what I do will harm no one alive at the time of my death, there can be no valid litigation however great the damage my actions will cause later.
A thought experiment: We find a miraculous way to defer the negative consequences of our polluting and climate changing policies for 200 years but when that time has passed all the the conequences will hit at once and there is no way to postpone. Assuming that no human being will live longer than 150 years, we would not have anyone violating anyone's property rights by polluting and heating up the world for the next 50 years. We would know with near certainty that at the end of the deferral Earth would become completely inhabitable almost instantly but libertarian or FME theory would have to declare that a completely invalid factor since there can be by definition no interaction between the property holders now and those in the future (no overlapping lifespan).

I find the best way to solve a given problem is to take it to whatever level of abstraction is necessary to make it conceptually simple enough to solve with whatever my preferred solution was before I started considering that problem.

libertarianism can't even handle a relatively simple collective action problem like vaccinations without twisting itself into knots while trying to find a fundamental principle to stand on. it's not going to come close to handling something like GCC.

"it's not going to come close to handling something like GCC."

Let alone g++.

I was writing a similar response. Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice.

The foregoing is implicit in the notion of property rights. By definition a "right" can and must be enforced in a known and predictable way. Otherwise, it is Darwinian anarchy.

Therefore, pretty much everyone here missing Charles' point, which is less Libertarian than simple rules of a successful, market economy.

If people think Climate Change can be addressed without wealth, i.e. resources, and without taking into account the impact on the ability to replicate wealth, i.e. a functioning, market-based economy, then good luck to everyone in that Brave, New and Previously Unknown World. When you run out of beans, you can't eat. It takes a tractor and diesel or gas to run a tractor and a First World industrial base to grow your first commercially-available and exportable bean. Getting that bean from, e.g. the US, to Bangladesh also requires a First World industrial base.

Sure, I could theoretically grow my own food, but I can't grow enough to feed my displaced neighbor. If my displaced neighbor gets hungry enough, he will hit me over the head and take my food. Bad situation. So, if we are going to feed people consistently, we will have to do it in a liberal, market economy.

libertarianism can't even handle a relatively simple collective action problem like vaccinations without twisting itself into knots while trying to find a fundamental principle to stand on. it's not going to come close to handling something like GCC.

Libertarianism frequently trips over itself in practice for reasons like vaccines and other public health concerns that traditionally are inherent in a state's police power (or, overtime pay, or healthcare mandates or taxes of any kind). But, Charles' point was more directed to (1) poor countries are often that way because there isn't a mechanism to acquire, keep and build on property ownership and (2) without the mechanism to do so, Climate Change cannot be countered.

Therefore, pretty much everyone here missing Charles' point, which is less Libertarian than simple rules of a successful, market economy.

I'm not arguing against markets in general here - maybe just the idea that they're THE solution to any number of problems. My question is, if the economy is successful, what difference does it make whether or not it's a market-based economy? (And how much does and economy have to be market driven to qualify as a market-based economy? Is a successful mixed economy somehow less desirable, despite being successful? Or is the assumption here that the only successful economies are at least largely market based, making the "market" in "successful, market" redundant?)

My question is, if the economy is successful, what difference does it make whether or not it's a market-based economy?

Can you give me some examples of a successful, non-market-based economy?

Depending on your definition, China. I'd say it's not a purely market-based economy without hesitation.

Depending on your definition, China. I'd say it's not a purely market-based economy without hesitation.

Interesting point. I'm not sure how I'd characterize China either. It's wealth comes from it's market economy, but it's still a dictatorship without the rule of law that attends the liberal concept of property rights.

Also, China is a net food importer--success!!!--and anything but altruistic, so how would China be an example of an economy that will mitigate the effects of Climate Change? If anything, I'd submit that the PRC in particular is one of the leading causes on GCC.

China is a recent contributor. And the US is one of the worst countries for carbon production on a per-capita basis to this day, and has far outpaced China historically. What aspect of China's economy has made it such a contributor to GCC?

But I think we're heading down a bit of a rabbit hole here, which is my fault for zeroing in on what I perceived to be a particular need to use the word "market" the way you did.

My underlying thought is more that, even if we could magically confer robust property rights across the globe, it wouldn't necessarily lead to a global focus on mitigating AGW. I'm confident that it would not be sufficient. I'm wondering about necessary.

wj: Property rights are only relevant if you first establish something like the rule of law and impartial administration of justice.

McKinney: The foregoing is implicit in the notion of property rights. By definition a "right" can and must be enforced in a known and predictable way.

I guess I didn't find it implicit. You know it's required. But my experience with libertarians is that they generally (perhaps not Charles) do not think about those necessary prerequisites. Either they assume, contrary of fact in many cases, that such institutions already exist. Or they are totally oblivious to the need.

I assume at the same population density the US would also be in need of food imports. And the US have more good arable land too.
For that matter, there are several quite rich rule-of-law, civilized nations with market economies in the world that are net food importers (and quite a few net exporters that are neither of the above).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad