Comments on: Martin Weitzman's Dismal Theorem: Do "Fat Tails" Destroy Cost-Benefit Analysis? http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/martin-weitzmans-dismal-theorem-do-fat-tails-destroy-cost-benefit-analysis/ A free-market energy blog Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:50:41 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Freaking Out over Global Warming | Rights To Freedom http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/martin-weitzmans-dismal-theorem-do-fat-tails-destroy-cost-benefit-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-3207 Freaking Out over Global Warming | Rights To Freedom Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:05:53 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=536#comment-3207 [...] opposite of what Weitzman has done. The issues are too technical for a full discussion here, but elsewhere I have explained that Weitzman is one of the interventionists’ heroes on the issue of climate [...] [...] opposite of what Weitzman has done. The issues are too technical for a full discussion here, but elsewhere I have explained that Weitzman is one of the interventionists’ heroes on the issue of climate [...]

]]> By: Climate Economics 101 and Policy Activism — MasterResource http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/martin-weitzmans-dismal-theorem-do-fat-tails-destroy-cost-benefit-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-337 Climate Economics 101 and Policy Activism — MasterResource Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:05:39 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=536#comment-337 [...] of uncertainty, or how they handle small-probability worst case scenarios. Martin Weitzman is the leader in this assault. Weitzman argues that the orthodox approach of people like William Nordhaus neglects the small [...] [...] of uncertainty, or how they handle small-probability worst case scenarios. Martin Weitzman is the leader in this assault. Weitzman argues that the orthodox approach of people like William Nordhaus neglects the small [...]

]]> By: TokyoTom http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/martin-weitzmans-dismal-theorem-do-fat-tails-destroy-cost-benefit-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-336 TokyoTom Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:24:58 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=536#comment-336 Bob, while you're shoring up "cost-benefit analysis" - the tool of states and bureaucrats everywehere - perhaps you may care to address the point that, under traditional libertarian analysis, if anyone can demonstrate that others' GHG emissions negatively affect his property (by altering temperatures, rainfall or causing flooding), he has the right to enjoin ALL such activities (and is not compelled to suffer them, subject to whatever compensation he can collect)? Perhaps the "excitableness" of the "alarmists" may have something to do with the problems of collective action and public choice - viz., in circumstances where pollution laws and regulations provide effective "rights to pollute", and where emissions are worldwide, how does one deal with existing rent-seekers and move the state, and do it in a meaningful way? There are plenty of private initiatives underway, and even though Austrians dissaprove of efforts to use the state, surely they can understand calls to group action, and that many of the "alarmists" sincerely believe that a fight over the wheel of government is inescapable. Fundamental Austrian analysis straigthforwardly discussed the problems of conflicting preferences in the absence of property rights and where states are involved, but your lack of understanding or sympathy is rather striking. Why you think it helpful to label one side - a huge swath of people and organizations including Exxon and the Catholic Church - as "alarmists" while ignoring not only the institutional problem but those who profit from the status quo is rather beyond me. Also, why so little interest in exploring policy options that you would support, like allowing immediate depreciation of capital investment and further public utility deregulation? Bob, while you’re shoring up “cost-benefit analysis” – the tool of states and bureaucrats everywehere – perhaps you may care to address the point that, under traditional libertarian analysis, if anyone can demonstrate that others’ GHG emissions negatively affect his property (by altering temperatures, rainfall or causing flooding), he has the right to enjoin ALL such activities (and is not compelled to suffer them, subject to whatever compensation he can collect)?

Perhaps the “excitableness” of the “alarmists” may have something to do with the problems of collective action and public choice – viz., in circumstances where pollution laws and regulations provide effective “rights to pollute”, and where emissions are worldwide, how does one deal with existing rent-seekers and move the state, and do it in a meaningful way? There are plenty of private initiatives underway, and even though Austrians dissaprove of efforts to use the state, surely they can understand calls to group action, and that many of the “alarmists” sincerely believe that a fight over the wheel of government is inescapable.

