Free Markets, Free People

Kevin Drum

Climate Alarmists claim victory with an old and discredited data set on temperature

Kevin Drum is all excited.  Writing at Mother Jones he tells us:

But Muller’s congressional testimony last March didn’t go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures.

Oh boy … confirmation.  “I told you so” time.  Finally got those deniers pinned to the wall.

Yeah, not really. Anthony Watts cites a paragraph from the Economist and then explains why this isn’t anything new:

Economist: “There are three compilations of mean global temperatures, each one based on readings from thousands of thermometers, kept in weather stations and aboard ships, going back over 150 years. Two are American, provided by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one is a collaboration between Britain’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (known as Hadley CRU). And all suggest a similar pattern of warming: amounting to about 0.9°C over land in the past half century.”

The nearly identical trends is no surprise as they draw from mostly the same raw data!

Same old data (that’s been questioned quite often given the location of many of the temperature stations in parking lots, fudging of numbers, cherry picking, etc), “new” trend analysis, same results. 

Watts concludes:

The new Muller et al study, therefore,   has a very major unanswered question. I have asked it on Judy’s [Curry] weblog since she is a co-author of these studies [and Muller never replied to my request to answer this question].

“Hi Judy – I encourage you to document how much overlap there is in Muller’s analysis with the locations used by GISS, NCDC and CRU. In our paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

we reported that

“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”

Unless, Muller pulls from a significantly different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his trends are the same.

More deception cloaked as “new” science from the alarmist crowd.

What a surprise indeed.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Corporations, unions, taxes and libertarian ideas

Kevin Drum has a blog post up at MoJo in which he supports a claim by Tim Lee that American Liberalism “has incorporated libertarian critiques at a striking rate over the past few decades”.  The claim is that is true especially in the area of economic policy.  For instance:

Income tax rates are way down. Numerous industries have been deregulated. Most price controls have been abandoned. Competitive labor markets have steadily displaced top-down collective bargaining. Trade has been steadily liberalized.

I guess that can all be categorized as “it depends on your perspective”.  While personal income taxes are down in comparison with where liberals would prefer them to be – especially for the rich – corporate taxes remain the highest in the free world.   And,  speaking of economics and libertarians, we at least understand who ends up paying corporate taxes – and it ain’t corporations.

This is major blind spot of the liberal side of the house.  If they admit that corporate taxes are passed along to consumers, then their basis for taxing in such a regressive manner would be questioned.  So they continue to pretend that by demanding higher and higher corporate taxes, they’re somehow calling for equity in income distribution – assuming government will take the money collected from corporations as taxes and parcel it out to those who need it most.  And further assuming that’s a function of government.

Of course what they end up doing is having corporations take money from those who must have their products but can least afford the cost of the increase driven by the taxation.  “Benevolent government” then takes the money, after it takes its cut, and passes it back to the “most deserving”, or the “most in need”.  Corporations then, are a tax collection entity, not a tax paying entity.  

What happens when corporate taxes are raised is it has an adverse effect on the corporation’s consumer base.  If they get high enough, that base begins looking for less costly alternatives or quits buying altogether.

All that to set up this next Drum statement:

The problem is that a system that generates enormous income inequality also generates enormous power inequality — and if corporations and the rich are allowed to amass huge amounts of economic power, they’ll always use that power to keep their own tax rates low. It’s nearly impossible to create a high-tax/high-service state if your starting point is a near oligarchy where the rich control the levers of political power.

You could most likely spend all day on those two sentences.  Completely left out, of course, is who is paying income taxes.  What we all know is somewhere around 50% of us aren’t.  So when we see discussions about taxes we have to keep that in mind.  More importantly – and after all the talk of having much in common with libertarianism – check out what Drum’s ideal is: “a high-tax/high-service state”.

Obviously the libertarian camp would find nothing to agree with there. 

Essentially Drum’s argument is that we, as a nation, have the right to demand such a state.  But while the “corporations and rich” own the “levers of political power” we’ll never achieve it.  Solution?  Implied: take those levers away from them.  Method?  Well all of this has been a prelude to the real reason for the post:

I am, fundamentally, old fashioned about this stuff: I think of the world as largely a set of competing power centers. Economics matters, but power matters at least as much, and I think that students of political economy these days spend way too much time on the economy This explains, for example, why I regret the demise of private sector labor unions. It’s not because I don’t recognize their many pathologies, or even the fact that sometimes they stand in the way of economic efficiency. I’m all in favor of trying to regulate the worst aspects of this. But large corporations have their pathologies too, and those pathologies are far worse because there’s no longer any effective countervailing power to fight them. Unions used to provide that power. Today nobody does.

This is the common cry of the liberal today.  The need for a “countervailing power” to fight the power of corporations – real or imagined.  Weapon of choice?  Unions.  But the power that unions fight against has nothing to do with the supposed problem with corporations that Drum has outlined.  Taxes.  Name a single union that has, in any time in the past, rallied and protested to get their corporation’s taxes raised?  They understand what such an increase could mean to labor.  As for power, unions are more concerned with the internal power of a corporation as it relates to wages and benefits.  It is only recently, with the addition of union PACs, that the union movement has begun to address corporate political power.

And if I had to guess, that’s what Drum secretly laments.  As private sector unions decline, so does any “countervailing” political power he thinks unions could wield.  Of course, it doesn’t help when they act like this .  Unions are and have been the liberal left’s power center in their war against corporations for centuries.  If you don’t believe that, you just need to review recent elections and their pattern of donations:

The UAW has considerable clout in the Democratic party. In the 2010 election cycle, the union spent $10.1 million through its political action committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That was down from $13.1 million in the 2008 election.

