August 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

From today’s WSJ:

Having determined that nearly every feature of modern human existence is bad for the environment — driving, eating meat, turning on the lights, having children, exhaling — the greens have followed the argument to its logical limit. The problem is human existence.

That, at least, is the message of this summer’s surprise eco-hit, “The World Without Us.” Science writer Alan Weisman explores how nature would respond if Homo sapiens abruptly went extinct. Though the book continues to climb the bestseller lists, it isn’t exactly beach reading.

Cities and towns in a few decades would be reclaimed by wilderness. Our dogs will be killed off quickly by natural predators, but without pesticides the new world will be good for mosquitoes. For the most part, Mr. Weisman intends to show the enduring harm of, well, us. In a world voided of human activity, he estimates it will take 100,000 years, or more, for atmospheric CO2 to revert to pre-industrial levels. Plastic will be our Ozmandias, the last artifact of civilization. And so forth.

It’s not hard to see the appeal of such a macabre thought experiment for the most uncompromising environmentalists, who often seem to favor “the earth” over people. But what draws normal book buyers? Curiosity, no doubt. Perhaps, also, it’s the seam of apocalyptic pessimism that runs through a lot of environmental advocacy, from Malthus to Gore. Besides, if one is wrestling with apocalypse, there isn’t much point in considering actual costs or policy consequences — which in “Without Us” would appear rather extreme.

Unto dust we’ll return, of course, and the planet indeed will go on without us. Even so, if we’re intent on reducing our “ecological footprint,” it would be nice to envision a world where there are still [human] footprints.

Also, you can read about how the rich are paying more than their fair share in taxes here.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

I’d tend to concur with Becker (posted earlier today), but Kudlow has this view on cutting the Fed Funds rate.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

So you don’t drive a hybrid, you don’t even recycle. If you’re poor or middle class, you can expect a call from Al Gore. Otherwise, all can be forgiven.

Some affluent folks, such as Mr. Gore, tell us that we must protect the environment by doing our part. It turns out that these very people are the ones most likely to pollute the most (they can afford the lux goods such as private aircraft and yachts). For example, Mr. Gore, it was determined, pollutes more than 13 times the average Tennessean. But he’s wealthy, so all is forgiven. He just buys carbon “offsets,” much like a Catholic indulgence (so you’ve sinned, all can be forgiven…at the right price).

Do these “offsets” provide a net benefit to the environment? I would guess no, but I have no specific data. I suspect they are much more like the classic indulgence–provide a guilt-free way to pollute, a back door to sin, if you will. Maybe, one day, if we’re lucky, we will have “offsets” for murder, that way famous, wealthy individuals like the ”Juice” would not have to be inconvenienced by a pesky trail.

Click here to read what the liberal Robert Frank thinks in todays WSJ.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

From Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution:

Growing up, I regarded Pennsylvania as the most typical and most American part of the country; I loved it.  I loved the mid-sized towns with old industrial and domestic architecture, I loved the museums of Philadelphia, and I loved the bridges of Pittsburgh.  Of course this was before America moved South and I gave the honor of most American place to Knoxville, Tennessee. 

Thanks, I guess–my hometown.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Gary Becker writes:

…

I have been a strong opponent of bailouts of individual companies since I do not believe in the “too big to fail” justification when applied even to large manufacturers, financial intermediaries, or service companies. In particular, I was against the Fed’s putting pressure on private investors to bail out Long Term Capital during the financial crisis of the late 1990’s. It would be a further mistake for the Fed or other Central banks to come to the assistance of hedge funds or other lenders that may be in financial difficulties because they excessively invested in assets of dubious value. They should bear the consequences of their mistakes. In particular, no assistance should be given to home lenders or others who might go bankrupt because it made an excessive number of highly risky mortgage loans to borrowers with dubious credit.

He concludes:

I conclude that central banks should be especially vigilant for signs that the damage is spreading to fundamental economy indicators, but should refrain from any special actions until that time. Otherwise, central bank policy would get confused between rules that depend on broad developments in the economy, and discretion that is affected by development in the housing market, the market for credit, or other specific markets.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

August 24, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Interested in Web technologies and developments? Read this current article in Business 2.0. If you’re not familiar with Facebook, it may be hard to follow.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »