Washington Post declares "mission accomplished" on lowering consumption (of its newspapers)

[Sava]

See... when you create a monolithic boogeyman like "The Left"... that's when you should know you've ****ed up. Because that's just stupid. Nobody has to prove you wrong. You start from a position of wrongness. It's up to you to make a damn bit of sense... and you don't.

[Zevico]

See... when you create a monolithic boogeyman like "The Left"

Glass houses, stones:

conservatwits

Physician, heal thyself.

But more broadly you make the mistake of believing that my decision not to say "I understand that not every Leftist believes consumption is bad" is equivalent to me suggesting that such Leftists do not exist. Whether they exist or not is not my concern. I make no suggestion that they do not. People have ranged opinions on many subjects.

But the fact of the matter is that the American Left has appointed a man of the Left to run for President and elected him. And that man of the Left happens to think consumption is bad. He's not alone in that belief. He's part of a broader philosophical movement that really believes we are consuming too much. That's a common strain of Leftist ideology.

Less consumption of goods and services means more poverty. It's that simple.

Fewer people are buying the Washington Post. The Washington Post is going broke. Is that a triumph for the "Americans should consume less" movement, Sava?

[Dauphin]

I'm confused. Zevico seems to be making a lot of sense. Not total sense, some of the stuff he's saying is still crazy, but enough to make me wonder why I find myself agreeing with many of his points and not the rebuttals/counterpoints others are making.

[Dauphin]

One thing that appears to be missing is a discussion of externalities and catastrophic market failures where consuming "too much" wasn't or wouldn't be counteracted by market forces. For example CFCs, overfishing/hunting to extinction, dustbowls etc.

[SlowwHand]

Now think of the doors that may open. What if he's been correct in other positions? Staggering in it's implications, isn't it?

[Dauphin]

I've seen BK be right before.

And I qualify, I just think the counterarguments have been terrible.

[Zevico]

One thing that appears to be missing is a discussion of externalities and catastrophic market failures where consuming "too much" wasn't or wouldn't be counteracted by market forces.
For example CFCs, overfishing/hunting to extinction, dustbowls etc.

I do not dispute the possibility of externalities. War is a pretty obvious externality that justifies the diversion of human capital and resources into the production of war materials. The importance of winning a war and averting societal destruction can justify rationing, as indeed it did in the second World War. But the existence of the externality in question is an empirical one and whether action is justified is equally an empirical question of benefits and costs.

Often it turns out that people just aren't interested in that kind of empirical analysis. For example, whatever happened to Peak Oil--the belief that oil would run out someday soon so we have to stop using it? Well, we found more oil. There was never any shortage, it was just a question of prices rising high enough to justify drilling in more expensive ways.

Whatever happened to the Global Cooling scare in the 70's? Global Warming, I suppose? We had global warming in the 80's and 90's to disprove the global cooling scaremongers and now we haven't had any global warming for almost two decades, disproving the global warming scaremongers. Often the same people have advocated for restrictions on pollution to avert global cooling and global warming.

I have read much the same arguments concerning CFCs, though I haven't read enough material on that subject to make an informed judgement.

"Environmentalists" have gone to town telling people to consume less to avert all kinds of "dangers." There is a large number of people who really think less consumption will somehow "save the environment." If the facts get in the way of that belief, then let the facts be damned. Be sceptical and don't buy everything environmentalist activists tell you. If they weren't telling you to be afraid of something, they be out of a job.

[Aeson]

And I qualify, I just think the counterarguments have been terrible.

Feel free to argue against any of them specifically. Or just run away ...

[Dauphin]

I'm not arguing either way. I just don't buy your (well kentonio more, yours are not unreasonable) points.

[Aeson]

I do not dispute the possibility of externalities. War is a pretty obvious externality that justifies the diversion of human capital and resources into the production of war materials. The importance of winning a war and averting societal destruction can justify rationing, as indeed it did in the second World War. But the existence of the externality in question is an empirical one and whether action is justified is equally an empirical question of benefits and costs.

Most of the time we're faced with making decisions where the cost:benefit are cloudy at best. (Even a lot of wars.) Sometimes the obvious results that were predicted (to the best of our ability) just don't come about. Often there are other factors that were unknown at the time. Certainly results of options not taken are far less knowable than judging the results of options that were taken.

That lack of omniscience doesn't mean we still shouldn't act to limit harm and effect positive outcomes to the best of our ability.

There is a large number of people who really think less consumption will somehow "save the environment."

It is blatantly obvious that less consumption will cause less environmental impact. If by "save the environment", people mean something like "keep it like it is" (and this is generally how it's used), then reducing consumption is actually going to "save the environment" far better than consuming more in that respect.

There may or may not be other unconsidered (and unquantifiable) effects of consuming less. Perhaps by consuming less people slow technological advancement, and thus get to advances that would allow us to cause less harm to the environment in various ways. It's equally possible that by limiting consumption, advancement will focus on those things faster as they are more necessary. Those questions are unanswerable, and even in hindsight we can only hope to be able to accurately quantify the option we actually went with.

[Aeson]

I'm not arguing either way. I just don't buy your (well kentonio more, yours are not unreasonable) points.

You don't buy that immigration restrictions cause distortions in wages?

[Aeson]

Also, I like how you've run away from your "terrible" label to "not unreasonable". You could be a politician

[Dauphin]

kentonio's points are terrible.

[Dauphin]

You don't buy that immigration restrictions cause distortions in wages?

I think you'd make a great ventriloquist.

[Aeson]

kentonio's points are terrible.

It's good you are learning how to properly qualify your statements. I'm a wonderful teacher