The center said that 100 percent of the union’s 2010 federal donations — $1.4 million — went to Democrats. The funds come from voluntary contributions by members and retirees.

That’s the real impact of the “demise of private unions”.  It is also why those like Drum support any effort that makes organizing easier for unions today. 

So when Tim Lee writes that "Competitive labor markets have steadily displaced top-down collective bargaining," I just have to shake my head. Competitive for whom? For the upper middle class, labor markets are fairly competitive, but then, they always have been. They never needed collective bargaining to begin with. For everyone else, though, employers have been steadily gaining at their expense for decades. Your average middle class worker has very little real bargaining power anymore, and this isn’t due to chance or to fundamental changes in the economy. (You can organize the service sector just as effectively as the manufacturing sector as long as the law gives you the power to organize effectively in the first place.) Rather, it’s due to a long series of deliberate policy choices that we’ve made over the past 40 years.

But here’s the bottom line: if there were indeed a crying need for unionization felt by the “average middle class worker”, the ability to join a union (or form one) still exists. The problem is, it’s mostly fair and thus doesn’t favor the union as previous organizing laws did.  However, if the organizing drive meets the criteria outlined in labor law,bingo, a union is born and members are able to cash in on the supposed benefits of such a relationship.

The problem, however, is fewer and fewer people apparently see any advantage in such a relationship anymore, if declining membership is any indication.  Like anything else in the world, the consumer of a product has to convince themselves that the product’s benefit justifies its price.  It seems that is no longer the case when it comes to private unions.  Drum prefers to blame the demise on “policy”.  I see it as the consumer saying, “no thanks” after the price/benefit comparison is made.  The fact is policy or law doesn’t prohibit the formation of unions.  Only votes do.  And for quite some time, the votes – of those they would unionize – haven’t favored private union organizers.

Drum concludes:

It’s worth noting, by the way, that corporations and the rich know this perfectly well, even if lots of liberals have forgotten it. They know exactly what the biggest threat to their wealth is, and it’s not high tax rates. This is why the steady erosion of labor rights has been, by far, their single biggest obsession since the end of World War II. Not taxes, unions. If, right now, you were to offer corporations and the rich a choice between (a) passage of EFCA or (b) a return to Clinton-era tax rates on high incomes, they wouldn’t even blink. If you put a gun to their head and they had to choose between one or the other, they’d pay the higher taxes without a peep. That’s because, on the level of raw power, they know how the world works.

Of course he’s right, but not necessarily for the reasons he believes.  Unions have grown into an impediment.  A costly impediment to competitiveness.  Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, labor is a commodity.  Despite the emotional arguments of the left concerning labor and “real people”, people who want to work aren’t owed a job or a certain level of compensation.  They have to be worth it to earn it. 

So yes, corporations are more concerned about unions than taxes, at least to the point that passing along increased taxes starts costing them customers. Then they pay more attention to taxes.  And if taxes do start to cost them customers? Where is the easiest commodity for a corporation to cut in order to maintain a competitive price as it collects the increased taxes?  Yes – labor.

Without apparently realizing, the liberal left’s call for increasing corporate taxes dramatically for their “high tax/high services” state is a call for more unemployment.  Unions would attempt thwart the ability for corporations to adjust headcount to remain competitive.  Result?   The US steel industry redux.

Is that really what the liberal left wants?  I can pretty much guarantee it isn’t what any libertarian would want.  But perhaps it is the fact they don’t even realize how it all works (and what they’re really wishing for) that’s the most dangerous aspect of all of this.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

“Denial” Isn’t A River In Egypt

I swear I have no idea what the left is smoking, but whatever it is, it makes them blind to reality. One of the more prominent examples of this condition is Steve Benen at Washington Monthly’s “Political Animal”.

He cites Kevin Drum who remembers what the Republicans faced when they too had both houses of Congress and the Presidency:

They wanted a revolution, but instead they got NCLB. And a wimpy stem cell compromise. And Sarbanes-Oxley. And McCain-Feingold. And a huge Medicare expansion. And complete gridlock on Social Security.

Not exactly what they signed up for.

Drum goes on to sarcastically point out that Reps did get a nice tax cut and a couple nice wars, but his point was that “Washington DC is a tough place to get anything done.” And at the time, Democrats were no small part of the reason.

Benen then adds his two cents about why Republicans found DC a tough place based on some rather dubious analysis. Then he adds this:

Obama is finding that D.C. is tough place to get anything done for entirely different reasons. The White House agenda is popular, but his obstacles are almost entirely institutional hurdles — the Senate operating as if every bill demands a supermajority, the Kennedy/Byrd illnesses, and the prevalence of center-right Dems in both chambers who look askance at the progressive agenda and who the president has no real leverage over.

A) As we’ve pointed out, the belief that the White House agenda is popular is not reflected at all in polling. Why Benen and the Democrats believe this can only be categorized as “denial”.

B) The Senate rules, something Senators agree too on their own, does require every bill have a supermajority. Benen wants those rules ignored for a simple majority that he’s sure they can squeak out. I understand his desire, but pretending that the “supermajority” is some artifice that isn’t required is BS.

C) The reason for the prevalence of center-right Dems reflects a majority center-right nation. Not a “progressive” nation. And, obviously if you pay attention to the polls, they’re not the only one’s who look askance at a “progressive agenda”.

The only thing Benen and I agree on is “the president has no real leverage” and he proves it every day.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!