TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

I noted in a previous post that Rob Bradley, CEO of the Institute for Energy Research and lead blogger at MasterResource, has cheered on big coal and bashed what he calls “Malthusian anti-energy crusaders”,  but ignoring while he does so the questions of (1) whether there are any legitimate disputes as to the environmental impacts of coal production and consumption and (2) the role of government in contributing to or perpetuating these disputes.

In response, Rob says that his bona fides are not to be questioned.  I quote below the relevant portions of the comment thread (emphasis added):

TokyoTom { 02.05.09 at 2:50 am }

Rob, are the John Badens, Terry Andersons, Bruce Yandles, Elinor Ostroms and others who want to find ways to manage our commons better – by improving ownership, incentives and pricing signals – also part of a “Malthusian crusade”?

I just wanna make sure I know who to hate.

As for that big fly ash breach/spill in Tennessee, I’m glad that you didn’t point out how this was a result of government ownership of TVA, with the added benefit that costs will be borne not only by direct and indirect victims, but by taxpayers as well. No sense in pointing out how government is so often in the way, particularly if it detracts from our “we hate enviros!” message. Last thing we ever want to do is to reach a shared understanding with enviros of the institutional underpinnings of problems, since that means our funders might lose some of their fairly purchased, government-given special privileges.

rbradley { 02.05.09 at 9:46 pm }

TT:

I have several thousand pages in the public domain on free market theory and history applied to energy, including criticisms of political capitalism.

The ball is in your court to buy and read any of my six energy books–and to visit my website http://www.politicalcapitalism.org. Particularly focus on Enron on this website.

Capitalism at Work (2009) is the latest book that I invite you to read and review.

TokyoTom { 02.05.09 at 10:21 pm }

Rob, does this mean that you are a “free-marketer” in principle, but can’t be bothered to show it in your public policy discussions?

rbradley { 02.06.09 at 9:28 am }

TT:

It means that you have to do your homework. I take on opposing views as a matter of course in my books and essays–I hope you understand that I do not have time to regurgitate my arguments in a personal debate with you.

But if you are really a “libertarian,” you need to get more critical toward climate alarmism and the history of Malthusianism–and more realistic towards government failure versus market failure.

I am signing off with you but look foward to your review of Capitalism at Work–a multi-disciplinary treatise on heroic capitalism that as a libertarian you should study.

TokyoTom { 02.07.09 at 4:44 am }

Rob, Roy Cordato (linked at my name) said this:

“The starting point for all Austrian welfare economics is the goal seeking individual and the ability of actors to formulate and execute plans within the context of their goals. … [S]ocial welfare or efficiency problems arise because of interpersonal conflict. [C] that similarly cannot be resolved by the market process, gives rise to catallactic inefficiency by preventing useful information from being captured by prices.”

“Environmental problems are brought to light as striking at the heart of the efficiency problem as typically seen by Austrians, that is, they generate human conflict and disrupt inter- and intra-personal plan formulation and execution.”

“The focus of the Austrian approach to environmental economics is conflict resolution. The purpose of focusing on issues related to property rights is to describe the source of the conflict and to identify possible ways of resolving it.”

“If a pollution problem exists then its solution must be found in either a clearer definition of property rights to the relevant resources or in the stricter enforcement of rights that already exist. This has been the approach taken to environmental problems by nearly all Austrians who have addressed these kinds of issues (see Mises 1998; Rothbard 1982; Lewin 1982; Cordato 1997). This shifts the perspective on pollution from one of “market failure” where the free market is seen as failing to generate an efficient outcome, to legal failure where the market process is prevented from proceeding efficiently because the necessary institutional framework, clearly defined and enforced property rights, is not in place.”

Do you agree?

My focus in reviewing your comments and those of other posters is whether you are contributing in good faith to conflict RESOLUTION – conflict over readily understandable preferences – or to “winning” the struggle over government for the benefit of your clients.

I think that`s perfectly fair.

So far, I don`t see much of an effort at good faith engagement [with the enviros].

Here`s to hoping that you demonstrate here that you are a free-marketer, and not a rent-seeker.

Rob Bradley has a new post up at MasterResource, cheering on big (and now “clean”) coal, which has apparently received assurances from the Obama administration – after being bad-mouthed by NASA scientist Jim Hansen, Steven Chu and Obama himself – that, despite pressures from the “Malthusian anti-energy crusade” regarding climate change impacts, the recent massive TVA fly-ash spill and opposition to destructive mountaintop removal practices in Appalachia, coal will remain profitable during Obama’s term and central to US energy supplies.  Hooray!

But I wasn’t quite clear on all of Rob’s message, so I asked him a few questions in the comment thread:

Rob, are the John Badens, Terry Andersons, Bruce Yandles, Elinor Ostroms and others who want to find ways to manage our commons better – by improving ownership, incentives and pricing signals – also part of a[n evil] “Malthusian crusade”?

I just wanna make sure I know who to hate.

As for that big fly-ash breach/spill in Tennessee, I’m glad that you didn’t point out how this was a result of government ownership of TVA, with the added benefit that costs will be borne not only by direct and indirect victims, but by taxpayers as well. No sense in pointing out how government is so often in the way, particularly if it detracts from our “we hate enviros!” message. Last thing we ever want to do is to reach a shared understanding with enviros of the institutional underpinnings of problems, since that means our funders might lose some of their fairly purchased, government-given special privileges.

While it’s clear that “free-market” Rob cares little about whether the coal industry continues commercial activities that shift the environmental costs and risks (including potential costs arising from GHG emissions) to others, I forgot to ask Rob whether, as a hearty cheerleader for those poor coal underdogs, he also supports their position that the government should subsidize their change in business model by (a) having Uncle Sam pay the bulk of capital costs for IGCC (integrated gas combined cycle plant) [something like $1 billion for the first one with CCS], (b) giving them a further break (reduced royalties) on the sweet deals they already have for stripping coal from public lands and (c) – now that the federal government is getting into the busy of running the financial sector – making sure that power producers that want to use coal have easy access to credit, by twisting the arms of those uppity Wall Street financiers who with their fancy new “Carbon Principles” and “Enhanced Due Diligence” seem a bit too reluctant to extend credit for coal-fired power plants.

Here’s hoping Rob weighs in further.  I want to make sure I’m not messing up when I try to distinguish the “white hats” from the “black hats”.   From what I can tell so far, seeking to manipulate government policy for your own benefit is evil – as long as you’re not a coal firm, and we call the evil ones “Malthusians”.  Right?

US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who disappointed by bagging only Cheney‘s assistant Scooter Libby in connection with the White House planned unmasking of CIA agent Valerie Plame, is in the news again – this time to the cheers of Republicans – as he announced the federal government’s takedown of Illinois’ Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday for astonishingly blatant corruption in trying to trying to auction off the US Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama.

The brief criminal complaint and supporting 76-page FBI affidavit used by Fitzgerald’s office in arresting Blagojevich (and his top aide) – and effectively putting an end to Blagojevich’s Senate seat auction scheme and other abuses – are here.  Having been caught on tape, Blagojevich appears to be in the bag.

Fitzgerald has been involved in investigating corruption in Chicago for years – having helped to investigate and convict former Republican governor George Ryan for racketeering and fraud in 2006, and  indicting aides to Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley for mail fraud in 2005.  Further, the New York Times reports that “members of Mr. Blagojevich’s administration have been under investigation for more than a year. And this spring, the governor’s office was upended by the corruption trial of Antoin Rezko, a political fundraiser (with relatively remote connections to Obama), when witnesses said Mr. Blagojevich had participated in kickback schemes that led to Mr. Rezko’s conviction.” 

