I just wanted to see if my computer could type those words. His assessment of the Waxman-Markey bill looks right on the money to me. It's worth reading.
--Dean Baker
Posted by Dean Baker on July 1, 2009 8:03 AM|Permalink|
COMMENTS (9)
Dr Baker, I wish you were allowed on TV to discuss health care. Your suggestions in your Conservative Nanny State book are obvious, but apparently ignored by the LameStream/Corporate Media.
All these talking heads talk about "reducing costs" is so challenging, & we need to "preserve the free market".
It's laughable that the oligopolies/cartels of pharma, health insurance, medical device mfg, & strong health pros union/cartels (AMA, etc) are referred to as "free market" industries by the talking heads.
It's also laughable that cost reduction is so mysterious to the talking heads, when real-world examples are plenty - Canada's healthcare system, VA Medical system, Mayo Clinic system in Rochester, NY highlighted in the New Yorker article, etc
There ARE serious flaws with this, and I find it difficult that you, Dean, can agree with Friedman on this, especially on one particular point:
1) The bill would auction just 15 percent of emissions permits, giving away 50 percent to the fossil fuel industry.
Why would this be? The air is a public asset, just like the airwaves. Didn't we learn anything from the bogus auction of the airwaves in 1996? This is just a gold mine give away to the wealthy. Why not give me all those 15 permits? I could then sell them to the highest bidder. Then, I could be rich. Does this make any more sense than giving it to the coal and oil companies? Come on, Dean, this is crap. The rich get richer while the rest of us suffer the consequences of green house gasses.
Besides the giveaway to the wealthy, here are a couple more serious flaws:
2) The bill would overrule higher renewable mandates in states like California.
3) The bill would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants.
Only if the Senate corrects these issues AND they do not get ripped out in conference should any conscientious citizen get behind this legislation.
Friedman says the bill will make all economic decisions involve choosing a low-carbon-emission option. It may be more likely that strategy of major industry will be dominated by how to finagle the carbon decision under cap-and-trade. It remains to be seen how big the loopholes will be. Friedman is probably right that a straightforward carbon tax would be be more foolproof than cap-and-trade.
The alternative to passing any old bill now is to take a stand on principle, keep the issue alive, and hold it over to the 2010 election, hoping that there will afterwards be a genuine progressive majority in both houses (with +60 in the Senate). This applies to several other important issues. Why reward the bought-off legislators by giving them credit for a hollow bill?
Cap and trade is so very inferior to a carbon tax that we should resist it until the last moment and then if the carbon tax is completely dead sign on. The fact that politicians chose cap and trade over a carbon tax show what con men they are.
Anonymous wrote:
It's also laughable that cost reduction is so mysterious to the talking heads, when real-world examples are plenty - Canada's healthcare system, VA Medical system, Mayo Clinic system in Rochester, NY highlighted in the New Yorker article, etcIt's also laughable that cost reduction is so mysterious to the talking heads, when real-world examples are plenty - Canada's healthcare system, VA Medical system, Mayo Clinic system in Rochester, NY highlighted in the New Yorker article, etc
These systems did not reduce costs so much as they started with a lower base and early on grew at a slower rate. That is a big difference.
This Bill has a long way to go: The Senate, Conference Committee, Supplemental Appropriations. It's fate hangs on the interests and intentions of a horde of professional lobbyists most of whom understand its substance and details better than the legislators themselves and those legislators very much depend on the campaign contributions of those lobbyists and their employers. The "weakness" of the legislation makes it especially vulnerable to "backdoor" addendums and subsequent revisions.
Friedman's argument is an old one: "If nothing else, at least we've sent a message.", another variation of the "art of the possible", key indicators of the impending triumph of the staus quo. Well, maybe things won't get any worse, but I doubt it.
I don't really care whether or not he's correct about that particular piece of legislation because I happen to still be disgusted by his January advocacy of terrorism in that same newspaper:
Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
COMMENTS (9)
Dr Baker, I wish you were allowed on TV to discuss health care. Your suggestions in your Conservative Nanny State book are obvious, but apparently ignored by the LameStream/Corporate Media.
All these talking heads talk about "reducing costs" is so challenging, & we need to "preserve the free market".
It's laughable that the oligopolies/cartels of pharma, health insurance, medical device mfg, & strong health pros union/cartels (AMA, etc) are referred to as "free market" industries by the talking heads.
It's also laughable that cost reduction is so mysterious to the talking heads, when real-world examples are plenty - Canada's healthcare system, VA Medical system, Mayo Clinic system in Rochester, NY highlighted in the New Yorker article, etc
Posted by: Anonymous | July 1, 2009 9:45 AM
There ARE serious flaws with this, and I find it difficult that you, Dean, can agree with Friedman on this, especially on one particular point:
1) The bill would auction just 15 percent of emissions permits, giving away 50 percent to the fossil fuel industry.
Why would this be? The air is a public asset, just like the airwaves. Didn't we learn anything from the bogus auction of the airwaves in 1996? This is just a gold mine give away to the wealthy. Why not give me all those 15 permits? I could then sell them to the highest bidder. Then, I could be rich. Does this make any more sense than giving it to the coal and oil companies? Come on, Dean, this is crap. The rich get richer while the rest of us suffer the consequences of green house gasses.
Besides the giveaway to the wealthy, here are a couple more serious flaws:
2) The bill would overrule higher renewable mandates in states like California.
3) The bill would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants.
Only if the Senate corrects these issues AND they do not get ripped out in conference should any conscientious citizen get behind this legislation.
Posted by: Bill Turner | July 1, 2009 9:53 AM
Friedman says the bill will make all economic decisions involve choosing a low-carbon-emission option. It may be more likely that strategy of major industry will be dominated by how to finagle the carbon decision under cap-and-trade. It remains to be seen how big the loopholes will be. Friedman is probably right that a straightforward carbon tax would be be more foolproof than cap-and-trade.
The alternative to passing any old bill now is to take a stand on principle, keep the issue alive, and hold it over to the 2010 election, hoping that there will afterwards be a genuine progressive majority in both houses (with +60 in the Senate). This applies to several other important issues. Why reward the bought-off legislators by giving them credit for a hollow bill?
Posted by: skeptonomist | July 1, 2009 11:17 AM
october 24, 2009
http://www.350.org/invitation
Posted by: hapa | July 1, 2009 12:18 PM
Sorry, I didn't hear that I was distracted by the flying pigs.
Posted by: Zarani Barrow | July 1, 2009 2:41 PM
Cap and trade is so very inferior to a carbon tax that we should resist it until the last moment and then if the carbon tax is completely dead sign on. The fact that politicians chose cap and trade over a carbon tax show what con men they are.
Anonymous wrote:
It's also laughable that cost reduction is so mysterious to the talking heads, when real-world examples are plenty - Canada's healthcare system, VA Medical system, Mayo Clinic system in Rochester, NY highlighted in the New Yorker article, etcIt's also laughable that cost reduction is so mysterious to the talking heads, when real-world examples are plenty - Canada's healthcare system, VA Medical system, Mayo Clinic system in Rochester, NY highlighted in the New Yorker article, etc
These systems did not reduce costs so much as they started with a lower base and early on grew at a slower rate. That is a big difference.
Posted by: Floccina | July 1, 2009 3:18 PM
This Bill has a long way to go: The Senate, Conference Committee, Supplemental Appropriations. It's fate hangs on the interests and intentions of a horde of professional lobbyists most of whom understand its substance and details better than the legislators themselves and those legislators very much depend on the campaign contributions of those lobbyists and their employers. The "weakness" of the legislation makes it especially vulnerable to "backdoor" addendums and subsequent revisions.
Friedman's argument is an old one: "If nothing else, at least we've sent a message.", another variation of the "art of the possible", key indicators of the impending triumph of the staus quo. Well, maybe things won't get any worse, but I doubt it.
Posted by: John Shaplin | July 2, 2009 3:17 PM
I don't really care whether or not he's correct about that particular piece of legislation because I happen to still be disgusted by his January advocacy of terrorism in that same newspaper:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/
Posted by: Jamie Burnett | July 3, 2009 5:42 AM
The let's get something passed mentality is exactly what happened with TARP. Go along to get along. Losers unite.
Posted by: Erich Riesenberg | July 4, 2009 9:31 AM