Monday, May 1, 2017

Both Sides of the Climate Change ‘Debate’ are Not Even Wrong


The issue of whether the human production of atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels continues to be flung back and forth by mindless demagogues who are, on both sides, so out of touch with reality that they are (to paraphrase Einstein) not even wrong.

Now it is a fact that human activities are injecting substantial quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.  It’s not a trivial amount, and we are looking at (for now) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 caused by human activity.  This, I believe, is well established.  It is also true that, under laboratory conditions, this increase in the concentration of CO2 should cause a significant increase in heat capture from the sun’s light.  That also is not in question.

What is not known is what this will mean in the real world.  Climate is nothing if not complex, and there could well be feedback loops that will counteract the simplistic warming effects of CO2.  Or not.  Or other effects like changes in the sun’s luminosity could prove to be more important.  This is what the public debate is mostly about.  And it’s rubbish.

It is not necessary to prove that human-produced CO2 is going to be a disaster.  It is enough that we don’t KNOW if it will or will not be a disaster, but we only have this one Earth, for the foreseeable future we are stuck here, and if we mess up the planet we are screwed.  Simple caution suggests we limit CO2 production.  There is no need to prove conclusively that CO2 is bad.

Here’s a simple example.  You are flying in a jet plane at 30,000 feet going 550 mph.  This plane has a lot of complicated buttons and controls etc. that you do not understand.  If the plane has a serious malfunction you will die.  Should you randomly press buttons and operate controls?  After all, you cannot PROVE that that would cause a disaster.  It might do nothing.  It might make things better!  And the plane might crash anyway because of some other factor.  The path of wisdom is clear: if you are absolutely dependent on the operation of a complex system that you do not fully understand, do not mess with it.

So far you might think that I am on the side of the climate change alarmists.  Wrong.  If anything, the fanatical exponents of climate change are even worse.  For two main reasons:

1. The primary cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not increasing living standards, but a population explosion that has largely been created by the rich in order to keep wages low.

The standard of living in China and India are well below that of the United States, but China (with the same land area as the US) already produces more CO2 than the United States, and India (which has about a third the land area as the US) is also projected to surpass the US in CO2 production.  It doesn’t matter how low the standard of living is: if a population is doubled and quadrupled and octupled etc.etc.etc.  the world will still be stripped bare.  And it should be mentioned that per-capita energy consumption in the United States is down significantly from the peak in the 1970’s – as usual, the increases in net CO2 production are being driven by population growth, which as usual is due to specific government policy.

Failing to acknowledge the primacy of population growth in the increase in CO2 production is intellectually dishonest.  We can do nothing if we do not address this matter, and yet virtually any discussion of the effects of population growth – and even more so, any discussion of the degree to which this population growth is the result of deliberate policy – has been almost completely banned from public discussion.

2. The population explosion renders the consequences of possible climate change irrelevant.

Consider Syria.  Not that long ago, the government engaged in a vigorous pro-natalist policy: birth control was criminalized, and the government propagandized that it was every woman’s patriotic duty to have six kids each etc.  The population started doubling every 18 years.  By 2010 it had hit 22 million, the water ran out, and things collapsed. 

Some blame the Syrian disaster on ‘climate change’ but this is dishonest.  The aquifers had been draining for years before, even when the weather was good.  But suppose that the annual rainfall on Syria had increased to 20% greater than the historical mean, and remained perfect forever?  This is, of course, impossible, but even so it would not have mattered.  Let the population double again to 44 million, then 88 million, then 176 million... The effects, if any, of CO2-produced ‘climate change’ are hardly more than a detail.  Even extreme changes in weather would have simply advanced or retarded the collapse by a few years. 

If we continue to let the rich jam ever more people onto this Earth, we will eventually all of us be reduced to the misery of bare subsistence.  Whether that point will occur at a population of 5 billion or 10 or 20 will not matter to our heirs who are living miserable, chronically malnourished lives in extended slums.

