Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?
16 Jul 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of information, economics of media and culture, economics of regulation, environmental economics, health economics, politics - USA Tags: Anti-Science left, rational irrationality
.@NZlabour wants to crash house prices! @NZGreens take on the NIMBYs! @PhilTwyford
14 Jul 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of regulation, environmental economics, politics - New Zealand, transport economics, urban economics Tags: housing affordability, land supply, New Zealand Greens, New Zealand Labour Party, NIMBYs
There has been an unexpected outbreak of political courage on the left of New Zealand politics.
The Labour Party wants to crash housing prices by not only abolishing the Auckland urban limit, but ensuring councils can fund the necessary infrastructure to bring new land to the market:
Labour will remove the Auckland urban growth boundary and free up density controls. This will give Auckland more options to grow, as well as stopping land bankers profiteering and holding up development. New developments, both in Auckland and the rest of New Zealand, will be funded through innovative infrastructure bonds.
In response, the Greens want to take on the inner city NIMBYs by greatly increasing housing density and new developments in their pristine suburbs
Like Labour, we believe that people should have a choice about where they live. But a lot of people want to live close to the central city where they work or study. That means delivering more high-quality, inner city housing options, not endless sprawling new suburbs.
It’s often easier and cheaper to revitalise central suburbs than it is to build new suburbs on the city fringes. Infrastructure for new sprawling subdivisions is very expensive.
This outbreak of courage is surprising after the resolute opposition of these parties to any reform of the Resource Management Act to loosen up the land supply.
It is a breakthrough nonetheless because at least the Labour Party admits that housing affordability is about increasing land supply by removing the Auckland urban limit.
.@GreenpeaceNZ picks & chooses its scientific consensus #GMOs #globalwarming
02 Jul 2016 Leave a comment
in development economics, environmental economics, global warming, health economics, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: activists, agricultural economics, antimarket bias, climate alarmism, do gooders, expressive voting, GMOs, green rent seeking, Greenpeace, Twitter left
For a generation, a campaign by the green movement against the growing of genetically modified crops has held sway across Europe. These foodstuffs are a threat to health, the environment and the small independent farmer, NGOs have argued.
As result, virtually no GM crops have been grown on Europe’s farms for the past 25 years. Yet hard evidence to support what is, in all but name, a ban on these vilified forms of plant life is thin on the ground. In fact, most scientific reports have indicated that they are generally safe, both to humans and the environment.
This point was endorsed last week when a 20-strong committee of experts from the US National Academies of Science announced the results of its trawl of three decades of scientific studies for “persuasive evidence of adverse health effects directly attributable to consumption of foods derived from genetically engineered crops”. It found none.
Instead the group uncovered evidence that GM crops have the potential to bestow considerable health benefits. An example is provided by golden rice, a genetically modified rice that contains beta carotene, a source of vitamin A. Its use could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who suffer from vitamin A deficiency in the third world, say scientists.
Source: The Observer view on the GM crops debate | Opinion | The Guardian
Scientists and governments around the world overwhelmingly agree that climate change is real, is largely human-induced and needs urgent action to prevent.
There is, in fact, a broad and overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, is caused in large part by human activities (such as burning fossil fuels), and if left un-checked will likely have disastrous consequences.
Furthermore, there is solid scientific evidence that we should act now on climate change – and this is reflected in the statements by these definitive scientific authorities.
@Greenpeace thugs vandalise golden rice trial in #Pinas
02 Jul 2016 Leave a comment
in development economics, economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, health economics Tags: Anti-Science left, GMOs, Greenpeace, Philippines, terrorism
Liberal Democrats energy policy @auslibdems
28 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economics, energy economics, environmental economics Tags: 2016 Australian federal election
Does @JulieAnneGenter know how much an electric car costs? @GreenpeaceNZ
17 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in energy economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, politics - New Zealand Tags: electric cars, expressive voting, fuel poverty, New Zealand Greens, Norway, tokenism
The New Zealand Greens welcomed the possibility that Norway may ban the sale of petrol driven cars in 2025. From then on Norwegians may be only able to buy an electric car.
Source: NZ electric vehicle buyers guide.
If this Norwegian policy of banning petrol cars by 2025 was repeated in New Zealand, most New Zealanders could not afford a new car or indeed any car at all. The cheapest electric car is $55,000 new and often much more. They also still have serious, indeed crippling range anxiety as the adjacent screen snapshot shows from the New Zealand electric cars buyers guide.
Tesla destroys the competition when it comes to how far its cars go on one charge buff.ly/1LphuLg http://t.co/UhIAECZIFp—
Business Insider (@businessinsider) October 17, 2015
These type of policies from the Greens show how impractical they are and how contemptuous they are of ordinary families having a decent lifestyle, affordable cars and cheap energy. The Greens prefer ordinary people to have to scrimp and save for expensive cars that lose value quickly and do not go very far.
Neo-colonial @oxfamnz continues to bully small island states
16 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, development economics, environmental economics, global warming, international economic law, international economics, public economics
Oxfam joins others on the reactionary left in seeking to bully former colonies over their economic policies, in particular, their tax policies that promote tax havens.
The Cayman Islands is a British overseas territory that chooses to stay British with limited self-government. If the British were to start bullying it over its tax haven and offshore financial centre policies, it would immediately seek independence.
This attempt by former colonial masters to bully small countries to toe their line on tax policies is not done in any way for the benefit of these former colonies and their economic development. It is old-fashioned imperialism with a new motivation, tax imperialism. The aim is to prevent capital flight and the erosion of the business tax base in developed countries.
This is a seething hypocrisy given that Oxfam was all for #TPPANoWay. It is OK to go your own way on tariffs, intellectual property and investment and other economic regulations but not taxes. Countries have a tariff sovereignty but not a tax sovereignty.
This is a self-serving neo-colonial hypocrisy. The sovereignty arguments for #TPPANoWay are identical to those for the right of countries to act as tax havens. Identical. Tariffs deny other countries export markets; tax havens deny other countries tax revenue.
Small island states were left-wing and environmentalist heroes on climate change at the most recent conference on global warming in Paris but are villains regarding tax havens. In both cases, these small countries are exercising their sovereignty regarding their foreign policies and economic policies.
Oxfam believes that the democratic rights of former colonies do not extend to shaping their own economic policies. Oxfam wants them to be put on a neo-colonial leash.
Bill Maher: Sanders Supporters Are “Used To Getting Shit For Free”; That’s Not Socialism, It’s “Santa-ism”
13 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, defence economics, economic history, economics of education, economics of media and culture, economics of regulation, environmental economics, industrial organisation, politics - USA, survivor principle Tags: 2016 presidential election, Twitter left
Desperately seeking to agree with @JulieAnneGenter on transport investment quality
11 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, economics of bureaucracy, environmental economics, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, transport economics, urban economics Tags: cost benefit analysis, KiwiRail, New Zealand Green Party, road pricing
I just wrote an op-ed for National Business Review online (pay-walled) agreeing with an op-ed last week by Green MP Julie Anne Genter on transport investment. My op-ed started
The Taxpayers’ Union welcomes the commitment of the Green Party yesterday to evaluating transport investments without any bias or favouritism to one transport mode over another.
The Taxpayers’ Union could not agree more with Julie Anne Genter when she said that the question ministers should always ask is “what is the best investment we can make?”
This op-ed was my rejoinder to her reply to my op-ed criticising a recent Green Party on national freight policy. That policy called for 25% of all freight by kilometres travelled to each go by rail and road. That would near double their freight market share from 30% currently to 50% when measured by kilometre.
For my troubles I got nothing but criticism and accusations in the comments section in National Business Review Online. A tweet by Genter was far more gracious.
There was no praise in the comment section at the National Business Review online for agreeing with the Green policy. In the first comment I was told I did not understand economics and that
When the policy default is “cut taxes and spending and let me selfishly keep my money” they miss out on the much larger benefit to everyone, including themselves, by nudging or economy to spend more on intrinsically more efficient transport – like rail – and less on alternatives.
No thanks at all for agreeing that transport investments should be the best we can make. After saying that in their recent freight policy, the Greens set targets were specific transport technologies they favour, which are rail and sea freight.
You cannot argue that transport investments should be the best we can make then declare a preference for a particular technology or mode of transport. But let us not quibble over that glaring contradiction.
The broader principle was agreed which is transport investments should be driven by cost benefit analysis and value for money. It should be technology neutral and transport mode neutral. That, of course, means the Greens cannot declare targets for the market shares of particular modes of freight shipment if they want to follow their own policy about value for money.
Fossil fuels and The Great Escape
09 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, development economics, economic history, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming, growth miracles, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: China, energy poverty, extreme poverty, India, The Great Enrichment, The Great Escape
Recent Comments