New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

George Will’s latest column in Newsweek consisted of a series of questions he would like to see Senator Obama answer during this campaign. It is worth reading the whole thing, but here are a few of my favorites:

• ExxonMobil’s 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft’s and many other corporations’? And that reducing ExxonMobil’s profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

• You say John McCain is content to “watch [Americans'] home prices decline.” So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator knowideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

• Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans’ lives have “gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl.” Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor’s degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls “just downright mean”?

• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to “20 percent or 25 percent.” You say this will not “distort” economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

• You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical “hammer” to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?

Most of these questions capture economic illiteracy that is commonplace in politics. It especially suggests the arrogance of a politician who think that he can make economic decisions better than individuals can in the free marketplace. The second question really gets to the heart of it–could you even imagine him trying to answer?

Popularity: 7% [?]

An article in today’s NY Times chronicles a dental clinic operating in rural Alaska, without any certified dentists and without the sanction of the dental unions.

The dental clinic in this village on the edge of the Bering Sea looks like any other, with four chairs, a well-scrubbed floor and a waiting area filled with magazines.

But to the Alaska Dental Society and the American Dental Association, the clinic is a place where the rules of dentistry are flouted daily. The dental groups object not because of any evidence that the clinic provides substandard care, but because it is run by Aurora Johnson, who is not a dentist. After two years of training in a program unique to Alaska, Ms. Johnson performs basic dental work like drilling and filling cavities.

Some dentists who specialize in public health, noting that 100 million Americans cannot afford adequate dental care, say such training programs should be offered nationwide. But professional dental groups disagree, saying that only dentists, with four years of postcollegiate education, should do work like Ms. Johnson’s. And while such arrangements are common outside the United States, only one American dental school, in Anchorage, offers such a program.

The number of dentists in the United States has been roughly flat since 1990 and is forecast to decline over the next decade. A study last year from the Centers for Disease Control showed that Americans’ dental health was worsening for the first time since statistics began to be kept …

…[T]he A.D.A. continues to oppose allowing therapists to operate anywhere in the lower 49 states. Currently, therapists are allowed to practice only in Alaska, and only on Alaska Natives.

Unions are historically ruthless and effective in pursuit of their political interests, even when they consist of dentists. Its no surprise, of course, that dentists want a closed industry especially when non PHDed dental workers earn a third to a half as much.
The obvious effect of regulations that mandate certain standards for dental servants is to limit the supply of labor in a sector where training and education is already expensive and time consuming. The consequences are manifest in the number of dentists remaining stagnant for almost two decades as well as the fact that “100 million Americans” can’t afford coverage (100 million seems to be an absurdly high amount, but upon further research it does appear that around 150 million don’t have insurance at all, so the number may be realistic).
The case-study may also tell us something about the problems in the healthcare industry, where the American Medical Association uses its weight to limit the supply of medical workers–as well as the amount that certain non-PHDed workers are allowed to do.
A review of the book Profession and Monopoly gives examples:

“…in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals, it points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA’s influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.”

While I assume that some regulations may have arisen in recent years, most have been in place for years and do not explain the overall climb in healthcare prices of late. However their rollback would still be a positive step toward making healthcare a more a affordable and more competitive industry, allowing low-priced medical practices, such as the dental practice in Alaska, to do business.

What I propose is neither dangerous nor radical really–all it is is an opportunity for the price system to operate. When prices rise, demand falls, which is impetus for supply to surge and bring prices back toward equilibrium. But because supply of health service is relatively inelastic (especially because of how expensive and capital intensive it is in both the human-educational sense, and the physical-technological sense), and various policies disable lower priced service to compete, a price floor is essentially created.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of the Greenwich Time regarding administrative regulation of student media at my high school, but especially of the student newspaper. Here’s a fraction of it:

The systematic, bureaucratic censorship of The Beak (the name of the paper), as well as all other student media at GHS, severely hamstrings the intellectual and informational quality of its product. A myriad of regulations are enforced on a whim by a single faculty adviser who has the pressure of school administration on his shoulders. Similarly, other publications, such as the satirical Weekling, and any organization wishing to disseminate information are unilaterally censored by the overbearing student activities office.

In the three years that I have written for the paper I have had three editorials censored–one on abortion, one on Islam, and one criticizing a myriad of invasive laws including bans on steroids, prostitution, marijuana, and the drinking age. In addition, I have witnessed a list of columns not published because of the whimsical regulations on what is “appropriate” for young adults.

The case I am trying to make is not one a moralistic, first amendment one. To the contrary, I do not think that the first amendment holds much weight in this situation. Thus, I am not disputing the Supreme Court decision from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which essentially says that because the school is essentially the property of the government, the school administration has the right to regulate student speech to their liking.

However, whether the school can and whether the school should regulate speech are two different issues. Call me a romantic, but I thought that the goal of a school was to maximize the body of knowledge and curiosity of students (although I think that makes me more rational than romantic). I do not see how schools could at once be promoting an intellectual environment when they are systematically stifling various issues and opinions.

Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for instance, which was the disputed topic in the Hazelwood case. Few would dispute that it is a touchy subject. But what audience better to address it with than teens? The article in question contained primary sources discussing the reality of the issue. I don’t see how talking about the matter in an open and honest manner could hurt students. To the contrary, I can only imagine that talking about it would inform students and prevent pregnancy for those who are informed by the newspaper article.

Similarly, one of my censored columns was a critical examination of certain aspects of Islam. While conventional wisdom tells us not to discuss religion in public, not discussing religion freely and in a philosophical manner does nothing to reduce “intolerance” (which is what my editorial was labeled). The more informed and rational people are and the more they understand that it is okay to disagree even on matters as fundamental as religion, the more rounded and tolerant our educational institutions will be.

The saddest part about the censorship, which I should also mention is not practiced nearly as much as it is practiced in colleges, is that it muffles the creativity of students. While schools should be attempting to teach their kids as much about the world as possible, they only have so much time. The greatest reflection on educators is when they can foster the creativity and passion of individual students. Such initiative is manifest in students who examine fringe and risque issues in a scholarly manner. And while these cases are rare, the last thing that should be done by in response is censor them.

Popularity: 21% [?]

Not unexpectedly, there has been a sufficient amount of crowing from the left about the need for more financial regulation in light of the credit crunch. Their reasoning seems to encompass little more than the idea that deregulation or underregulation was the source of our current problems (which makes even less sense when you consider that there is no significant repeal in mortgage or lending laws to my knowlege).

This essay, however, directly refutes that idea:

The most striking fact about the ongoing financial mayhem is that it is concentrated not in lightly regulated hedge funds but in more heavily regulated commercial and investment banks. It is banks that created subprime mortgage securities. It is banks that mispriced them. And it is banks that filled their own coffers with this toxic paper, losing hundreds of billions of dollars. A somewhat breathless March 31Financial Times article proclaimed the closing of the worst month for hedge funds since the collapse of the infamous Long Term Capital Management in 1998. But the average fund tracked by the Chicago-based firm Hedge Fund Research declined by a mere 2.4 percent in March, bringing the cumulative fall for the first quarter of 2008 to 2.7 percent. By contrast, the bank-heavy financial services component of the S&P 500 fell 12.3 percent in the first quarter.

Hedge funds, for the most part, have weathered the storm remarkably well.

Simply put, if underregulation was the problem we would logically see worse performance from hedge funds than investment banks seeing that hedge funds are relatively unregulated financial vehicles.

While I blame the present problem on years of overly exuberant credit expansion by the Fed, I think it is an economic mystery why loose credit disproportionately funded a bubble in the mortgage market versus any other area of the economy (in the same way that it is mysterious why technology was overextended in the late ’90s). Put simply, we do not know why the mortgage markets bore the brunt of the Fed’s policy, but hopefully we can at least be resolved to do two things: a) not let the central banks devalue our money to the extent they have been doing this decade and b) avoid government bail-outs participants in these financial markets, which will create the same incentives to make bad investments that cause the problem in the first place.

Popularity: 25% [?]

One of the reasons Steven Landsburg, a professor of economics from the University of Rochester, is one of my favorite economists around today is because he writes articles like the one he wrote this week called, The Case for Foreclosures. Here is part of his explanation:

I predict with great confidence that when I say that foreclosures create new homeowners, a sizable chunk of my readers will scoff that “the people who can afford them would have been able to afford nice homes anyway.” I could use economics to explain why those readers are mistaken (a glut of homes on the market leads to falling prices, etc.), but that’s unnecessarily complicated. All it takes is the simple observation that there cannot be more homeowners than there are homes, and if one home becomes vacant, then there can be one new homeowner. Call it the law of conservation of homes.

Its nothing more than a logical consequence of the price system that as people cannot pay their mortgages and demand goes down, prices will also go down to compensate and reestablish equilibrium in the housing market. The alternative, such as a freeze in foreclosures or interest rates as proposed by Hilary Clinton, could not change the fact that many residents cannot afford to pay their mortgages under the presently readjusted, the peril of which would be that more lenders would go bankrupt and less lenders would be able to initiate new mortgages for buyers looking to purchase homes on the market at reduced market prices.

Indeed it is contrarian to encourage foreclosures, but that’s not exactly what Landsburg is doing; Landsburg is, in reality, encouraging market forces and the price system as a means of achieving the optimal outcome in a below-average situation and warning against the unintended and unseen consequences of manipulating those natural forces. Indeed, much of my blogging on economics aspires to have the same effect whereby it defeats anti-market conventional wisdom by enumerating all the possibly hidden or misunderstood effects of anti-market policies.

Hahvahd professor Greg Mankiw also pointed out that it should come as no surprise that such an economist would be making a case for something as indefensible and callous as home foreclosure, considering he has also praised Ebenezer Scrooge. Of course this too sounds unfathomable considering the way the very name has become a household admonishment on any individual accused of selfishness.

In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser—the man who could deplete the world’s resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide.

In many ways his approbation of the miser is not only a approbation of the classical principles of savings and thrift, but also a rebuke of consumptionist-Keynsian thought. Either way, it is particularly brilliant in the tradition of “pop economics,” which dates back to Fredric Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt, for looking at “that which is seen, and that which is unseen.”

Today, popular economics has reached its apex, namely in the fame of the book Freakonomics. But what most don’t recall is that in modern times, before there was Steven Levitt–or anyone else for that matter–there was Steven Landsburg who wrote The Armchair Economist written in the late ’80s with a greater emphasis on logic, incentives, and larger economic trends, compared with Levitt’s nuanced microeconomic empiricism.

Finally, I found this video of Professor Landsburg on John Gibson’s Fox News show from a couple of years ago. He was brought on to talk about trade and a rising protectionist inclination among the American people, and in the face of those sentiments he makes the case that protectionism is xenophobic, irrational, and not dissimilar to racism. The exchange is heated but Landsburg sufficiently owns Gibson on his own show. And with trade and NAFTA emerging as a leading issue in this campaign cycle, the video is particularly relevant.

You can watch it by clicking the link directly below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 40% [?]

The candidate who manages the economy least.

At least that is the theme of John Stossel’s newest article, which hits the proverbial nail on the head. So often the question regarding the economy in presidential elections is who will best “manage” it. But that question, especially the term “manage” really implies that inevitably the president will be exerting a great deal of control over the economy, and the issue is relates more to how the president will then allocate spending and taxation and regulation–how he or she will “man the controls.”

But in reality, the question should be more open-ended and have more choices. Rather than ask, how the president will manage the economy, we should first ask, will the president manage the economy, and if so, how much.

By addressing the basic issues of government’s place in the economy, which voters systematically ignore in favor of the same amount of executive control year after year, Stossel is able to put into perspective the economic nonsense that Congress or the president is directly responsible for growth.

He writes:

Sen. Hillary Clinton told The New York Times recently, “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. … You try to find common ground, insofar as possible. But if you really believe you have to manage the economy, you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it.”

Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. “Power” in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people.

Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.

The economy is far too complex for any president — no matter how smart — to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources?

They can’t. That’s why free people are more prosperous than unfree people.

Presidential candidates should promise to keep their hands off the economy.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Now that Obama has decided to shed a fraction of his flowery rhetoric in favor of more specific ideas, especially on economic issues, he is beginning to paint a better self-portrait of himself as a policy man. But when listening to him talk substance, I cannot help but raise an eyebrow relatively often. Here was a absurd comment from his Chesapeake victory speech:

It’s a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart.

This contention is just completely wrong and makes almost no economic sense. It is illogical and there is no data to support it. Not only is it sensationalism and Wal-Mart bashing, but seems that there is no reason to say it unless it were aimed at scaring people into supporting Obama and his economic plan. There is really no other explanation to why he said it other than it is pandering and, ironically, fear-mongering from the man who pontificates about hope all the time.

If he was economically literate he would take note of the fact that over half of those working minimum wage are under the age of 25 (and more than a quarter in their teens), while almost nine of every ten minimum wage workers do not have any dependents (BLS). Moreover, he would also recognize that freer trade allows for more capital mobility and for businesses and people to remain more productive, thus delivering more, cheaper, and better products to consumers. Bill Clinton was honest enough to embrace free trade even when it went against his party’s grain. Now even his wife isn’t brave enough to stand up against her party. Worse yet, Republicans like Huckabee, and to an extent Romney when he was still in the race, underhandedly went after free trade, using the unoriginal line, “I believe in free trade, but it has to be ‘fair’ trade.” Talk about a lepor’s bell. Among candidates on trade, however, McCain has demonstrated that he is most consistently in favor, even telling Iowans that he is in favor of eliminating all farm an ethanol subsidies.

One of America’s most prominent economists, Greg Mankiw, writes:

An open question in my mind is whether Barack Obama is going to align himself with the economic centrists in the Democratic party or with the populists on the far left of the party. A key litmus test is trade, and so far it does not look good.

And, for that matter, it doesn’t look so good for the other Democrat in the race as well.

From the Washington Post, here are the candidates records on earmarking which should serve as an indicator to how much fiscal restraint and responsibility they will practice on the whole:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year’s spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.

On the issue of disparity in pay between men and women, the candidates positions serve as an indicator of their overall attitude towards free exchange and market forces, as well as their willingness to use government to stifle those forces. From the WSJ:

There are actually two versions of comparable worth legislation, the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. The former is co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama; the principal sponsor of the latter is Sen. Hillary Clinton (Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor). Both would push companies to set wages based not on supply and demand — that is the free market — but on some notion of social utility. The goal is to ensure that jobs performed mostly by men (say, truck drivers) are not paid more than those performed mostly by women (paralegals, perhaps).

President Ronald Reagan correctly called comparable worth “a cockamamie idea.” A great lesson of economic theory, not to mention historical experience, is that government-set wages and prices not only curtail freedom, but lead to shortages, surpluses and market disruptions.

The writer is right on the money with his conclusion, but I will add that the arrogance of the candidates who think that the millions upon millions of individual economic actors determining supply and demand, while working in their own self-interest, should be manipulated on a whim by government edicts is becoming increasingly ominous. While I have traditionally said that Obama would be slightly more rational on the economy than Clinton, it is clear that their platforms are very, very similar (Clinton even accused Obama of copying her ideas) on these issues and that neither are very desirable Presidents at least in terms of how they would handle the economy. And even though McCain has his fair share of economic setbacks, not to mention the fact that he claims to not know much about the economy, he appears to be a more consistent backer of limited government and the free market than either Democrat would wish to be accused of in their wildest nightmares.

Popularity: 41% [?]

This past summer I wrote about the great hope I had in Nicolas Sarkozy to restore capitalism to France and by doing so, save its lagging economy. I had read transcripts of his translated speeches, saw him on television multiple times and read enough articles about him to feel that he was somebody who could truly enact change in that once great nation which is slowly being marginalized in the global arena. I stand here today disappointed that this man who had such great rhetoric on the campaign trail failed to live up to his promises.

Sarkozy has proven to be a protectionist in his trade policies and just as socialist, in most other policies, as the machinery he claimed he would tear down. His popularity in France has dropped 13% and, instead of sticking to his convictions, he has simply given in. This past Monday he spoke to steelworkers and declared he would save their plant from being shutdown, on Wednesday he promised bonuses to low-income pensioners and, in response to a slow down by taxi drivers, the same day ended plans to deregulate that service. All of these are far cries from his campaign days where he gained widespread support for wanting to significantly reduce government regulation and handouts, and create a more privatized economy. Obviously this is not the man the French people thought they would be getting when they overwhelmingly voted for him and gave his party a considerable majority in the National Assembly.

The biggest disappointment, however, has been his handling of the Societe General (SocGen) situation. SocGen is a major French bank that has recently experienced tremendous losses. Sarkozy has been adamant that only another French company may bid for the bank. This ignorant protectionist view will do more harm than good for SocGen and the French economy as a whole. SocGen will not get the best price if foreign companies are not allowed to bid on it, so the shareholders will be injured. The French economy will take a blow as investors who may have believed in Sarkozy’s rhetoric about opening France to globalism will realize that he is no different than previous French protectionist politicians, and invest their money elsewhere.

Popularity: 28% [?]

George Soros is convinced that the world is about to enter a serious recession.  Unfortunately, it seems as if most of the financial world is similarly convinced. The latest trend in stock markets seems to be, “Sell!  Sell!” as traders don’t know what’s going to happen in trading today in the United States, which just opened at 10AM.  The Federal Reserve, in an attempt to head off the recession, cut interest rates last night in a rare between-meetings announcement.   News from the Asian markets isn’t good, with Forbes saying that the environment is rather negative.  One Japanese trader seems to have summed up the mood.

“It’s like a funeral in here,” said Ken Masuda, senior equities dealer at Shinko Securities in Tokyo.  ”No one knows what’s going to happen tonight in New York.  It’s like we’ve gone blind, you don’t know what’s coming.

“Until we see New York, all we can do is sell.” 

We can hope that the United States can stave off recession with an economic stimulus package and without pushing the stock market lower.  Unfortunately, the stimulus package seems far off, as Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on how to reinvigorate the economy.  Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY] predicts that the stimulus package will be passed some time in March.  If the market drops today as it has been predicted, this may be too late.  Europe, meanwhile, is convinced they won’t be affected by the US’ possible recession.  We’ll be covering the financial situation all day, and we hope that our next post comes with good news instead of bad.  In the meantime, as Eftychis suggested, stick to Forbes, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, and financial aggregators like Google Finance & Yahoo Financefor up to the minute reports on the stock market’s position.  As of this writing, the NASDAQ was down approximately 117.68 points, or 5.03%, while the DJIA has seen a drop of 59.91 points [or .49%].

Popularity: 75% [?]

From his Economic View column in the NYT, Tyler Cowen writes:

There has been plenty of talk about “predatory lending,” but “predatory borrowing” may have been the bigger problem. As much as 70 percent of recent early payment defaults had fraudulent misrepresentations on their original loan applications, according to one recent study. The research was done by BasePoint Analytics, which helps banks and lenders identify fraudulent transactions; the study looked at more than three million loans from 1997 to 2006, with a majority from 2005 to 2006. Applications with misrepresentations were also five times as likely to go into default.

This fact, however, falls upon the deaf ears of the Democrats, all of who touched upon the issue in Tuesday’s Nevada debate:

Edwards said, “We need a national law cracking down on predatory and payday lenders that are taking advantage of our most vulnerable families.”

Clinton argued that, “…because of the way the interest rates are going up, and many of the fraudulent and predatory practices that got people into them in the first place…” we need to extend credit and loosen bankrupcy laws for those in trouble.

Obama agreed, “Hillary’s exactly right, but we’ve got to modify some of the fraudulent practices, predatory lending practices.”

It sounds wonderful to the economically illiterate, but this season’s buzzword–“predatory” lending–does not so much as pass the smell test. The fact is that the phenominan–if you can call it that–is easily explained by the price system. If the price of credit goes down, and lenders have access to a greater supply of funds then demand from consumers goes up as they are able to borrow more then they previously could. With more credit, consumers are able to buy higher end goods, which they otherwise wouldn’t have access to–such as homes–and the price for those goods grows.

In reality, neither the lenders nor borrowers were “predatory.” Each demanded more credit as credit became cheaper. Unfortunately for both, the credit bubble burst and they are suffering the consequences of unsustainable financing. But the fact remains, it makes no sense to call either party “predatory” considering they both got screwed. And I believe that is the point that Professor Cowen would ultimately make.

In the same column, Cown spoke on lethal cold fronts:

Spells of extreme cold kill over 27,000 Americans each year, or about 700 people each very cold day. Heat waves may receive more publicity, but it turns out that cold periods — days with an average temperature below 30 degrees —have more significant and longer-lasting effects on human mortality. More people die in cold periods than in homicides.

Extreme cold brings cardiovascular stress as human bodies struggle to adjust to the temperature; many of the deaths in these periods come through heart attacks. Heat waves tend to kill people who were already weakened and would have died soon anyway; cold periods bring additional people to the verge of death.

When retired people move to a warmer state, their life expectancy rises dramatically. In fact, 8 to 15 percent of the increase in American life expectancy over the last 30 years comes from people moving to warmer climates, according to research done by two economics professors, Olivier Deschenes at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Enrico Moretti, at the University of California, Berkeley.

Much is made of how a warming trend could hurt us, but, not only do I assume that those are under the most severe of scenarios, not much is made of if and how warming can help. Not only do many more humans die from the cold than from the heat, but productivity also flurishes when it is warmer. For instance estimates generally hover around the consensus that warming and greater CO2 has contributed to a 15% growth in crop yields since 1950.

This wisdom regarding warming is certainly unconventional, but it is worth discussing openly. I believe the reason we never hear about it is that global warming skepticism is strongly condemned by the mainstream.

Popularity: 33% [?]