Given the level of scrutiny obviously being paid by the feds to Blagojevich’s office, Blagojevich deserves to be arrested not simply for corruption, but also for the blind, stupid greed and hubris involved with so blatantly shopping Obama’s Senate seat.

Reporting by the Chicago press is here. 

This reminds me of other good news regarding corrupt politicians is that nine-term Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of New Orleans has lost his seat to Vietnam-born Republican Anh “Joseph” Cao.  As an additional benefit, this is expected to make it more difficult for Democrats to shut off debate and force bills to a vote in the House of Representatives.

Timothy Egan, reporter, acclaimed book author and current columnist at the New York Times, posted an honest and understandably  confused piece last week, in which he called for a temporary end to the frenzy of Bush-era socializations and wealth-transfers – so at least Obama will have a chance to try sometihing REALLY helpful when he comes into office.

Here’s what I had to say to Tim in comments:

Tim, the right answer is the old answer – no bailouts. 

Let firms, towns and states with problems take care of them themselves.  Unless we are talking about a voluntary community effort, bailouts are just a way for politicians to look good while they move money from those who make money to those who lose it, and is a further drag on investment and economic growth.

So would be a “green” jobs plan by Obama – far better to level the playing filed by eliminating ALL energy subsidies than to have the corrupting and senseless distortions we get from the hand of government.  Perhaps a carbon tax at the production end could be justified, but only if the revenues were rebated to citizens pro rata to provide incentives while avoiding regressive pain [and pork].

The government’s efforts to “solve” the problems that it is even now encouraging by socializing risk show promise only of paralyzing personal responsibility and initiative, sucking up capital and recreating the Great Depression.

Good idea, Bruce, but do you really expect Obama to bite, and thereby drastically reduce his own discretion? 

Obama already has George W. Bush and Congress to blame for the war – what important advantage does he gain by claiming the AUMF was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the President?  We all know that Presidents of all political stripes have traditionally looked for ways in which they could unilaterally use military force abroad in order to “wag the dog” at home and there by gain domestic political advantages.  It seems a bit much to expect Obama to unilaterally cut off the tail that he now has considerable discretion to wag.

I tend to agree with Fein’s arguments that the system has gone wrong; I just don’t think we can realistically expect a President to unilaterally offer up a check on his own power.  But if Obama proves me wrong, I’ll certainly rejoice.

Is the Progressive Policy Institute signalling an Interest by Obama in making greater use of nuclear power? 

A November 7 press release, the PPI specifically urges in the headline that “Dealing with Nuclear Waste; America Must Emulate France’s Model of Reprocessing Waste into Usable Energy”.

The press release describes the latest in the PPI’s (PPI) Memos to the Next President series, “America’s Nuclear Waste and What to Do with It,” a study by Bill Magwood, Principal of Advanced Energy Strategies, and Mark Ribbing, PPI Director of Policy Development.  The study calls on the next president to “begin investing in options that can reduce and recycle nuclear waste, noting that benefits of nuclear energy are often outweighed by concerns over the waste produced”.

More by Glenn Greenwald.

Obama shows his true colors regarding his supposed desire for change, transparency and rule of law.  As likely future Spy-in-Chief, why would he be interested in anything that might limit his own power?

In the 70s, Nixon was impeached and forced to resign because of illegal domestic spying; this time, Congress provides retroactive immunity, without even having investigated how and why the law was broken.  Money talks; principles and the rule of law walks.

Those Senators who voted for the “new and improved” FISA:

All Republicans (those lovers of limited government!) and the following Democrats:

Bayh – Carper – Casey – Conrad – Feinstein – Inouye – Kohl – Landrieu – Lieberman – Lincoln – McCaskill – Mukulski – Nelson (Neb.) – Nelson (Fla.) – Obama – Pryor – Rockefeller – Salazar – Webb – Whitehouse.

