California global warming law may lead to job losses, report says

May lead to job losses? Look, you don't have to be an economist to understand that channeling money from efficient to inefficient uses is going to have negative consequences:

"The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst's office examined 2008 economic modeling by the California Air Resources Board and concluded that it "may overstate the number of jobs" attributable to future implementation of the 2006 climate law..."

Anyone can make a predictive model say anything they want by changing the underlying assumptions to produce the desired result. But the real purpose of these predictions by the so-called smart people is to convince us to suspend common sense.

"The report came in response to a query from Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), a critic of the law. Released by Cogdill on Monday, the report emphasized that job effects are "difficult to accurately predict . . . with gains in some occupations (including so-called green jobs) and losses in others (primarily involving fossil fuel-related energy production)."

Gee, no kidding. If we were to dictate that all farmers stop using tractors and go back to horse drawn plows, there would certainly be an increase in jobs for blacksmiths and plow makers, along with a decrease in energy usage. But farming will now be less efficient and productive as it will take more time and money to grow the same amount of produce. That has the net effect of killing jobs as capital that would have been used by the farmer to save, invest and spend in the larger economy is now being wasted on an inefficient technology.

The same holds true for alternative energy. Wind and solar are grossly inefficient as compared to fossil fuels, and the free market would never use them without a combination of government force and taxpayer funded subsidies. The only real increase in jobs is for the non productive bureaucrats that will now be needed to administer these stupid schemes.

"Asked about the legislative analyst report, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cited new solar facilities and biofuel plants in the state and said, "I'm absolutely convinced that AB 32 will create more jobs than kill jobs."

I'm sure you are, Arnold. That's why you should have stuck to acting.

Three Big Firms Pull Out of Climate Partnership

The collapse of the biggest fraud in human history continues:

WASHINGTON—Three large corporations are quitting the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad group of businesses and environmental organizations that has been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips along with Caterpillar, Inc., the Peoria, Ill., heavy-equipment maker, have decided against renewing their membership in the organization, according to a statement released by the group Tuesday.

Red Cavaney, ConocoPhillips senior vice president for government affairs, said USCAP was focused on getting a climate-change bill passed, whereas Conoco is increasingly concerned with what the details of such a bill would be.

"USCAP was starting to do more and more on trying to get a bill out without trying to work as much on the substance of it," Mr. Cavaney said.

These companies are now seeing their extortionist's power withering away. USCAP is an odd consortium of large industrial corporations
and parasitical environmental groups bent on their destruction e.g. Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy and The World Resources Institute.


In other words, USCAP is a protection racket that companies are forced to join in order to avoid nuisance litigation, bad publicity from a compliant media or the wrath of the Eco-Marxists statist patrons in government through regulation and legislation.

Bargain-Hunters Descend, Cash in Hand

Capitalism is starting to self correct the housing market as it will always do in every market if left alone. But the left would rather confiscate taxpayer money to institute feeble, inefficient and reckless interference in the process. Wealth is created by individuals empowered with economic freedom. Government creates wealth and power only for itself.

** "Falling home prices are spurring an increase in all-cash home sales in markets that have been hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, an indication that bargain hunters have descended on the markets looking for deals.

Homes financed with cash comprised one-third of sales in Phoenix last month, up from 19% one year ago, according to a report by Raymond James & Associates Inc. In Sacramento, Calif., all-cash sales accounted for 24% of total home sales last month, up from 8% in January 2008 and 3% in January 2007, according to the Sacramento Association of Realtors. Sacramento and Phoenix have each ...

Recovering Without Washington

Did you know we had a major recession in 1920? Did you also know that the Government did virtually nothing in response and that we recovered quickly and stronger than ever? Amity

Shlaes reminds us in this column that markets are usually best left to sort themselves out. Her widely acclaimed book, The Forgotten Man also describes in great detail how government meddling actually prolonged the Great Depression by several years.

"In 1919, as in 2007, the country was on a roll. Unemployment was 1.4
percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 119, almost double what it had
been in 1917. The young Fed and the Treasury had been inflating the money supply
in order to pay off World War I debt.
Then the Fed began raising the
discount rate. Also, gold was leaving the U.S., another contractionary
force...

The recession was sharp. Unemployment moved up to 5.2 percent in 1920
and 11 percent in 1921. The Dow lost almost half its value. Political anxiety
was part of the story. A wave of strikes was hitting the country...

Washington, for its part, didn't do much bailing. Nor did it attack Wall
Street, as Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and, for
that matter, Republican presidential candidate John McCain, are
doing...

