Saturday 24 March 2012

Flora Faun, "Hermes" Edition

So the editors at the Taipei Times printed another letter by Flora Faun, she of the forests of errors, peaks of presumption and steep valleys of abject ignorance.
"When your grandchildren ask one day: “What happened to all the tigers and orangutans?” you can answer them: “They were turned into Hermes bags and Lamborghinis.”..."
You've got it the wrong way round Flora - it was the tigers that were transformed into growling Murcielagos; the orangutans were the ones who ended up swinging from fat old ladies' shoulders. Don't they teach you anything up there at NTU? Aren't they supposed to have the best engineering graduates in the country?
"While I do not want to delve into the emotionally stunted lives of people who acquire Hermes bag after Hermes bag..."
Oh you do really though, don't you? C'mon: what have you got to lose except your word limit?
"I want to make the point that if we want to save any of the commons... we must realize that an economic model based solely on individual choices runs counter to society’s need for sustainable activity."
That's absolutely true. Because what you call "society" will be nothing more than a ruling regime of arbitrarian power, and what you call "sustainable activity" already exists throughout the world today and is known by the somewhat less glamorous names of grinding poverty and early death. So yes, an "economic model" based on individual choice - on individual and universal freedom - runs precisely counter to that.
"One example is climate change, which is “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen,” according to the World Bank’s Nicholas Stern..."
Actually Flora, there is a strong empirical case to be made that climate change is driven by the earth's recovery from the last ice age, and that the man-made catalyst for rising temperatures, CO2, is likely to have only a small effect. So the notion that climate change is a market failure depends on three presuppositions none of which are warranted. First of all it depends on having achieved certainty that climate change is mostly due to CO2; second, that climate change will result "on net" in negative consequences (e.g. catastrophic ones); and third, that everybody shares the same opinion that preventing climate change is a public good. The first presupposition is no longer trumpeted with certainty even by the top scientists on your own "side" of the debate; the second presupposition is brutally childish in its' one-sided simplicity: add up all possible negative externalities, ignore all positive externalities (e.g. the increased area of arable land) and then shout and scream that it's the end of the world; the third presupposition likewise depends on ignoring the drastic economic consequences of implementing even something as "moderate" as the Kyoto protocol. Stern's claim that climate change is a market failure is risible nonsense.
"Well, actually, our entire economic system is a market failure because it does not include the external costs of resource extraction and pollution."
The "system" does not attempt to price those costs not only because they do not fit geographical property rights, but because they are inherently uncertain - forecasted as they are on the basis of mathematical models with a history of being proved wrong. But why is it that for someone so apparently concerned with "externalities" Flora, you and your eco-ilk seem uninterested in berating the "system" for not attempting to price the negative externality costs of government and its excesses?
"The total wealth of many of the world’s poorest nations is actually declining because of the destruction of their natural capital (eg, rainforests)."
"Wealth" is not something that can be produced by a "nation" or any other arbitrary collective Flora, it is something produced by individual people through specific acts of ramified social cooperation (or, to use the technical jargon: "trade"). The destruction of rainforests, whilst unfortunate, occurs for two reasons: firstly because "ownership" of them is simply arrogated by the very collectivist institution you would have run everyone's lives, and second because the laws passed to protect the rainforests depend for their implementation on the very people in government who have a vested interest in the short-term economic benefit of cutting the trees down.
"Paul Hawken in The Ecology of Commerce proposes an entirely different economic model... Taxes would be levied not against “goods,” such as earnings or investments, but against “bads,” such as resource extraction and pollution. In a free-market system regulated by “green” taxes, businesses would quickly adopt sustainable practices and the most sustainable products would win out."
This really is playschool-and-crayons stuff isn't it? Flora, "goods" is the economic term for material products - not in distinction to "bads", but in distinction to both material and abstract services. Those "bads" which you cite Hawken as listing - resource extraction and pollution - first depend upon whole chains of both goods and services, which themselves presuppose earnings and investment that you apparently would not want to punish. So some of your "goods" would themselves also be "bads" or contribute to the production of "bads". But irrespective of that, the argument Hawken is advancing is yet one more variation on the Left's constant yearning for the power to go full-Stalin on central planning. A system of green taxes with which politician-kings could then "direct" the economy would not be a "free market" system, it would be the wet dream of a Michael Turton or a Bruno Walther. Most accurately, it would have to be called a system of ecofascism. Such a system would very quickly lead to mass economic privation for one overriding reason: it would drive up the cost of energy in the short term and stymie the production of future energy sources (and yes, that necessarily means fossil fuels) over the medium to long term.
"However, in a last gasp of economic insanity, we seem to be hell-bent to convert whatever natural beauty is left in this world into pointless status symbols for the super-rich, thanks to all those economists who are still stuck in the world of two centuries ago, when the free market was surrounded by unlimited resources."
Flora, the whole point of the free-market from the very beginning is that it deals only with finite goods and services premised upon finite resources, the foremost among which being intellect, time and labour - of which you evidently have too much of the latter two and not anything like enough of the first one.

