From "Joe Manchin’s new threat to destroy Biden’s agenda is worse than it seems" by Greg Sargent (WaPo). Not quoted with approval.
September 3, 2021
"It’s galling that the word 'climate' appears nowhere in Manchin’s piece, even as he piously suggests he has a divinely inspired reading of what America truly 'needs to spend.'"
"This is doubly absurd, given that he sternly lectures us about how this spending will imperil our ability to meet 'future crises.'... Manchin justifies his demand for a 'pause' on spending by citing fears of inflation. But that’s a terrible theoretical pitfall. As economist J.W. Mason told Eric Levitz, a big threat posed by inflated inflation fears is that they could become a justification for efforts to 'scale back our plans for decarbonization.'
The irony, as Mason noted, is that volatile fossil fuel prices are themselves introducing 'instability into the economic system,' so inflation actually tells us that 'we need to transition faster away from fossil fuels.' Manchin is learning exactly the wrong message, threatening awful consequences."
From "Joe Manchin’s new threat to destroy Biden’s agenda is worse than it seems" by Greg Sargent (WaPo). Not quoted with approval.
From "Joe Manchin’s new threat to destroy Biden’s agenda is worse than it seems" by Greg Sargent (WaPo). Not quoted with approval.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
Looks like the left is going to start their little religious war.
Manchin is just a heretic.
There is nothing left of the climate change religion. Just a bunch of screeching dullards.
volatile fossil fuel prices are themselves introducing 'instability into the economic system,'
Of course, as we've seen in California and Texas, wind and solar bring much more instability into our power grid, and hence our economy. Businesses can't operate if they're subject to constant fears of brownouts, remote throttling by power companies, and price spikes during peak hours.
I wouldn't be surprised if Manchin was given assurances by the Harris faction in the WH that he won't face any backlash for this. I suspect that there are a number of Dems who don't want this bill to pass, and would be happy for someone else to kill it. And if it fails then I think it will be the end of the Biden administration. It will be his third failure, after the inability to contain COVID and the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, and will indicate that his admin has no political capital or political skills. Nancy and Chuck would have to go have a talk with Grandpa Joe about why he need to turn over the keys to the ship of state to Kamala.
Gee, isn't this climate "emergency" convenient?
The Sargent piece is full of question begging.
The destruction caused by hurricane was caused by "global warming."
The New York Times is some kind of scientific authority on the cause and cure of "global warming."
I think that Sargent is in that group of elites who believes that the NY Times editorial page is the voice of God.
I am sure others will point this out, and make better points, but our volatile fossil fuel prices are a direct result of the political process. The left make a crisis and then use that crisis to enact policies that will make the crisis worse. The left are the baddies.
Plus, if all the CAGW believers actually quit carbon for good, our national output would drop at least 24, maybe 40%. But they don't want to do that, they have another agenda, because, well, they are the baddies.
Achilles: "Looks like the left is going to start their little religious war. Manchin is just a heretic. There is nothing left of the climate change religion. Just a bunch of screeching dullards."
It has been fun watching the FakeCon democratical LLR's like Max Boot and Bill Kristol and Team Pedophile at The Lincoln Man-Boy Project go ALL IN on AOC and her Green New Deal insanity while trying to pretend, like that idiot Matt Lewis and the openly pro-marxist David French did just today, they represent some sort of rational intellectual thought group and lament that no one is taking them seriously and no one will listen to them anymore!
LOL
It's so familiar since we have a fakecon LLR here at Althouse who pushes all the same far left policies while pretending to be some sort of "conservative".
I remember reading stuff this fellow wrote several years ago, circa 2010 - 2011. It was trite then and I’d expect no improvement, given his rancorous attitude. I reach for my wallet, to make sure it’s still there, when I read lefties talking up climate change.
Global warming is the new leftist religion. Faith, not evidence is important.
volatile fossil fuel prices are themselves introducing 'instability into the economic system,' so inflation actually tells us that 'we need to transition faster away from fossil fuels.'
That sentence makes no sense.
He ignores the fact that fossil fuel production in the U.S. during the Trump administration achieved "energy independence." Supply was plentiful, and prices were stable AND LOW, compared to today.
A basic tenet of economics is "Never reason from a price change." You must explore the CAUSE(S) for the price change. What has transpired in the last 8 months that so drastically altered the stability of fossil fuel prices?
Anyone care to make a few suggestions?
If you are Republican senator in a state where a Democratic governor can replace you when you die, you should get more security. The Democrats are deadly serious about getting this bill and other passed. Manchin, so far, has frustrated them, but there are other methods.
"a big threat posed by inflated inflation fears is that they could become a justification for efforts to 'scale back our plans for decarbonization.'"
A big threat posed by climate change alarmism is that it could be come a justification for efforts to ignore Econ 101 and disasters to follow.
"The irony, as Mason noted, is that volatile fossil fuel prices are themselves introducing 'instability into the economic system,'"
The irony in the irony is that volatile green energy introduces even more instability into the economic system and in people's lives.
"Manchin is learning exactly the wrong message, threatening awful consequences."
Judging by his enemies, I guess I'm going to have to like Manchin.
People like Sargent who go on about climate change (as if they know much about it at all, which they do not) act as if IT is the prime threat to future generations. Meanwhile, the vast Democratic reconciliation boondoggle will add $3.5 trillion in money we do not have and which our children will be saddled with paying for. This is the real crime against the future. As for climate, the Chinese are building coal-fired plants faster than rabbits breed while supplying us with slave-labor-produced solar panels.
Funny how volatile fossil fuel prices are when the government restricts the production and transport of those fuels.
Since Brett Kavanaugh I find myself automatically rejecting anything the Left says. My automatic assumption is that they are lying.
This may say more about me than about the policies of the Left, but then again I have no trouble sleeping at night.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
If you are Republican senator in a state where a Democratic governor can replace you when you die, you should get more security. The Democrats are deadly serious about getting this bill and other passed. Manchin, so far, has frustrated them, but there are other methods.
The current governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice, was originally elected as a Democrat, but switched parties less than a year into his first term. He was reelected in 2020 as a Republican. So, Manchin can breathe easier about his personal security.
As economist J.W. Mason told Eric Levitz, a big threat posed by inflated inflation fears is that they could become a justification for efforts to 'scale back our plans for decarbonization.' The irony, as Mason noted, is that volatile fossil fuel prices are themselves introducing 'instability into the economic system,' so inflation actually tells us that 'we need to transition faster away from fossil fuels.'
He's got it exactly backwards. The big scale Green New Deal plans are pushing up prices on fossil fuels and introducing instability into the economic system. Inflation tells us that those plans should be scaled back.
Isn't the whole point of ambitious Green New Deal plans to drive up the costs of fossil fuels to the point where renewable energy replaces them? So there's a circularity of reasoning here. Biden drives up prices and then, rather than take steps to reduce oil prices it's assumed that the rising prices justify policies that will push prices yet higher. Pain at the pump for consumers means the policies are working.
And the new clean energy from renewable sources isn't enough and isn't reliable enough, so eventually the ambitious, big scale plans collapse because of their own inability to deliver what they promise.
P.S. Isn't there always "instability" in economic systems?
Shorter Sargent: climate change hysteria increases money and power for the Deep State and the clerisy, while battling inflation reduces them. End of story.
But...but...the plants! Won't anyone think of the plants? They need CO2. If we are good to them, they'll be good to us. Please don't starve the plants!
p.s. They like it when the weather is warm.
My God! How can someone this stupid actually find their way home. Really sad.... the lack of economic literacy is a disgrace
My God! How can someone this stupid actually find their way home. Really sad.... the lack of economic literacy is a disgrace
J W Mason is a true dumbshit.
Climate change fear needs to ramp up to 11 because Afghanistan will no longer serve as a big tax money extraction device.
Biden's policies have reduced the supply of fossil fuels in the US. That reduced supply of fossil energy products has been a significant contributor to inflation. The Democrats have intentionally caused volatility in energy prices and then propose fixing it by expanding the Biden administration policies that caused the volatility in the first place.
I'd say the Democrats are stupid, but they're not. What they are is devious. They are willing to do anything, however destructive it may be, to expand their power. They are currently in the process of killing the golden goose.
The Climatistas are making big plans to spend gazillions on the elimination of fossil fuels, in order to solve global warming, climate change, climate emergency, or whatever the term d'jour is for what we used to call "weather."
Wouldn't you think such plans should include (a) a realistic cost estimate for the replacement of fossil fuels with something else, (b) a realistic cost estimate of what climate-change damage will be avoided by those plans, and (c) a showing that it would be reasonable and effective to spend the green energy money to avoid the climate change damage (that you could actually make a difference)?
And yet you NEVER see any such analysis, in all of these plans. Why would that be?
Almost certainly it is because any honest estimate of the green-energy conversion cost would be a total mind-blower, whereas the climate-change damage that would be avoided (if that is even possible) would be 'meh, whatever' in scale, compared to the cost.
So, if you're a climatista, never, ever talk about cost-benefit analysis in connection with your green dreams. Even if you're also an economist. Because in 'matters of faith,' we can't be so crass!
My memory is that when it comes to religious wars, heretics are invariably treated far more harshly than heathen. Which sort of makes sense, as a heathen might be converted but a heretic is beyond hope.
In any case (holy war or no), Manchin will "compromise" by agreeing to a mere $3T, instead of the whole $3.5T; hopes that Manchin will derail this budget debauchery are, therefore, essentially null.
"It’s galling that the word 'climate' appears nowhere in Manchin’s piece, even as he piously suggests he has a divinely inspired reading of what America truly 'needs to spend.'"
News flash: Manchin comes from West Virginia, which is all about coal.
So no, isn't not going to give a shit about "climate change". Get over it
Yancey Ward said...
If you are Republican senator in a state where a Democratic governor can replace you when you die, you should get more security. The Democrats are deadly serious about getting this bill and other passed.
There's a lot more fake "Republican" (Romney, Murkowski, Sasse, for example) and real Democrat (MT, GA, AZ immediately come to mind) senators from States with Republican governors.
And Republicans are better shots.
The Democrats may try to go that route. But they won't enjoy the results if they do it
"As economist J.W. Mason..."
According to Mason's bio page, "I was formerly the Policy Director for the New York State Working Families Party."
Nope. Nothing to see here, folks. Just another apolitical, mainstream economist. Move along.
Nice catch, Biff, thank you!
Post a Comment