The Environmentalists Strike Back…barely
MATT HITTLE — This is in response to the first two commenters on my most recent column.
TO Dumb!-
-Martin Luther King Day is in remembrance of Dr. King’s birthday.
-Veterans’ Day was originally in remembrance of Armistice Day, the day WWI ended.
-Presidents’ Day is in remembrance of two presidents. It’s located around their birthdays.
What do these have in common? They’re all remembrances of a specific time or person. Earth Day is ridiculous because it “celebrates” THE EARTH in general. C’mon. Seriously.
Also, capitalism HAS trumped environmentalism. Why do you think we need environmental legislation? Because most capitalist pigs could care less about the environment. It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.
——-
TO MIKE-
“Pish Posh, those evil “free market” lovers need to have eyes rolled at them! THAT will show them!”
Please step down from that throne and grace us with your presence on Earth for a moment. I’ve got a request:
Please tell me, Mike, what countries around the world have ever functioned well without a largely free market? Name them. In alphabetical order. Please. You’re not smarter than Milton Friedman. Not even close.
Next, if you couldn’t tell- and apparently you couldn’t- I was making a joke about ANWR. While I still definitely would kill a caribou for $1 gas, I don’t think gas prices will go down. Ever. No matter what. We need to drill in the ANWR not because it will make oil cheaper but so that we can buy more time in our transition to a better fuel source.
Also, Mike, read THIS article from today’s RealClearPolitics. Here is a pertinent excerpt:
—
“What keeps these areas [like ANWR] closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity.”
—
I certainly hope your reasons aren’t the latter, but I’m not convinced they aren’t.
I certainly hope this has cleared up the confusion from my column. I’m still waiting on that list, Mike.
Unfortunately, I’ve found eye-rolling a more effective technique than actually trying to discuss something rational with “free market” thinkers like yourself because of their trouble with facts (i.e. your backpedaling on ANWR creating $1 gas…pretty sure that appeared to be a fact and not a joke when your article was published)
You’re correct on one issue, I’m not going to claim that there is a country where there’s not a free market because I think the concept of such a theory is ridiculous in the first place. Name me alphabetically (not sure why that matters, but I’m sure its just an attempt to trick the reader into forgetting that everything you say is mostly rhetorical fluff like your “joke” with ANWR) a country that really has a “free market”. I had hopes for Iraq, but the gosh darn U.S. ruined it by giving it so much funding. Doh! Stupid state-sponsored infrastructure…
Let’s look at the U.S. “free market” for a second in the last few years run by a Republican Party that generally espouses the principles of your theory. Bail out of airline industries after 9/11…. bail out of insurance industries after Katrina…bail out of Baer Sterns after the mortgage collapse…
And do you know why this happens? Because when push comes to shove, politicians throw ideology out the window. I think you’ve been duped my friend, by people so affluent in this country that you can’t even imagine how they live. The “free market” is a construct, created by people who know only one thing about being poor—selling your soul to ensure I’m not poor is worth it.
My favorite “free market” analysis this year was your article on Katrina. Remember when you said in your price-gauging article that the free market would ensure that only those who really needed the gas would get it? Oh Matt…letting gas stations spike the gas prices in NO after Katrina ensured only that the rich people got out while poor people wallowed in the impending health crisis at the Super Dome.
But back to ANWR….I’ve been aware of realclearpolitics for awhile…their editorials are generally fairly pro-market so I’d put an asterisk by your source. Let’s look at MediaMatters, a non-partisan advocacy group fighting for fair coverage of our news outlets….in an eerily similar scenario…they caught former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frisk lying about the benefits of drilling in ANWR….They say “In fact, according to the Department of Energy, drilling in ANWR would reduce projected U.S. dependence on oil imports by only 4 percent over the next 20 years, from 68 percent in 2025 to 64 percent”
(http://mediamatters.org/items/200605010003). Or this reported in 2004 by MSNBC, “Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/).
