Politicians Tell Big Oil How to Make Billions
I explain here. Kids: There is a glaring inconsistency in my article; can you spot it? (I didn't realize it obviously until after I sent it in.)
Libertarians, My Libertarians!
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
No, I can't. What is it?
ReplyDeleteWow...when I think I made such a boneheaded mistake that even the TownHall people might pounce, Silas can't find it.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet when I think I haven't made a mistake, Silas thinks I'm a moron.
Intriguing.
Anyway, for this article it was the law of demand. I ridicule the Democrats for not realizing that "putting more product on the market will lower the price" (or something) early on, and then later I don't even give a nod to the fact that an extra 4.8m bbls/day will lower the price from $140.
Nah, I'm with Silas. You get a pass on this one.
ReplyDeleteI vote pass.
ReplyDeleteCondemn, condemn!
ReplyDeleteYou guys are too easy. If I'm going to go toe to toe with Carville, I need tougher love.
ReplyDelete(Thanks Gene. I knew you cared.)
ReplyDeleteThe times I've pounced, Bob, you've made mistakes. Bigtime. Restrictions on CO2 emissions don't reflect scarcity even when you accept that the emissions cause millions to be displaced? Even you can't say that with a straight face.
ReplyDeleteEven you can't say that with a straight face.
ReplyDeleteWhat is this "even you" stuff? Because I am the master of spouting BS?
Silas, I'm not going to have this argument again with you. On 3 different blogs, as well as private email, I thought I made my position clear. How about you drop it?
I was going to say that you "asked for it" with the clause "even when I haven't made a mistake" but I didn't realize the clause was actually "even when I think I haven't made a mistake".
ReplyDeleteSo yes, I'll stop bringing it up. But:
1) Obviously I intend to criticize any *new* cases where you start to make the same error again.
2) Maybe you should issue corrections in the places where that statement originally appeared? Just a thought...
"Restrictions on CO2 emissions don't reflect scarcity even when you accept that the emissions cause millions to be displaced?"
ReplyDeleteWow, Silas, that's the least comprehensible sentence I've read this week.
Silas wrote:
ReplyDelete2) Maybe you should issue corrections in the places where that statement originally appeared? Just a thought...
Ohhh, all this time you thought I acknowledged you were right, but then I tried to hide it from everyone else. Now your behavior makes sense!
Sorry for the confusion; let me clarify: I have never been convinced that I made a mistake, let alone a basic one. So that's why I obviously wouldn't issue a retraction.
Now we can be friends again, yay!
Gene wrote:
ReplyDelete[Silas:] "Restrictions on CO2 emissions don't reflect scarcity even when you accept that the emissions cause millions to be displaced?"
Wow, Silas, that's the least comprehensible sentence I've read this week.
Silas is saying that I was wrong to assert (in my op ed from 1987) that if prices for coal and oil explode after cap and trade, then those high prices won't reflect genuine scarcity.
When Silas says that "you accept those emissions cause millions to be displaced," he means if I hypothetically admitted that, then I would be wrong.
This entire time we have been arguing in a parallel universe where I conceded that CO2 emissions will cause catastrophe if unchecked.
(BTW I'm not saying this last is illegitimate, Silas, but I do want to reiterate that our entire argument is over my apparent mishandling of an alternate universe that I do not endorse. In our actual world I have NOT been convinced that CO2 emissions will cause net harms under unregulated [by govt] capitalism.)
Whoa I am coming dangerously close to arguing about this again. I must flee to discuss Wall-E with my in-laws!
My comment was getting long, so I decided to make it into a new post on my shiny new blog.
ReplyDeleteK here it is everyone. Silas started his own blog so I decided to summarize my defense one last time. I've defending my name in 5 different courts where Silas has brought suit. I think Ayn Rand would agree that I should stop being charged now.
ReplyDelete