Politicians Tell Big Oil How to Make Billions

By -
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.)

Comments

  1. Silas Barta2:23 PM

    No, I can't. What is it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy3:34 PM

    Wow...when I think I made such a boneheaded mistake that even the TownHall people might pounce, Silas can't find it.

    And 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous6:06 PM

    Nah, I'm with Silas. You get a pass on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:33 PM

    I vote pass.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah9:06 PM

    Condemn, condemn!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob Murphy10:45 PM

    You guys are too easy. If I'm going to go toe to toe with Carville, I need tougher love.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob Murphy10:45 PM

    (Thanks Gene. I knew you cared.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Silas Barta2:28 AM

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bob Murphy8:22 AM

    Even you can't say that with a straight face.

    What 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?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Silas Barta12:15 PM

    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".

    So 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...

    ReplyDelete
  11. gcallah3:21 PM

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bob Murphy6:50 PM

    Silas wrote:

    2) 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!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob Murphy6:54 PM

    Gene wrote:

    [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!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Silas Barta8:09 PM

    My comment was getting long, so I decided to make it into a new post on my shiny new blog.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bob Murphy9:03 PM

    K 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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more