The truth is that America doesn’t need ANWR to transition to a different energy, and it’s ridiculous to assume that Big Oil would stop importing oil from the big bad terrorists overseas if we did.
But yeah, let’s bash earthday because of our irrational fears of oil companies…Yep, I’m an environmentalist…proud of it….and definitely proud to be called irrational by someone who thinks record profit margins for Oil companies is natural…Meanwhile consumers will continue to pay record prices for gas that exacerbate the difference between the rich and the poor…But I guess that’s the free market right?
Oh, and as for Milton Friedman…. I’m sure the thousands of Chileans who died as a result of his “free market analysis” think he’s pretty smart too. “Exiled Chilean Foreign Affairs Minister Orlando Letelier…wrote: It is curious that the man who wrote a book, Capitalism and Freedom, to drive home the argument that only classical economic liberalism can support political democracy can now so easily disentangle economics from politics when the economic theories he advocates coincide with an absolute restriction of every type of democratic freedom” (Wiki).
Comment by Michael Ewald — May 3, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Come write for the Volante, Michael!
Comment by kcollierwise — May 4, 2008 @ 1:07 am
Ok, Mike. Let’s play your game.
I’ll respond to that point-by-point.
First of all, I’m not backpedaling on anything regarding ANWR. It was a joke. If you can’t understand sarcasm, that’s your problem. From now on, I’ll write **JOKE—-JOKE** on either end of my jokes so you can see them clearly. About ANWR. Let’s drill it. NOW. Let’s boost our national production to buy us time for when we can produce an efficient clean energy. If you environmentalists had done something productive on Earth Day rather than play music and protest Hyperion, (like donate money to green research), we might be a wee bit closer to that goal.
NEXT, you apparently do not understand the phrase “free market.” In current New Keynesian economics, the sort that influences geniuses like Greg Mankiw (who writes the econ books USD uses), the theory is that a basically free market with little government intervention is preferred over state run and entirely free. Some government intervention is desired because there are such things as market failures. Government exists to correct these market failures. Nothing more.
I assert that YOU’VE been duped. I don’t trust many politicians. They lie to get votes. For instance, the business about bailing out people who were stupid enough to get variable rate loans. Politicians want those people to vote for them. Politicians tell the people that it’s not their fault. It’s predatory lending that’s the problem. Bull. The problem is stupid people. No bailouts for a-n-y-o-n-e.
Next, so RCP is generally pro-free market? Who isn’t? Economists generally agree that free markets are the best way to organize economic activity. Where have you been since Adam Smith, Mike? I’m fairly certain no one has come out with a better economic system, so please, enlighten us.
And now you’re pulling the classic “rich people conspiracy” theory. If you understand supply and demand, you understand that there really is no such thing as price gouging. Seriously, Mike, do you honestly think that a gas station owner should keep his prices static even when demand increases drastically while supply decreases drastically? That is engaging in charity, and business should not be forced by the government to engage in charity. You’d be telling the business owners that their right to sell their goods at whatever price they choose is taken away, and that they must lose even more money than they are already losing, right?
Also, if I had my way, there would have been no federal help for NOLA and the other regions. As you saw, and most likely summarily blamed on Bush, the government is disastrously inefficient in doing most anything. The first responders to the area in the aftermath of Katrina were private organizations. They do things quicker and more effectively than any bloated bureaucracy that you offer.
Next, don’t put words in my mouth. You’re playing a game of spin and you’re going to lose. Drilling in ANWR won’t do anything to prices. What it will do is keep oil supplies steady, buying us time to create some miracle energy source. Also, “big bad terrorists?” I don’t even want to know the underpinnings of this comment.
Record profit margins for oil companies? You mean the same oil companies that are creating jobs and increasing the wages for those jobs by 8% from a year ago? Also, if people want to stick it to oil companies, why don’t they buy stock? Then, they’ll receive part of the money from these record profit margins.