Recovery arrived as suddenly as recession had. By 1923,
unemployment was down again, to 2.4 percent. The Dow climbed back, although
taking longer to do so. The economy spent the rest of the decade growing in
exemplary fashion. "

Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

It's a given that when you have dug yourself into a hole, you should stop digging. The credit crisis was caused by government meddling in free markets for political purposes. The ensuing debacle now has that same government asking us to trust them to fix it.

Jeffrey A. Miron of Harvard University is calling for allowing the markets to work as they were meant to and getting rid of the perverse government inducements that created these disastrous distortions in the first place:

"This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared...

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company."

More Dangerous "Price Gouging" Superstitions

When economic ignorance collides with an antipathy towards free markets, you get stupid editorials like this:

"Those who prey on people during a tragedy represent a particularly loathsome
sort of subhuman. Consumed with profit, price gougers charge unconscionable
prices during a calamity and make a bad situation worse...Genuine price gouging
is rare in a civilized society, but when it does occur, Virginia must not ignore
it, no matter where it originates."

What the paper is calling for is an expansion of Virginia's "price gouging" authority that would allow them to go after wholesalers in other states. Genius. Now they want to export shortages and market distortions outside of their borders.

The Roanoke Times uses the typical language of economic simpletons as they assign insulting terms like "subhuman" to those who are in fact, doing the right thing by imposing discipline on the marketplace.

If supplies of any commodity are disrupted, then that means there's not enough to supply everyone with what they want. There has to be rationing by the market in order to make sure people get what they need unless you want government hacks to impose it by force. Increased prices do just that.

When prices rise during an emergency, people are more prudent in how much they consume and buy just what they need rather than hoard products in anticipation of the inevitable shortages price gouging laws produce.

If gas is allowed to rise from say, $4.00 a gallon to $8.00 in an emergency, then rather than top off the tanks of two cars, consumers will fill just one. And they wont feel the need to hoard since the higher price reduces demand and the supply available increases.

Additionally, suppliers now have an incentive to bring more gas to the marketplace despite the hardships and increased costs of the emergency. If the price they're allowed to charge is kept artificially low then it's more beneficial to them to just store the gas and sell it after the emergency subsides.

If I owned a gas station and a hurricane was coming, why would I want to bother sticking around to sell gas at current prices when I could just shut down and take care of my own property and family? Or should I just sacrifice my own well-being and property to a government induced frenzy of irrational behavior?

This is simply about the Laws of Supply and Demand that all too many like to believe doesn't or shouldn't exist when it causes pain or inconvenience. Or they think the Laws should only apply to things people don't need. That's like saying the Laws of Gravity shouldn't apply when people fall out of windows.

In both cases it reflects irresponsible and immature thinking. And now we have fools in Virginia who want to impose their idiocy on the rest of us.

Bailout Fails. Pelosi Helps Sink It

The bailout failed. Good. Now maybe we can get a bill that gets the government that caused this the hell out of the way.

The ever incompetent Nancy Pelosi probably killed the bill with her stupid and laughably false remarks prior to the vote:

"Opponents said part of the reason for the opposition from Republicans was what they termed a partisan speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said one GOP source.
"Pelosi's partisan speech has caused our members to go berserk and may cost us any remaining chance to pass the bill," the source said.
Pelosi had said that Congress needed to pass the bill, even though it was an outgrowth of the "failed economic policies" of the last eight years."

Brilliant. This idiot couldn't even corral enough Democrats to pass a bill that didn't need ONE Republican vote to pass as ninety-four members of her party voted against it.

UPDATE: Video added of Pelosi's speech

How the hell does she walk with those big Brass Balls clanging around? It was unbridled capitalism? No, it was regulations that forced lenders to make crappy loans to begin with. It "snuck up on us"? What rock have you been living under?
Hell, I was talking about this potential problem to my students as far back as 2003. Are you saying I have better information than you do? OK. Bad example since it seems no useful information enters Nancy's brick thick head.

Leftist Tries and Fails to Slander Libertarianism

Socialists are generally full of crap and woefully misinformed. But this nutty piece in the Chattanoogan really takes the cake, although the depth of his economic ignorance is pretty common on the Left. Not surprisingly, his education and livelihood (and that of his wife) has been almost entirely funded by the taxpaying, philanthropist, capitalist pigs he ignorantly derides. Although Meyer's rambling invective succeeds in only making a fool of himself.

"Libertarianism, a fairly new movement in the United States, is propounded
by politicians, business people and pundits. They say it is the only way America
can regain its pre-eminence in the world. But it is really just
another name for egotism, narcissism, and sociopathic behavior.

It is not a new way of thinking, but is based in erroneous
aristocratic assumptions regarding wealth, power and position that are still
held by many. They believe they are smarter, better, and therefore, more
deserving than the rest of us."

Egotism, Narcissism and Sociopathic behavior? Wow! Calm down there junior! Actually, Libertarianism is about egoism or the pursuit of rational self interest that is the natural state of all human beings. It is also the reason our economy is the largest in the world and the reason countries like China and India have successfully loosened their grip on the natural tendencies of their people. Meyer must believe that it's not fair that so many others are smarter and better than him, so he deserves their money and property.

"Many high achievers (and those who believe they should be, but…) act as if they
are aristocrats. They deserve to be treated in a special way, socially, in
business and legally Other people believe they are to be treated
aristocratically because of their birth into the right family, education in the
right schools and position in the right society. They think they should not have
to pay a fair share of taxes, have laws limit their actions, or be critiqued for
their lifestyles."

No, they want to be treated the way they deserve based on what they are willing to pay for. And if they want to spend the money and associations they earned in a way that benefits their children, then why is that any of Meyer's damn business? And we libertarians want government out of every one's life action's and lifestyle, not just our own. Just because Meyer's is a good little socialist drone, it doesn't mean the rest of us want to be, no matter how much his misery loves company.

Meyers also makes himself feel better by thinking that most successful people were born with silver spoons in their mouths, when in fact the large majority got there themselves from the lower and middle classes through voluntary trade with their fellow man.

On taxes, maybe Meyers can be the first liberal to answer this question honestly: If the top 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes and the bottom 50% pay 4%, how much more taxes "on the rich" (whatever that is) does he think is fair?

"Instead, they deserve to have several Mc'Mansions and condos and to buy up huge tracts of
land for their own use, posting it to prevent others from enjoying it. And, of
course, they imply, "Don't question us about paying for what we have. After all,
we've got money, even if we also have huge debts." '

That's called private property and it's part of what was meant when the founders said that you have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Look at the poorest countries in the world. What they all have in common is that they lack recognized and legally protected property rights. Without them, individuals can't leverage anything into wealth building economic activity.

Meyers also whines that he and others can't use others private property, which iIwill take to mean that he holds the Marxist belief everyone should own it. Which means no one will and no one will be able to benefit from it unless unless statist dictators like Meyer say they can, for a price. Meyers must believe those Mc'Mansions get built for free and all the labor, materials along with taxes just drop from the sky and no one other than the evil Libertarian receives anything of value. Rational thinking sure can get clouded by raging envy.

"The money they made is frequently not due to inventiveness or even hard
work. Instead it is made by cooking books, cutting corners, ignoring laws, and
making false (or at a minimum very questionable) statements in documents,
contracts and advertisements. They also prey on people's weaknesses, pride and
greed, but mainly on their ignorance."

OK. Now that's funny. I guess Mr. Meyer thinks that all the lights, cars, computers, clothes, beer, medications etc.,etc. that he can buy also appear by magic, weren't invented or were just the result of cooking the books or cutting corners. And of course he condescends to the average person by suggesting that they are too dumb or gullible to make their own economic decisions without meddling by anointed one's like Meyer.

What this fool fails to realize is that no economy can flourish as ours has if it were based on dishonesty. Fraudulent dealing produces nothing of value and reduces overall wealth. This is typical marxist rhetoric. A bunch of emotional pablum with no regard for facts. And fraud and theft is also illegal and should be. If Meyer has specific evidence, he should call the police.

Finally, Meyers adds the cherry to this stupidity Sundae with this:

"In the last century, the communist governments in the USSR and
China as well as Nazism were built on this same line of thinking. "Trust us,
we've got all the answers." In totalitarian societies, the elite reserve the
best for themselves and give the masses only enough to keep them from rioting.
Do we want that kind of life in America?"

How can one compare Libertarianism to those philosophies when what we want is less government for everyone, not just ourselves. It is too much government that led to the slaughter of over 100 million people in the twentieth century alone. Meyer is the one who wants to replace individual freedom with the force of government and is being unintentionally and laughably ironic. Not to mention downright incoherent.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages." - Adam Smith

WAPO's "business reporter" wants less business

Having StevenPearlstein as your business reporter is like hiring a Red Sox fan to cover the Yankees. And an ill informed one at that. Pearlstein has already called for the collapse of Wall Street and now he calls for the death of capitalism with his usual economic illiteracy. He blames too little regulation for the ills of health care, energy, housing etc.; ignorant of the fact that most of those problems can be traced directly to market distorting tax and regulatory policy, along with constant meddling in markets for purely political considerations regardless of the harmful results. Pearlstein supports more of the same "solutions" that caused the problems in the first place and apparently wants our economy and culture to slow down to the speed of lumbering Europe.