The following Dems OPPOSED the amendments:

Akaka – Biden – Bingaman – Boxer – Brown – Byrd – Cantwell – Cardin – Clinton – Dodd – Dorgan – Durbin – Feingold – Harkin – Kerry – Klobachur – Lautenberg – Leahy – Levin – Menendez – Murray – Reed – Reid – Sanders – Schumer – Stabenow – Tester – Wyden

It’s no wonder that our Congresscritters are even less respected than Bush, at levels lower than ever recorded for any institution over the past 30 years.

[I ran this originally as a “page” rather than as a “post”, when I had simply put up Zappa`s lyrics.  Since “posts” might be more visible to visitors I`ve decided to post this as well.]

I ran across some interesting and topical Frank Zappa lyrics the other day, so I`m putting them up here.

Does these resonate with anyone else?  I have noted a few thoughts further below.

I’m The Slime

I am gross and perverted
I’m obsessed ‘n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I’m the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can’t look away
I make you think I’m delicious
With the stuff that I say
I’m the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I’m the slime oozin’ out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don’t need you
Don’t go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That’s right, folks . . .
Don’t touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin’ along on your livin’ room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can’t stop the slime, people, lookit me go

I am the slime from your video
Oozin’ along on your livin’ room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can’t stop the slime, people, lookit me go.

Zappa speaks of the mass media, but one could easily say the same about
the political discourse coming not only from the MSM, but also from the
Bush administration and from each of the political parties, as well as
what we hear from various rent-seekers. They don`t discuss their own
agendas, but give us pap and slime.  This is what Glenn Greenwald is has been shining a spotlight on for some time, and now examines in the context of the recent Clinton – Obama debate, and discusses in his new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics.

Manipulation by pushing and pulling on the strings of human nature
is the name of the game of those who wish to exploit us.   Preying on
our patriotism (as I noted in Goering and Madison on War) and feeding partisanship – which powerfully influences our perceptions, as I noted in a recent post, Nick Kristof on politics: why we conclude that I’m right, and you’re evil – has been a hallmark of the right, and particularly of the Bush administration
(viz., fear of “Islamofascists”, of gays, of baby-killers, of
“enviros”, of immigrants, of atheists, and of “America-haters”).

Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan asserts that the Clinton campaign is morphing into the Rovian right. 

Query:  Is Obama selling slime?

[P.S.  No, I am NOT self-identifying as a rent-seeker; and slime is not my game.]

I ran across some interesting and topical Frank Zappa lyrics the other day, so I`m putting them up here.

Does these resonate with anyone else?  I have noted a few thoughts further below.

I’m The Slime

I am gross and perverted
I’m obsessed ‘n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I’m the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can’t look away
I make you think I’m delicious
With the stuff that I say
I’m the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I’m the slime oozin’ out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don’t need you
Don’t go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That’s right, folks . . .
Don’t touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin’ along on your livin’ room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can’t stop the slime, people, lookit me go

I am the slime from your video
Oozin’ along on your livin’ room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can’t stop the slime, people, lookit me go.

Zappa speaks of the mass media, but one could easily say the same about
the political discourse coming not only from the MSM, but also from the
Bush administration and from each of the political parties, as well as
what we hear from various rent-seekers. They don`t discuss their own
agendas, but give us pap and slime.  This is what Glenn Greenwald is has been shining a spotlight on for some time, and now examines in the context of the recent Clinton – Obama debate, and discusses in his new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics.

Manipulation by pushing and pulling on the strings of human nature is the name of the game of those who wish to exploit us.   Preying on our patriotism (as I noted in Goering and Madison on War) and feeding partisanship – which powerfully influences our perceptions, as I noted in a recent post, Nick Kristof on politics: why we conclude that I’m right, and you’re evil – has been a hallmark of the right, and particularly of the Bush administration (viz., fear of “Islamofascists”, of gays, of baby-killers, of “enviros”, of immigrants, of atheists, and of “America-haters”).

Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan asserts that the Clinton campaign is morphing into the Rovian right. 

Query:  Is Obama selling slime?