Also do you realize how insanely expensive it is for oil companies to operate? These profits are run right back into the companies to fund things like R&D. In fact, the average profit margin for the S&P 500 is 8.5%, while the oil companies is 9.7%. What does this mean? This means that the profit margin is slightly higher than other industries’. According to an interesting article from CNN, just like the government shouldn’t rescue ignorant borrowers, Katrina victims, and Bear Stearns, the government shouldn’t punish successful businesses.
Finally, Mike, it behooves you to get your facts straight about Milton Friedman. In your rush to slander a Nobel Prize winning economist, you didn’t do your research. Good job cutting and pasting from a Wikipedia article– and only those sections that made Friedman look terrible. Of course, you didn’t add the whole story.
You didn’t mention that Friedman was never an advisor to the Chilean government. You never mentioned that The Chicago Boys were the ones doing all the advising. They were Chilean nationals who were schooled at the U of Chicago. That’s not Milton Friedman.
In sum, Mike, I criticized Earth day because it’s stupid. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s just a day for people to feel like they’ve made a difference. It’s a day on which they can brag to their friends about how much they care for the Earth. Puh-leeze.
Comment by Matt Hittle — May 4, 2008 @ 4:31 am
“Ok, Mike. Let’s play your game”
It’s not a game, Matt. While you study economics from the confines of Vermillion, the theories you learn force millions into poverty all around the world. It’s a form of structural violence. It’s all too real to millions…
“I’ll respond to that point-by-point.”
Attempt to respond is more accurate…
“First of all, I’m not backpedaling on anything regarding ANWR. It was a joke. If you can’t understand sarcasm, that’s your problem. From now on, I’ll write **JOKE—-JOKE** on either end of my jokes so you can see them clearly. About ANWR. Let’s drill it. NOW. Let’s boost our national production to buy us time for when we can produce an efficient clean energy.”
Good job disregarding the articles I left you to read. You didn’t respond to any of the estimates that ANWR would only decrease imports by 4% over a 20 year span. The fact that you admit we need a different energy supply calls into the question the logic of destroying one of the last remaining pristine wildlife areas in the United States to simply “ease” the transition to different energies. Seems to me that we could transition without drilling in ANWR… And even this disregards consumption habits which is at the heart of this matter, but that’s a whole nother argument…
If you environmentalists had done something productive on Earth Day rather than play music and protest Hyperion, (like donate money to green research), we might be a wee bit closer to that goal.
This is your fundamental flaw, you view everything as a commodity and anything that isn’t is worthless…I’ll get to this later…
“NEXT, you apparently do not understand the phrase “free market.” In current New Keynesian economics, the sort that influences geniuses like Greg Mankiw (who writes the econ books USD uses), the theory is that a basically free market with little government intervention is preferred over state run and entirely free. Some government intervention is desired because there are such things as market failures. Government exists to correct these market failures. Nothing more.”
You’re right, I don’t understand what a free market is…I haven’t seen any proof that it exists. The government intervenes into the economy all the time. Sometimes helping Big Business, sometimes not, that’s what I’m contending. Politicians get bought out by campaign contributions, both Dems and Reps, and while they worry about votes, they worry a lot more about getting the money to generate those votes. Now this is where it gets hazy for me. So you defend the government correcting market failures for large business conglomerates, but not for the common folk as indicated by your next passage?
“I assert that YOU’VE been duped. I don’t trust many politicians. They lie to get votes. For instance, the business about bailing out people who were stupid enough to get variable rate loans. Politicians want those people to vote for them. Politicians tell the people that it’s not their fault. It’s predatory lending that’s the problem. Bull. The problem is stupid people. No bailouts for a-n-y-o-n-e.”
Have you ever spoken to anyone that has worked at a place like Premier Bank Card? Hmm…No bailouts for anyone; isn’t that a market correction by another name? So if you don’t believe in bailouts for anyone, that you disagree with the geniuses that write Econ books for USD?
