"As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
*Albeit in the highly highly unlikely scenario that foreigners refuse to burn fossil fuels, keeping the welfare of the whole world in mind.
This is pretty creepy stuff krugman has been writing lately. I'm not sure he actually undertands the nature of government intervention.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Those who have made it their ultimate goal in life to save the world from bad weather could, after sufficient time in office, have crippled the economic power of their fiefdoms to an extent that less religious countries, such as Russia or China, would simply not care anymore about their petty "carbon trade wars". This environmentalism thing has gotten way out of hand. On Wednesday, LewRockwell hosted a pretty scary article that outlines how determined humans can be in destroying their means of existence. Can you imagine our Dear Leaders stirring up the "greenished" masses to smash anything that prevents the advent of cool climate? With Krugman openly advocating trade wars, I'm not sure how far away that still is.
Smoot-Hawley, anyone?
What a bunch of alarmist non-sense.
And this comes from a man who won the Nobel Prize due to his superior wisdom on international trade.
Paul Krugman's article is suicidal. He warns the Chinese about trade sanctions, so lets talk about trade sanctions. Any sanction can bring our exporting industry closer to the final straw, meaning that potential trade war can only confirm our elites that this export-led economy HAS TO BE CHANGED to a more self sufficient form. If we Chinese changed the structure by abandoning the overdependence on exports, then our huge reserves of Treasury Bills would become worthless, meaning that our central bank would sell them up, therefore destroying one of the vital pillars of the Dollar based international monetary system.
God help us if "Chimerica" finally ends up becoming a chimera, ruining the current international monetary system shuttering the era of deglobalization on the New World Order.
Nevertheless, I should appreciate that American-centric Neo-Keynesian for being so suicidal, because then after the collapse of the dollar we can FINALLY talk about the alternatives for the international monetary system, making the Classical Gold Standard more possible than ever.
"History needs a big push", to quote Lenin. THANK YOU Krugman for pushing history
Disregarding the fact that governments ignore property rights by allowing polluters to pollute others' property, what evidence is there to conclude that:1) "Global warming" is occuring.2) "Global climate change" is somehow different than spring, summer, fall, winter.3) That either "global warming" or "global climate change" is caused by human action.4) That neither "global warming" nor "global climate change" is not caused by the sun.5) That proposed means of combating "global warming" or "global climate change", such as government intervention, will kill less people than letting the market solve the problem.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Erickk:"Chimerica"
Ferguson really annoyed me when he constantly repeated that phrase in The Ascent of Money
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
What irks me the most is when the media claims that there is concensus in the scientific community about global warming, and there obviously is not.
If no one said it before, now is a good time to realise Krugman is not an economist, but a political hack. A protectionist is not an economist.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Why else do I call him the Court Jester?
Since when has Krugman ever understood the nature of government intervention?
Jon Irenicus:If no one said it before, now is a good time to realise Krugman is not an economist, but a political hack
Yes, he is. An economist is not merely one who agrees with you.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Ah, the wonderful strawman. Now Giles, you know better. It's clear from Krugman's writings that he simply wants the accolades of power. He's no more an economist than, say, Grima Wormtongue was a trusted assistant.
Giles, I made this avatar for you.
No, he isn't. He is a hack for the political establishment. Or maybe he is an economist in the way that ID is scientific theory...
So I'm curious...
Mankiw, Stiglitz, Keynes, Friedman Sr, Friedman Jr, Coase, Carson, Buchanan, Solow, Samuelson, Hicks, Caplan, Cowen, Ricardo, Mill, Tullock, Phelps, Alchian, Demsetz, Arrow. Out of these which do you guys give your blessings to as economists?
And why are those that you do any different to Krugman. See, I can safely say I think they're all economists, because I admit Krugman is, he's just wrong. On the other hand you're going to have to say why some are economists and others aren't, without looking like a hypocrite because you're being partisan.
Don't be like that, Giles. Don't try to keep your strawman going when it's been pointed out. Let it go.
Now, now, don't evade the question. Answer it.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton: So I'm curious... Mankiw, Stiglitz, Keynes, Friedman Sr, Friedman Jr, Coase, Carson, Buchanan, Solow, Samuelson, Hicks, Caplan, Cowen, Ricardo, Mill, Tullock, Phelps, Alchian, Demsetz, Arrow. Out of these which do you guys give your blessings to as economists?
Please do not forget Brad DeLong.
No, but he's an economist nonetheless.
GilesStratton:Now, now, don't evade the question. Answer it.
I saw a great lecture by Bill Nye a couple months ago about climate change. It was very interesting and persuasive. He insisted that instead of 'cutting back' to solve the climate change, we need to redouble our efforts on production. It was a lecture at my University, and he was urging everyone to 'change the world' and discover the next big research advancement which would revolutionize technology.
I got the distinct feeling that he was not so much a believer that humans were the main cause of climate change. I think his approach is an amazingly intelligent one though. Instead of disputing their conspiracy theories, let them believe them, but change their ultimate aim. I think he made a pretty damn good impact, saying that a packed hall of probably close to 4000 college students gave him a standing ovation.
I think if we can all take a peice away from what he was trying to do, we might be able to turn this whole green thing around.
Hey Giles, I was teasing you with the avatar, but it did take me 10 minutes to make, so if you aren't going to wear it, I might.
So I'm curious... Mankiw, Stiglitz, Keynes, Friedman Sr, Friedman Jr, Coase, Carson, Buchanan, Solow, Samuelson, Hicks, Caplan, Cowen, Ricardo, Mill, Tullock, Phelps, Alchian, Demsetz, Arrow. Out of these which do you guys give your blessings to as economists? And why are those that you do any different to Krugman. See, I can safely say I think they're all economists, because I admit Krugman is, he's just wrong. On the other hand you're going to have to say why some are economists and others aren't, without looking like a hypocrite because you're being partisan.
Except Krugman unlike them is not merely in error. He knows the correct economic theory regarding trade yet goes on to openly support protectionist measures. And I would say some of them are not in certain capacities acting as economists, e.g. Friedman with his dogmatic stance on money even after seeing his "empirically" based theory collapse. To the extent that any modern economist accepts nonsense contrary to praxeological theorems, i.e. those which even neoclassical theory is built on even if by way of different justifications, they are no longer acting as an economist. Krugman is simply so terrible I don't think he even deserves the name at all. He certainly should not be advocating this theory in his capacity as an economist. As a partisan hack it is fine though. He cannot even get the ABCT right...
If you don't understand the concept of "Seen and Unseen" by Bastiat and elaborated in "The Lesson" by Hazlitt... I'm hard pressed to consider you an economist. The more the said person fcks it up, the greater the struggle to justify their use of the title.
"From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
Keynes = monemental screw up. "Animal spirits" isn't worthy. Witch doctor is a better description of him. He is not an economist.