You know I am tempted to blame the teaching staff at NTU - how is it a girl can enter an economics course there and have that grotesque misrepresentation thrown to her unchallenged? I mean you'd think they'd all graduated from commie school in New York or Kalifornia or something.

22 comments:

  1. Here is another chance for you to go into an ill-advised, apoplectic, misogynistic and ultimately embarrassing rant about eco-terrorists or eco-fascists or eco-communists, whatever is your flavor of the day! Go on, be pathetic!

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2012/03/24/2003528555

    Boy, you actually beat me to it! Quick writing, although not quick thinking

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Stern's claim that climate change is a market failure is risible nonsense." Proof of your utter stupidity once again!

    Standing alone shouting from the rooftops against the world's leading scientists AND economists is not going to save you from ridicule!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and go ahead now and delete my comments - after all, you are the self-avowed prophet of freedom of expression at any price, you hypocrite!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Here is another chance for you to go into an ill-advised, apoplectic, misogynistic and ultimately embarrassing rant..."

    Flora, precisely what is "misogynistic" (definition: "hatred of women") in what I have said? And why is it "ill-advised"?

    "Proof of your utter stupidity once again!

    Standing alone shouting from the rooftops against the world's leading scientists AND economists is not going to save you from ridicule!


    Why exactly is my argument against Stern's "market failure" claim "stupid" (never mind whether it is right or wrong)? Is it because I am "standing alone"? Are you saying that my argument is stupid because you think most people disagree with it?

    For the benefit of new readers, I'll repeat the reasons why I remove your comments...

    1) They are hit-and-run assertions which you will not defend in argument, despite being indulged with repeated opportunities to do so.

    2) You make defamatory accusations ("misogynistic", "liar" etc) anonymously and without a shred of factual support.

    3) You entirely ignore the arguments I make taking down both you and your Guardian chum Moronbiot (he who apparently read Isaiah Berlin but still didn't understand the positive-negative liberty distinction).

    4) You rarely address the subject of my posts. For instance the last one you commented on was the homeschooling post and you began by scoffing that nuclear power is not cheaper than wind power. See what I mean? In that post the subject was homeschooling, not energy - never mind the details of nuclear vs wind costs.

    5) I have reason to suspect your earlier claim (on Nate's blog) to being a Taipei Times reporter was a lie - or at least, you don't work for the news section of the newspaper.

    Here's my advice: get out of the University and go and get an honest job in a supermarket or a factory serving or producing for other people on a day-to-day basis. That would at least be something to be proud of.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the post:

    "what you call 'sustainable activity' already exists throughout the world today and is known by the somewhat less glamorous names of grinding poverty and early death"

    Yes. The fondest goals of so many who style themselves progressive environmentalists would necessitate the wholesale reimposition of a "lifestyle" they could not on their darkest days imagine.

    Again from the post:

    "The destruction of rainforests, whilst unfortunate, occurs for two reasons: firstly because 'ownership' of them is simply arrogated by the very collectivist institution you would have run everyone's lives, and second because the laws passed to protect the rainforests depend for their implementation on the very people in government who have a vested interest in the short-term economic benefit of cutting the trees down."

    Spot on. Unfortunately, Miss Faun and her ilk will forever imagine that this sad situation would be alleviated if only government were properly empowered. Then it could radiate its magical omniscience and benevolence to - and through - all it deigned to employ in its service.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You know I was thinking to buy a copy of Hitchens' book "God Is Not Great" and then rewrite it with (probably) the exact same arguments and call it "Government Is Not Great".

    #For the young... government is their first attempt at political philosophy.

    #Government poisons and corrupts almost everything it touches...

    #Taming the impulse to government is one of the unceasing chores of civlization...

    And so on... If I could find a publisher, I might make enough cash to help Sandra Fluke pay for a pack of johnnies. It's not like I'm going to get to use them given the views I hold - I daresay I could beat Mark Steyn in a contest to see who can get laid the least.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You make defamatory accusations all the time on your blog, so don't whine and cry, you wuss!

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you hadn't noticed because of your two-celled brain, I am simply using your defamatory, illogical and insulting methods on yourself! So don't complain ...

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's a relevant difference Flora: when I make an accusation, I back it up with evidence and/or further reasoning.

    Case in point: the recent "Earth Hour" editorial in the Taipei Times featured the claim that 70% of CO2 emissions are from the world's cities - I called this "bullshit" because there is actually substantially more CO2 released into the atmosphere from plant and soil respiration, and I linked to a publicly available popular introduction to the carbon cycle published by the University of New Hampshire in which this point was asserted.

    Now I don't know, but it may be that 70% of man-made CO2 emissions come from the cities - that sounds plausible, but that's not what the "earth hour" editorial said. It just lazily repeated the claim found on the "earth hour" website that 70% of "emissions" come from the cities, so presumably they intend to give the misleading impression that this refers to all CO2 emissions rather than just the smaller, man-made subset.

    That's why I called it "bullshit" - without the necessary qualification it is simply a false assertion, and I was able to show that (to my knowledge, no scientist - in "climate science" or outside - disputes the claim that more CO2 is emitted by plant and soil respiration than by cities). And this is important for you to understand Flora - an accusation is not "defamatory" if it can be shown to be true. And in this case, it is true that whoever wrote that editorial for the Taipei Times was merely repeating bullshit. Therefore my description of this claim as "bullshit" is not defamatory.

    What you do - again and again and again - is different. You come on here and accuse me of spreading "right-wing lies", without making any attempt to explain why my differences of opinion with you and your professors at NTU are "lies", without backing up this claim with evidence that would show some assertion of mine to be false, and seemingly without any understanding of the term "right-wing" (hint: I am not "right-wing").

    Here's a sad and curious fact you should pay attention to Flora: aside from you, it is very rare that anyone comes on here to disagree with me. There may be many reasons for this, but whatever they are, my apparent lack of critics is a disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. the recent "Earth Hour" editorial in the Taipei Times featured the claim that 70% of CO2 emissions are from the world's cities - I called this "bullshit" because there is actually substantially more CO2 released into the atmosphere from plant and soil respiration.

    The bullshit is lies like this which you picked up on some right-wing blog. Ever heard of scientific references? Probably never laid your eyes on one because you are too stupid to understand them. Comes from reading right wing blogs exclusively. All I have to say is: IPCC - science. Michael Fagan - bullshit.

    Anyway, more bullshit from your side: you private property nut ever considered all the private property rights violated by the corporations who just took the rainforests away from the indigenous people who lived their for 1000s for years? I am sure you don't care because you care only about the property rights of rich and powerful people, who of course finance blogs like this (or influence them, in case the blog's author is stupid enough to believe all the bullshit thrown into the internet by their astroturfers).

    Anyway, as I said before, to argue with asshole idiots like you is a waste of time, so all I have to say, go ahead and delete this comment, you freedom of expression hypocrite!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am not "right-wing

    No, rather fascist!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here's a sad and curious fact you should pay attention to Flora: aside from you, it is very rare that anyone comes on here to disagree with me. There may be many reasons for this, but whatever they are, my apparent lack of critics is a disappointment.

    That one is easy: most people don't bother pointing out that you are a right wing asshole! Just notice how every decent blogger ignores you completely.

    Of course, you could say sorry for all the lies and false accusations which you have been spreading, but hell will freeze over ...

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The bullshit is lies like this..."

    There you go again - just calling any factual assertion you don't like a "lie" without bothering to show evidence or reason.

    "Ever heard of scientific references? Probably never laid your eyes on one because you are too stupid to understand them."

    Flora, dear. I understand you study at Taiwan's top university and that perhaps you therefore feel an intellectual superiority to the people you don't agree with... but please, remember I didn't have the good fortune of studying at the top joint in Taipei and instead had to make do with Durham and Edinburgh in the UK. Because I'm "stupid". So instead, why don't you test your assumption that I can't read scientific papers and refer me to just one in which it is claimed that more CO2 is emitted from the world's cities than from soil and plant respiration.

    "...you private property nut ever considered all the private property rights violated by the corporations who just took the rainforests away from the indigenous people who lived their for 1000s for years?"

    Yes, actually: I think it's very important. As I have told you previously, the problem is that indigenous peoples are not enfranchised within the politico-legal system and therefore effectively do not have private property rights - which is precisely one of the most important things they need. The people who stand to gain most from private property rights and free markets are often the poor and downtrodden - not the rich.

    "I am sure you don't care because you care only about the property rights of rich and powerful people..."

    Not at all - I think property rights arem important for everyone, but especially for the poor because poor people have fewer resources to cope when the government violates their rights, by for example, demolishing their homes in Taipei.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "...who of course finance blogs like this..."

    You know, to be honest Flora, there are times, such as when I'm cooking rice for myself and chicken for the stray dogs, when I almost wish I was being financed by some rich mogul.

    "...(or influence them, in case the blog's author is stupid enough to believe all the bullshit thrown into the internet by their astroturfers)."

    If anything Flora, some of those rich "astroturfers" would be more likely to be influenced by me - because they're almost certainly too busy running their companies to be doing the book reading that I do.

    "...to argue with asshole idiots like you is a waste of time..."

    Which is why you're here, right?

    "...go ahead and delete this comment, you freedom of expression hypocrite!"

    As I have explained to you many times before, Flora, deleting comments on a personal blog is not a violation of freedom of speech. It is merely an enforcement of my own preferences to which I have a right, seeing as how this is my blog. When other people ban me, I don't complain about freedom of speech - because that pertains only to governments.

    "Just notice how every decent blogger ignores you completely."

    Except they don't. Even the people who have banned me (e.g. Michael Turton) still talk to me from time to time - they don't agree with me, and certainly they dislike me - but they ban me because they are deeply irritated by and perhaps even afraid of the criticisms I make of them (and possibly my manner of expression too - they can't beat me).

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/02/temperature-record-climate-change-warming

    Conspiracy of scientists! It must be!

    I don't care about evidence, because I am a dogmatic right wing blogger!

    ReplyDelete
  16. When other people ban me, I don't complain about freedom of speech

    You don't even notice when you are lying - you complained repeatedly about being blocked from the Taipei Times and Turtons blog. Are you borderline insane? Do you have Alzheimer? Do you forget what you write the moment you write it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. No Flora, you're the one confused here. I'll explain it for you...

    My right to free speech ends where Turton's ownership of his blog begins or, indeed, where the proprietorship of the Taipei Times begins.

    I don't like the fact that I am banned, I think it is a mistake on their part and I also think it reveals fear and perhaps even intolerance... but I respect the fact that banning me is their decision to make. I observe the ban - there are times when I would comment at Turton's place - for instance, he recently had an item about diesel-electric submarines on which I disagree with him and his commenter Okami - but I refrain from doing so.

    Because his blog doesn't belong to me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My right to free speech ends where Turton's ownership of his blog begins or, indeed, where the proprietorship of the Taipei Times begins.

    Well, whatever, anyway, should make you think when everybody hates you, shouldn't it?

    Just wanted to point out that your entire philosophy is social Darwinism for the benefit of the rich and powerful, whether you admit it or not.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/03/obama-accuses-republicans-social-darwinism-budget

    You are just a spineless tool in the hands of the right wing truth manipulators.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Well, whatever..."

    I bet that's how you answer your exam questions at NTU as well isn't it Flora?

    "Just wanted to point out that your entire philosophy is social Darwinism for the benefit of the rich and powerful, whether you admit it or not."

    Yeah, whether I admit it or not: guilty until proven guilty. The Spanish progressives of the 16th and 17th centuries were ahead of their time weren't they?

    "You are just a spineless tool in the hands of the right wing truth manipulators."

    Alright darling, now just remember to put the projector back in the closet when you're done with it. And give the keys back to Mr Turton before you leave.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here are your right-wing buddies chipping away at your freedoms! But wait, because they are good right wingers, not bad leftie communists, I am sure you don't object:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/us-sexual-humiliation-political-control

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Well, whatever..."

    I bet that's how you answer your exam questions at NTU as well isn't it Flora?

    "Just wanted to point out that your entire philosophy is social Darwinism for the benefit of the rich and powerful, whether you admit it or not."

    Yeah, whether I admit it or not: guilty until proven guilty. The Spanish progressives of the 16th and 17th centuries were ahead of their time weren't they?

    "You are just a spineless tool in the hands of the right wing truth manipulators."

    Alright darling, now just remember to put the projector back in the closet when you're done with it. And give the keys back to Mr Turton before you leave.

    Are you trying to be funny or witty? It's not working because no one is laughing because it's just stupid and pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I am sure you don't object..."

    Well then you're wrong Flora because I do object; I think a lot of the stuff the Department of Homeland Security does is just theatre and it should be abolished. So no: I agree with Naomi Wolf that the State should not have the power to order people to strip upon arrest for any offence whatever.

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.