This is William Heasley's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following William Heasley's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
William Heasley
Recent Activity
Good post Mr. Cone. Begs an interesting question best stated by William Graham Sumner: “Who are those who assume to put hard questions to other people and to demand a solution of them? How did they acquire the right to demand that others should solve their world-problems for them? Who are they who are held to consider and solve all questions, and how did they fall under this duty? So far as I can find out what the classes are who are respectively endowed with the rights and duties of posing and solving social problems, they are as follows: Those who are bound to solve the problems are the rich, comfortable, prosperous, virtuous, respectable, educated, and healthy; those whose right it is to set the problems are those who have been less fortunate or less successful in the struggle for existence. The problem itself seems to be, How shall the latter be made as comfortable as the former? To solve this problem, and make us all equally well off, is assumed to be the duty of the former class; the penalty, if they fail of this, is to be bloodshed and destruction. If they cannot make everybody else as well off as themselves, they are to be brought down to the same misery as others“. – William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, 1883
Toggle Commented Jan 22, 2012 on Two Americas at EdCone.com
1 reply
Dr. Haab: Its odd that your answer to any supposed negative externality is: tax. You also rarely list the positive externalities. Would the positive externalities, given your tax logic, create reason for a tax decrease? Along the path, your path, of deciding to worship the earth and applying economics to your new found religion, you have forgotten that “tax” acts as a shirking partner. Further, your religion appears to be following a central planning path (state directed economic planning). That is, the plans of the few (you) trump the plans of the many (the rest of us). Its perfectly fine for you to be you and spout your U-isms. No pretense of knowledge from this reader. However, stamp it all with a clear label of collectivism so the reader is warned.
1 reply
“When I teach introductory econ, I sometimes have trouble coming up with examples of how future expectations can shift current demand (that is, an expected increase in future prices will increase demand today). I usually use things like expected increases in produce prices due to the weather calamity of the day: drought, flood, freeze, locusts, frogs, death of the first born sons of Egypt...Now I have a more current example.” Yes, please explain to econ 101 and 102 students about “after a government ban takes effect“. Explain in full about third party decisions that negate the freedom to choose and negate mutual self-interest at the point of mutual exchange. Please also explain how the plans of the few are somehow better than the plans of the many.
Toggle Commented May 17, 2011 on Watts the matter? at Environmental Economics
1 reply
Rent seekers must protect their subsidy or special consideration. The politico doles out tax payer money to the rent seekers as one leg of the political constituency building exercise. Hence its the classic example of Milton Friedman’s fourth category of spending: other people [politicos] spending other peoples’ money [tax payer] on other people [recipient class….in this case those seeking subsidies of one kind or another]. Hence both Conoco and little Chucky Schumer are wrong. It’s an exercise in the wrong calling the wrong, wrong. Its either no subsidies for any rent seeker or it’s the status quo. Any point in between is winner/loser politics. Hence oil, nat. gas, coal, green energy, wind mills, Amtrak, rail, agriculture, longshoreman, merchant marine, etc,. etc, down the endless line of rent seekers need cut off -or- leave the status quo the same. Little Chucky Schumer un-American? More like all-American politico granting taxpayer funds hand over fist to further his political constituency building exercise. You see, Chucky merely wants to be the head whiner who picks winners and loser among the rent seekers for political gain. What a putz.
Toggle Commented May 13, 2011 on I'm "un-American" ... at Environmental Economics
1 reply
Progress Energy is becoming part of Duke Energy in no small part due to the CEO of Progress not having the proper amount of electricity to run his light bulb. Lets see. Expend resources in order to mail out 50,000 envelopes. Expend more resources to print letter to insert in the envelopes. The information must be researched that appears on the letters. The letters and envelopes must be produced and shipped to Progress by vendors, etc., etc.. Silly me, all the inputs are “free” and the savings only appears on the electrical usage side of the equation! Wow! That’s “progress”! We use imaginary and free inputs to produce a savings output!
1 reply
Ah, buy loco…..er….local. http://cafehayek.com/2011/02/buying-loco.html http://cafehayek.com/2009/04/loco.html
Toggle Commented Apr 28, 2011 on Daily demand and supply at Environmental Economics
1 reply
Dr. Whitehead: One more day? Lets see. Politicos founded the Department of Energy in 1977. If the math is correct, we have been waiting 34 years. Wait a minute, 34 years and a zillion dollars. Very nice! If markets fail, governments fail too. “Governments are the only enterprise on earth that when they fail, they merely do the same thing over again but bigger”. - Don Luskin, TrendMacro
1 reply
Wow! Does this mean Lisa Jackson will end her ban on Milton Friedman?
1 reply
Aaron writes: “….but I didn't hear you address any of the core claims...one of which I see as being, The modern Republican Party has absolutely no affirmative environmental agenda whatsoever, and goes so far as to contest the entire rationale for continued environmental progress.” My point was not about Republicans, Democrats, Greens, or any other group. My point is that there is a world of difference between enlightenment and debate points. There is a very important difference between painting the world in one’s own self image and empirical arguments. However, the phrase “has absolutely no affirmative environmental agenda” is opinion and not fact. Also, the phase “environmental agenda” eludes to a central planning. The phrase “goes so far as to contest the entire rationale for continued environmental progress” assumes any past environmental progress was in fact the correct environmental progress. You see Aaron, its not core claims, its merely the framing of debate points.
1 reply
“The disagreements were largely centered around how to achieve these outcomes, and to some extent the pace of change and the absolute targets. Democrats by and large preferred a heavier regulatory approach (i.e. “command and control”) that set specific firm-level emissions limits, prescribed permissible technologies, and set industry-wide energy and fuel efficiency standards. Republicans tended to support more market-oriented policies, with cap and trade foremost among them“. - J.S. Ah, seventy one words to explain a simple concept. Streamlining the above: Democrats relying on collectivism and consequently a collectivist model stood in stark contrast to the Republican position of decentralized free-choice market solutions. Then a most lovely summary: “It is the Republican rank and file who should be the most offended by these policies. Public opinion polls consistently show that both Democrats and Republicans care deeply about the environment, and support clean energy policies and strong environmental safeguards.” - J.S. Public opinion polls are empirical evidence? Your statement is totally notional. Your statement is merely the way things ought to be. “Unfortunately, the once proud environmental ethic of the Republican Party has been snuffed out by a small group of radical Tea Party extremists who are deeply confused both about true conservative principles and the proper role of government in society.” - J.S. Oh dear! You have made a completely notional proposition and put forth the notion as fact and evoked verbal virtuosity and demonized the opposing view to boot! Your essay is no more than a notional premise based on your particular view of the way things ought to be and consequently you paint the world in your own self image. Very nice!
1 reply
Crazy old uncle Ed. A notional giant in the realm of collectivism. Ah, the evil of it all!
1 reply
Alan: You have managed to take notional arguments to a new level. Congratulations! Nothing like arguing based on the way thinks ought to be, then taking the “ought to be” and showing the notion proposition as fact, adding some verbal virtuosity, then finishing up by merely painting the world in one’s own self image. Very nice!
Toggle Commented Mar 18, 2011 on Anger management at Environmental Economics
1 reply