“Next, so RCP is generally pro-free market? Who isn’t? Economists generally agree that free markets are the best way to organize economic activity. Where have you been since Adam Smith, Mike? I’m fairly certain no one has come out with a better economic system, so please, enlighten us. And now you’re pulling the classic “rich people conspiracy” theory.”
Maybe the reason why the theory is classic is because its been going on so long. Read Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. With its own set of flaws, I think this is a more accurate picture of what is really going on in the world. But let’s look at what Milton Friedman says on this subject himself. In Capitalism and Freedom he said, “Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersal of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power, and in this way enables the one to offset the other.” Separates economic power from political power, huh? How? Ever heard of Pete Ricketts? Also a U of Chicago alum. Just an example of money trying to influence politics…He ran for Senate in 2006. According to his own spokesman, his net worth is between 45-50 million dollars. His daddy, Joe, was founder of Ameritrade. When was the last time we had a president not worth millions? To think that economic power doesn’t translate into political power in this country is naive at best…
If you understand supply and demand, you understand that there really is no such thing as price gouging. Seriously, Mike, do you honestly think that a gas station owner should keep his prices static even when demand increases drastically while supply decreases drastically? That is engaging in charity, and business should not be forced by the government to engage in charity. You’d be telling the business owners that their right to sell their goods at whatever price they choose is taken away, and that they must lose even more money than they are already losing, right?
I guess this is where we differ. Yes, I think the gas station owner should have kept his prices static. The short-term decrease in supply wasn’t indicative to long-term trends. And even if you argue that the ability for him to generate income was hampered by the loss of consumers to his business in the long-term (ie…no one was going to be in NO anymore), than we get into how many disadvantaged people would have benefited verse the number of gas station owners in NO who would have benefited. Just a guess, but I bet there are way more poor people who would have benefited from affordable gas than there are gas station owners who really needed their extra profit margins to flee NO. Someone in that equation could have lived without the increase in profits. He/She was profiteering off disaster, and I understand that to a capitalist, the idea that monetary gains might not be worth the social cost seems ridiculous, but that’s where I stand. There’s more to life than money, and there’s definitely more to life than making money at the expense of everyone else.
Also, if I had my way, there would have been no federal help for NOLA and the other regions. As you saw, and most likely summarily blamed on Bush, the government is disastrously inefficient in doing most anything. The first responders to the area in the aftermath of Katrina were private organizations. They do things quicker and more effectively than any bloated bureaucracy that you offer.
Well, maybe if the director of FEMA had more experience than running an equestrian society, they would have been able to respond a bit quicker. And as Bush appointed Mike Brown…seems like it’s his fault, yeah…
“Next, don’t put words in my mouth. You’re playing a game of spin and you’re going to lose.”
You pick that up from O’Rielly? Cut off my microphone too!!!
“Drilling in ANWR won’t do anything to prices.”
Interesting, b/c the syntax of your “joke” that appeared in the volante seemed to indicate that drilling in ANWR would alleviate high prices. Now you admit it wouldn’t. I don’t care how you try and weasel your way out of what you inferred. Regardless of what your “joke” really meant, I’m not sure what “I’d shoot a caribou myself if it meant $1 gas” could mean other than a poor attempt to insinuate that tapping ANWR would reduce prices.
What it will do is keep oil supplies steady, buying us time to create some miracle energy source. Also, “big bad terrorists?” I don’t even want to know the underpinnings of this comment.
Keep oil supplies steady, huh? Until another rebellion in Nigeria, or another car bomb in Baghdad sends the price speculators bonkers and gas prices go even higher. Oh, and the underpinnings of those comments are referring to the “otherization” that our “free market” society creates. Read a book that someone from the Econ department hasn’t required you to read. Try Giorgio Agamben or Michael Foucault…
Record profit margins for oil companies? You mean the same oil companies that are creating jobs and increasing the wages for those jobs by 8% from a year ago?
Not sure where the statistics come from, but I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Where does most of that 8% jump come from and go to? The minimum wage jump have anything to do with that? And are huge increases in CEO pay counted in those figures? But hey, you’ve convinced me. “Joke” I can’t wait till I get my oil refinery job at Hyperion. “Joke” (Thought I’d throw our universal symbol for sarcasm in there so you aren’t confused).
Also, if people want to stick it to oil companies, why don’t they buy stock? Then, they’ll receive part of the money from these record profit margins.
More proof you have no idea what its like to be poor. Poor people don’t have money to invest in the stock market. They have to buy bread for their children, and braces without health insurance (thanks free market). Also, take a look at this article from MSNBC that explains how Oil Companies drive up the price of stocks. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/)
Also do you realize how insanely expensive it is for oil companies to operate? These profits are run right back into the companies to fund things like R&D. In fact, the average profit margin for the S&P 500 is 8.5%, while the oil companies is 9.7%. What does this mean? This means that the profit margin is slightly higher than other industries’. According to an interesting article from CNN, just like the government shouldn’t rescue ignorant borrowers, Katrina victims, and Bear Stearns, the government shouldn’t punish successful businesses.
BTW….according to that MSNBC article, profits for oil companies in 2005 were 8.7%, so in 3 years they’ve jumped an additional 1% while prices have gone even higher for consumers…Between 2002-2005, that 8.5% really meant profits of $125 billion for the 10 ten oil companies. Yep, they’re feeling the squeeze too?!
“Finally, Mike, it behooves you to get your facts straight about Milton Friedman. In your rush to slander a Nobel Prize winning economist, you didn’t do your research. Good job cutting and pasting from a Wikipedia article– and only those sections that made Friedman look terrible. Of course, you didn’t add the whole story.You didn’t mention that Friedman was never an advisor to the Chilean government. You never mentioned that The Chicago Boys were the ones doing all the advising. They were Chilean nationals who were schooled at the U of Chicago. That’s not Milton Friedman.”
But he did teach at the University of Chicago, and the Chicago Boys followed his economic map. More to the point, his notion that a free market increases comparable amounts of political freedom didn’t come to fruition in Chile and is being challenged by countries like China today, where a liberalization of the economy has not translated into political liberalization as well. I commented above on Milton’s theories. I think he has a simplistic understanding of how the world works. His theory didn’t pan out and when liberal groups finally won in Chile, he tried to take credit for the works of movements that you solemnly mocked in your article that started this debate.
In sum, Mike, I criticized Earth day because it’s stupid. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s just a day for people to feel like they’ve made a difference. It’s a day on which they can brag to their friends about how much they care for the Earth. Puh-leeze.
This is really the point of this discussion. I feel bad that you don’t understand the importance of symbols. But I guess it’s not surprising. Anything not tied to the dollar is relegated as inconsequential by your lot. First and foremost, Earth Day raises awareness. Which is important considering the other side of the argument (I mean you) lies about environmental issues (ie ANWR decreases gas prices) in your attempt to belittle our movement(Earth Day article). Capitalists see everything by its value—“What’s most profitable for me.” I fundamentally disagree with the culture it promotes because if it is more profitable for someone to die than live, than there ya go, we know what competitive capitalism, or the free market, or w/e catchphrase you use would say. It reinforces class-base prejudices with overtones of racial antagonism (ie Katrina). When you look at life through the lenses of environmentalism, you see yourself as being part of a global community rather than competing in a culture where there are winners and losers. It’s all those “hippie” ideals you just can’t stand, and what I imagine prompted you to write your volante article on Earth Day in the first place. Environmentalism promotes empathy. Your ideas promote apathy. You tell me which is better.
Remember, the only thing you have to lose Matt is your chains…
Comment by Michael Ewald — May 5, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
For clarification…my response is point-counterpoint…
Comment by Michael Ewald — May 5, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Matt, I am curious to know your views on organaized religion and the holidays that are used to symbolize them
Comment by ESBaller — May 6, 2008 @ 1:57 pm