I say that the population explosion has been deliberately created by the rich, and it has, but it has (mostly) not been a single unified conspiracy.  It’s just that the rich like money.  The easiest way for the rich to make more money is for wages to be really low.  The easiest way for wages to be really low is to increase the supply of labor too rapidly (the total number of people has little short-term economic effect: it’s the rate of change).  So the rich will encourage population growth: either via active pro-natalist government policies, mass immigration (which does not just move people around it increases net global population.  A world without borders to migration will soon have the population density of Bangladesh).  And perhaps most damaging of all, the rich have discouraged almost any mention of the effect of demographics on wages and the ecology. 

These actions by the rich have not been unified, they have mostly been the local result of the rich in specific countries at specific times wanting cheap labor and rationalizing that it’s really all for the best.  It’s ‘eliminating a labor shortage’ – although it is in fact a ‘shortage’ of workers who have no alternative but to work for sub-poverty wages that is the only way that workers can get more than a poverty wage.  But when the rich create a population explosion, there are both momentum and ratchet effects.  Momentum: once the age distribution of a society has been reduced the population will continue to increase long after the fertility rates have moderated.  Ratchet: it’s easy to grow a population.  Reducing it is harder. 

As one example, Mao in the 1950’s created a population explosion: the communists soon realized what a disaster that was, and initiated draconian population control policies, but the net population of the world is still over half a billion more than it would have been otherwise.  A few generations ago the Mexican government deliberately also created a population explosion: that also hasn’t been their policy for some time, but the effects continue.  Another hundred million and counting... Across the generations and across the world, a little more here, a lot more there, all adding and compounding...  

Actually it is likely that global population growth will start to slow before too long, but don’t get too excited just yet.  It matters HOW population growth is slowing.  If it’s because women are empowered and people are careful not to have more children than they can reasonably provide for, that’s great.  If it’s because they are so miserable and malnourished that it is physically impossible for them to have large numbers of children, that’s not so great (outright famine is generally rare).  And that’s starting to happen in a lot of places, and it looks likely to spread...

Some of the climate change ‘deniers’ suggest that the climate change proponents really want to kill the fossil fuel industry so they can make more money selling new non-CO2 producing technology.  Or that they want the chance to levy a lot of regressive taxes on the working class of nations that are not yet reduced to subsistence.  Perhaps.  I would suggest that another motive is to shift blame away from excessive population growth and onto the climate: the people were encouraged to have more children than they could support?  No!  You can’t say that!   It’s climate change, you vile racist!

The bottom line: given the refusal of our elites to address the issue of demographics, or even to allow an honest public discussion of such issues, my advice is to not worry.  There is nothing we can do about it.  No amount of recycling or driving hybrid cars or even giving up a car and taking the bus etc. will have any non-trivial effect.  If the Titanic is sinking, and there is not a blasted thing you can do about it, let the band play, and have another drink.








Sunday, January 8, 2017

On the Corruption of Economics - H.L. Mencken Edition

My thesis is that an enormous amount of the trouble in our world today stems from too-rapid population growth.  Furthermore I propose that this too-rapid population growth has been deliberately caused by the rich, in order to drive wages for the many down and profits for the few up.  Oh, I’m not saying that for the last century there has been a single secret society deliberately pushing this agenda, it’s more that people naturally think that anything that benefits themselves personally MUST be an absolute good.  So you have individual rich people pushing for their narrow selfish vested interests.  A farmer wants cheaper labor so he can live like a feudal lord: more people make him richer, he imports the desperate surplus from the overpopulated third world, and naturally pushes the meme that more people are better.  The CEO of a technology firm wants to hire highly talented engineers for less in real pay than truck drivers used to make: let’s encourage the overproduction of domestic engineers and import desperate foreign nationals.  And it naturally comes that these people will hold to the idea that more people are ALWAYS better outside their narrow realm.  So when the president of Syria criminalizes birth control and ignites a population explosion, when Chairman Mao demands that it is everyone’s patriotic duty to have six kids each (yes really:  one-family one-child came later, after even the communists realized what a disaster persuading people to breed like rodents is), well, the rich are either supportive or silent.