Fundamental Austrian analysis straigthforwardly discussed the problems of conflicting preferences in the absence of property rights and where states are involved, but your lack of understanding or sympathy is rather striking. Why you think it helpful to label one side – a huge swath of people and organizations including Exxon and the Catholic Church – as “alarmists” while ignoring not only the institutional problem but those who profit from the status quo is rather beyond me.

Also, why so little interest in exploring policy options that you would support, like allowing immediate depreciation of capital investment and further public utility deregulation?

]]> By: TokyoTom http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/martin-weitzmans-dismal-theorem-do-fat-tails-destroy-cost-benefit-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-335 TokyoTom Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:22:37 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=536#comment-335 Bob, while you're busy shoring up "cost-benefit analysis" - the tool of states and bureaucrats everywehere - perhaps you may care to address the point that, under traditional libertarian analysis, if anyone can demonstrate that others' GHG emissions negatively affect his property (by altering temperatures, rainfall or causing flooding), he has the right to enjoin ALL such activities (and is not compelled to suffer them, subject to whatever compensation he can collect)? Perhaps the "excitableness" of the "alarmists" may have something to do with the problems of collective action and public choice - viz., in circumstances where pollution laws and regulations provide effective "rights to pollute", and where emissions are worldwide, how does one deal with existing rent-seekers and move the state, and do it in a meaningful way? Fundamental Austrian analysis straigthforwardly discussed the problems of conflicting preferences in the absence of property rights and where states are involved, but your lack of understanding or sympathy is rather striking. Why you think it helpful to label one side - a huge swath of people and organizations including Exxon and the Catholic Church - as "alarmists" while ignoring not only the institutional problem but those who profit from the status quo is rather beyond me. P.S.: I addressed some of the libertarian aspects of climate change in this post regarding Jim Manzi's similar review at Cato of Weitzman: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/default.aspx Bob, while you’re busy shoring up “cost-benefit analysis” – the tool of states and bureaucrats everywehere – perhaps you may care to address the point that, under traditional libertarian analysis, if anyone can demonstrate that others’ GHG emissions negatively affect his property (by altering temperatures, rainfall or causing flooding), he has the right to enjoin ALL such activities (and is not compelled to suffer them, subject to whatever compensation he can collect)?

Perhaps the “excitableness” of the “alarmists” may have something to do with the problems of collective action and public choice – viz., in circumstances where pollution laws and regulations provide effective “rights to pollute”, and where emissions are worldwide, how does one deal with existing rent-seekers and move the state, and do it in a meaningful way?

Fundamental Austrian analysis straigthforwardly discussed the problems of conflicting preferences in the absence of property rights and where states are involved, but your lack of understanding or sympathy is rather striking. Why you think it helpful to label one side – a huge swath of people and organizations including Exxon and the Catholic Church – as “alarmists” while ignoring not only the institutional problem but those who profit from the status quo is rather beyond me.

P.S.: I addressed some of the libertarian aspects of climate change in this post regarding Jim Manzi’s similar review at Cato of Weitzman: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/default.aspx

]]> By: Roger Koppl http://www.masterresource.org/2009/02/martin-weitzmans-dismal-theorem-do-fat-tails-destroy-cost-benefit-analysis/comment-page-1/#comment-334 Roger Koppl Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:51:08 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=536#comment-334 Nice! Thanks for that post, Bob. How do you square Nordhaus's CBA with "Austrian" (or computable economics) arguments about complexity and the difficulty of prediction? Why shouldn't we chastise Nordhaus for hubris? The pretense of knowledge and all that. Nice! Thanks for that post, Bob. How do you square Nordhaus’s CBA with “Austrian” (or computable economics) arguments about complexity and the difficulty of prediction? Why shouldn’t we chastise Nordhaus for hubris? The pretense of knowledge and all that.

]]>