And so it is that in the profession of economics, starting around 1970 virtually any intelligent reference to demographics has been censored.  You just can’t talk about it.  Again, it’s not like all economists are personally threatened.  It’s just the long-term drift of pressure, as the wealthy patrons of universities and journals bestow their largesse and influence on those whose views support them, and deny their largess and influence to those whose views might just suggest that what the rich are doing is a very bad thing.  That might make the rich feel poorly about themselves, might even engender popular opposition to their pro-natalist cheap-labor policies, and that is unthinkable.

But this has been said better a long time ago.  I would therefore like to repost an essay by H.L. Mencken, where he brilliantly lays out how the profession of economics is corrupted.  I would further add, that while Mencken suggests the problem is that an economist is part of a University, I think it’s more a factor of labor market economics.  When the labor market is tight an honest economist (or journalist) can take a stand on principle, and if fired from one place, can easily find a job elsewhere.  When the labor market is flooded, then getting fired is effectively a lifetime sentence of permanent poverty, and we should not be surprised that as the job market becomes worse and worse, that sycophancy and corruption explode apace.

--------------------

"The Dismal Science", 1922,  by H.L. Mencken

EVERY man, as the Psalmist says, to his own poison, or poisons, as the case may be. One of mine, following hard after theology, is political economy. What! Political economy, that dismal science? Well, why not? Its dismalness is largely a delusion, due to the fact that its chief ornaments, at least in our own day, are university professors. The professor must be an obscurantist or he is nothing; he has a special and unmatchable talent for dullness; his central aim is not to expose the truth clearly, but to exhibit his profundity, his esotericity—in brief, to stagger sophomores and other professors. The notion that German is a gnarled and unintelligible language arises out of the circumstance that it is so much written by professors. It took a rebel member of the clan, swinging to the antipodes in his unearthly treason, to prove its explicitness, its resiliency, it downright beauty. But Nietzsches are few, and so German remains soggy, and political economy continues to be swathed in dullness. As I say, however, that dullness is only superficial. There is no more engrossing book in the English language than Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"; surely the eighteenth century produced nothing that can be read with greater ease to-day. Nor is there any inherent reason why even the most technical divisions of its subject should have gathered cobwebs with the passing of the years. Taxation, for example, is eternally lively; it concerns nine-tenths of us more directly than either smallpox or golf, and has just as much drama in it; moreover, it has been mellowed and made gay by as many gaudy, preposterous theories. As for foreign ex change, it is almost as romantic as young love, and quite as resistent to formulæ. Do the professors make an autopsy of it? Then read the occasional treatises of some professor of it who is not a professor, say, Garet Garrett or John Moody.

Unluckily, Garretts and Moodys are almost as rare as Nietzsches, and so the amateur of such things must be content to wrestle with the professors, seeking the violet of human interest beneath the avalanche of their graceless parts of speech. A hard business, I daresay, to one not practiced, and to its hardness there is added the disquiet of a doubt. That doubt does not concern itself with the doctrine preached, at least not directly. There may be in it nothing intrinsically dubious; on the contrary, it may appear as sound as the binomial theorem, as well supported as the dogma of infant damnation. But all the time a troubling question keeps afloat in the air, and that is briefly this: What would happen to the learned professors if they took the other side? In other words, to what extent is political economy, as professors expound and practice it, a free science, in the sense that mathematics and physiology are free sciences? At what place, if any, is speculation pulled up by a rule that beyond lies treason, anarchy and disaster? These questions, I hope I need not add, are not inspired by any heterodoxy in my own black heart. I am, in many fields, a flouter of the accepted revelation and hence immoral, but the field of economics is not one of them. Here, indeed, I know of no man who is more orthodox than I am. I believe that the present organization of society, as bad as it is, is better than any other that has ever been proposed. I reject all the sure cures in current agitation, from government ownership to the single tax. I am in favor of free competition in all human enterprises, and to the utmost limit. I admire successful scoundrels, and shrink from Socialists as I shrink from Methodists. But all the same, the afore said doubt pursues me when I plow through the solemn disproofs and expositions of the learned professors of economics, and that doubt will not down. It is not logical or evidential, but purely psycho logical. And what it is grounded on is an unshakable belief that no man's opinion is worth a hoot, however well supported and maintained, so long as he is not absolutely free, if the spirit moves him, to support and maintain the exactly contrary opinion. In brief, human reason is a weak and paltry thing so long as it is not wholly free reason. The fact lies in its very nature, and is revealed by its entire history. A man may be perfectly honest in a contention, and he may be astute and persuasive in maintaining it, but the moment the slightest compulsion to maintain it is laid upon him, the moment the slightest external re ward goes with his partisanship or the slightest penalty with its abandonment, then' there appears a defect in his ratiocination that is more deep-seated than any error in fact and more destructive than any conscious and deliberate bias. He may seek the truth and the truth only, and bring up his highest talents and diligence to the business, but always there is a specter behind his chair, a warning in his ear. Always it is safer and more hygienic for him to think one way than to think another way, and in that bald fact there is excuse enough to hold his whole chain of syllogisms in suspicion. He may be earnest, he may be honest, but he is not free, and if he is not free, he is not anything.
Well, are the reverend professors of economics free? With the highest respect, I presume to question it. Their colleagues of archeology may be reasonably called free, and their colleagues of bacteriology, and those of Latin grammar and sidereal astronomy, and those of many another science and mystery, but when one comes to the faculty of political economy one finds that freedom as plainly conditioned, though perhaps not as openly, as in the faculty of theology. And for a plain reason. Political economy, so to speak, hits the employers of the professors where they live. It deals, not with ideas that affect those employers only occasionally or only indirectly or only as ideas, but with ideas that have an imminent and continuous influence upon their personal welfare and security, and that affect profoundly the very foundations of that social and economic structure upon which their whole existence is based. It is, in brief, the science of the ways and means whereby they have come to such estate, and maintain themselves in such estate, that they are able to hire and boss professors. It is the boat in which they sail down perilous waters—and they must needs yell, or be more or less than human, when it is rocked. Now and then that yell duly resounds in the groves of learning. One remembers, for example, the trial, condemnation and execution of Prof. Dr. Scott Nearing at the University of Pennsylvania, a seminary that is highly typical, both in its staff and in its control. Nearing, I have no doubt, was wrong in his notions—honestly, perhaps, but still wrong. In so far as I heard them stated at the time, they seemed to me to be hollow and of no validity. He has since discharged them from the chautauquan stump, and at the usual hinds. They have been chiefly accepted and celebrated by men I regard as asses. But Nearing was not thrown out of the University of Pennsylvania, angrily and ignominiously, because he was honestly wrong, or because his errors made him incompetent to prepare sophomores for their examinations; he was thrown out because his efforts to get at the truth disturbed the security and equanimity of the rich ignoranti who happened to control the university, and because the academic slaves and satellites of these shopmen were restive under his competition for the attention of the student-body. In three words, he was thrown out because he was not safe and sane and orthodox. Had his aberration gone in the other direction, had he defended child labor as ardently as he denounced it and denounced the minimum wage as ardently as he defended it, then he would have been quite as secure in his post, for all his cavorting in the newspapers, as Chancellor Day was at Syracuse.

Now consider the case of the professors of economics, near and far, who have not been thrown out. Who will say that the lesson of the Nearing débêcle has been lost upon them? Who will say that the potency of the wealthy men who command our universities—or most of them—has not stuck in their minds? And who will say that, with this sticking remembered, their arguments against Nearing's so-called ideas are as worthy of confidence and respect as they would be if they were quite free to go over to Nearing's side without damage? Who, indeed, will give them full credit, even when they are right, so long as they are hamstrung, nose-ringed and tied up in gilded pens? It seems to me that these considerations are enough to cast a glow of suspicion over the whole of American political economy, at least in so far as it comes from college economists. And, in the main, it has that source, for, barring a few brilliant journalists, all our economists of any repute are professors. Many of them are able men, and most of them are undoubtedly honest men, as honesty goes in the world, but over practically every one of them there stands a board of trustees with its legs in the stock-market and its eyes on the established order, and that board is ever alert for heresy in the science of its being, and has ready means of punishing it, and a hearty enthusiasm for the business. Not every professor, perhaps, may be sent straight to the block, as Nearing was, but there are plenty of pillories and guardhouses on the way, and every last pedagogue must be well aware of it.

Political economy, in so far as it is a science at all, was not pumped up and embellished by any such academic clients and ticket-of-leave men. It was put on its legs by inquirers who were not only safe from all dousing in the campus pump, but who were also free from the mental timorousness and conformity which go inevitably with school-teaching—in brief, by men of the world, accustomed to its free air, its hospitality to originality and plain speaking. Adam Smith, true enough, was once a professor, but he threw up his chair to go to Paris, and there he met, not more professors, but all the current enemies of professors—the Nearings and Henry Georges and Karl Marxes of the time. And the book that he wrote was not orthodox, but revolutionary. Consider the others of that bulk and beam: Bentham, Ricardo, Mill and their like. Bentham held no post at the mercy of bankers and tripesellers; he was a man of independent means, a lawyer and politician, and a heretic in general practice. It is impossible to imagine such a man occupying a chair at Harvard or Princeton. He had a hand in too many pies: he was too rebellious and contumacious: he had too little respect for authority, either academic or worldly. Moreover, his mind was too wide for a professor; he could never remain safely in a groove; the whole field of social organization invited his inquiries and experiments. Ricardo? Another man of easy means and great worldly experience—by academic standards, not even educated. To-day, I daresay, such meager diplomas as he could show would not suffice to get him an instructor's berth in a freshwater seminary in Iowa. As for Mill, he was so well grounded by his father that he knew more, at eighteen, than any of the universities could teach him, and his life thereafter was the exact antithesis of that of a cloistered pedagogue. Moreover, he was a heretic in religion and probably violated the Mann act of those days—an offense almost as heinous, in a college professor of economics, as giving three cheers for Prince Kropotkin.  [Editor's note: John Maynard Keynes was not trained as an economist, but as a mathematician, and became quite wealthy through his investments]

I might lengthen the list, but humanely refrain. The point is that these early English economists were all perfectly free men, with complete liberty to tell the truth as they saw it, regardless of its orthodoxy or lack of orthodoxy. I do not say that the typical American economist of to-day is not as honest, nor even that he is not as diligent and competent, but I do say that he is not as free—that penalties would come upon him for stating ideas that Smith or Ricard or Bentham or Mill, had he so desired, would have been free to state without damage. And in that menace there is an ineradicable criticism of the ideas that he does state, and it lingers even when they are plausible and are accepted. In France and Germany, where the universities and colleges are controlled by the state, the practical effect of such pressure has been frequently demonstrated. In the former country the violent debate over social and economic problems during the quarter century before the war produced a long list of professors cashiered for heterodoxy, headed by the names of Jean Jaures and Gustave Herve. In Germany it needed no Nietzsche to point out the deadening produced by this state control. Germany, in fact, got out of it an entirely new species of economist—the state Socialist who flirted with radicalism with one eye and kept the other upon his chair, his salary and his pension.

The Nearing case and the rebellions of various pedagogues elsewhere show that we in America stand within the shadow of a somewhat similar danger. In economics, as in the other sciences, we are probably producing men who are as good as those on view in any other country. They are not to be surpassed for learning and originality, and there is no reason to believe that they lack honesty and courage. But honesty and courage, as men go in the world, are after all merely relative values. There comes a point at which even the most honest man considers consequences, and even the most courageous looks before he leaps. The difficulty lies in establishing the position of that point. So long as it is in doubt, there will remain, too, the other doubt that I have described. I rise in meeting, I repeat, not as a radical, but as one of the most hunkerous of the orthodox. I can imagine nothing more dubious in fact and wobbly in logic than some of the doctrines that amateur economists, chiefly Socialists, have set afloat in this country during the past dozen years. I have even gone to the trouble of writing a book against them; my convictions and instincts are all on the other side. But I should be a great deal more comfortable in those convictions and instincts if I were convinced that the learned professors were really in full and absolute possession of academic freedom—if I could imagine them taking the other tack now and then without damnation to their jobs, their lecture dates, their book sales and their hides.