TT`s Lost in Tokyo : cognition

Ad homs R NOT Us: discussions over rent-seeking necessitate painful wrestling with slippery "cui bono" demons

TokyoTom — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:28:00 GMT

My recent post, "Bob Murphy on climate change at Antiwar Radio; a puppet for the "King Coal" hand that feeds him?", attracted a bit of attention, including some hostile comments from some LvMI community members who thought my comments regarding the motivations of Bob Murphy`s funders were over the line.

Since I consider the issue an important one and welcome the comments, I thought I would raise the comment thread to a post here, in the hopes that I might elicit further thoughtful commentary.

Are cui bono inquiries off-base to Austrians when reviewing policy arguments over government policy? Or, as distasteful as such inquries may be, are they unavoidable?

I note that I have tried to have this discussion with Bob on several occasions over the past four months; for the curious reader, here, in chronological order, are my posts:

Bob Murphy, the Heritage Foundation and "green jobs" - ignore coal! We only pay attention to rent-seeking from greens/the left;

In which I try to help Bob Murphy figure out just what the heck I`m talking about (when I say he`s entangled in a partisan, rent-seeking game); and

Fun with Self-Deception and Rent-Seeking: Bob Murphy`s "Man in the Mirror".

Here is the comment thread (anonymized to avoid distractions; I am happy to add handles back in if the relevant persons prefer):

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:10 AM by "A"

Challenge his facts and ideas. Challenging his paycheck is cowardly and dishonest.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 1:33 AM by "B"

I agree with "A". Only because Bob Murphy gets a part of his income due to "Big Coal" doesn't discredit his ideas.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 10:34 AM by TokyoTom

"A", if Bob forthrightly informed everyone that he gets paid to talk about climate change by the group of investors who has benefitted the greatest from the non-free market status quo, I wouldn`t feel a need to mention it.

It is absurd to suggest that libertarians - whose biggest peeves center on the entanglement between the state and business - either shouldn`t notice, or shouldn`t comment on, the way some of their erstwhile members make one-sided comments that happen to suit the agenda of statist corporations that are funding them.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 10:36 AM by TokyoTom

"B":

I agree that Bob`s funding doesn`t discredit his ideas per se. It`s just that "Bob`s ideas" conspicuously deflect light from the whole picture.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:06 AM by "A"

TT,

Why would Bob admitting he gets paid by so and so change anything? Do you believe Bob's opinion is compromised?

If yes, could you substantiate such a claim?

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 3:03 PM by TokyoTom

"A", I believe that the answer to your question is patently obvious:

If Bob were to forthrightly acknowledge what interests are funding his opinion, readers would be more likely to notice what the real PURPOSES of his remarks might be.

It is precisely to mask such purposes that rent-seeking corporations like to channel their efforts through "think tanks", pundits and the like.

Both Bob Murphy and Scott Horton are well aware of this, which is why

- when Bob identified himself the economist for IER, Horton immediately said, "Ah now, wait a minute. Does that mean that you`re a front man for Exxon or something?", and

- Bob chuckled, hemmed and hawed and replied, "Uhh, well, no, but, you can take it with a grain of salt if you want."

But sadly, Bob did NOT take the opportunity of Horton`s specific question to explain who funds IER - not Exxon or oil, but coal - even though most of his later substantive comments were ABOUT how Waxman-Markey is a fight between interest groups for government favors.

As to whether who funds Bob affects what he says, it think that`s also fairly evident: if it didn`t, his funders wouldn`t bother to pay for his services. Of course this doesn`t at all need to imply that Bob doesn`t mean what he says (he probably does, and I agree with him on many points), but simply that he omits to say other relevant things.

# Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:57 PM by "C"

I hope Tokyo Tom will tell us who the most noble and self-funded commentator is on the topic, so that we might all swallow his ideas and arguments wholesale.

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:34 AM by "A"

TT, that is an evasive way of further undermining Bob's credibility while trying to cover your own ass for taking potshots at him.

"This doesn't need to imply..."

But that is exactly what you are doing. You have inferred numerous times in this post and comments, that Bob is compromised by his employer.

Can you answer, clearly, yes or no that he is compromised?

And if not, don't you find your inferences somewhat irresponsible within the context of sincere and productive debate?

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:42 AM by "A"

"C", I don't think TT will be so forthcoming.

TT is fallaciously claiming a sin [sic] of omission, is proof of a sin of commission. It is a non-sequitur.

The fact is, anyone can make any claim that Bob has not provided enough background, about LvMI, about Chaos Theory, about his personal religious beliefs, about what sort of car he drives.

By making an ad hominem (challenging Bob's person and not his ideas) now TT can duck and weave the "we shouldn't draw anything from this thing I have decided to make a big deal about" while avoiding discussing any issues Bob may be incorrect on.

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 3:29 PM by TokyoTom

"C", it`s good that apparently you`re NOT interested in swallowing anyone`s ideas and arguments wholesale.

But if so, why does it bother you that I provide you with additional information about Bob and the interests that are funding him? Are you uninterested in Austrian insights about rent-seeking?

Maybe you should take your complaint to Bob, who himself suggested that listeners might want to take his views with a grain of salt.

# Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:37 PM by TokyoTom

"A", you`re having a tough time reading me.

1. I think I`ve fairly clearly stated that I think that Bob`s expressed opinions on climate change are influenced by the fact that they are supported by a rent-seeking interest. When I said "This doesn't need to imply..." I was referring to whether or not he believes what he SAYS - as opposed to what he omits to say - and expressed the view that he probably does mean what he says (as well as that I agree with much of what he says).

2. I don`t think I`m being evasive at all, but rather straightforward. And I don't consider my fairly open challenges to Bob on this matter to be "somewhat irresponsible" within the "context of sincere and productive debate". Instead, I reluctantly find them to be necessary, given the ubiquity of rent-seeking and the ways that it perverts both legislation and the debate over it.

3. I like Bob and don`t really enjoy making this criticism, but I think he would probably be the last to say that questioning his entanglement with rent-seeking interests is off-limits, particularly when rent-seeking is PRECISELY one of his chief substantive criticisms of cap-and-trade. Bob`s personal familiarity with Austrian criticisms of the influence of business and other interest groups on government policy does not create immunity from criticism on the same grounds.

4. "I don't think TT will be so forthcoming". Care to take back your words? In the future, perhaps you`d be good enough to leave me time to reply before you speculate on whether I will?

5. "a sin [sic] of omission, is proof of a sin of commission. It is a non-sequitur." You`re using a lot of big words, but I`m not sure I follow you. I`ve said Bob failed to disclose something that was relevant to the discussion. Period. (Bob may have some thoughts on if it was a sin and what kind, but if it was deliberate I`m not sure I see a distinction between omission and commission.)

6. "anyone can make any claim that Bob has not provided enough background".

Sure, but there are only certain times when "full disclosure" is relevant; on most things Bob comments on whether someone funds him is irrelevant. But when he is talking about legislation that will have a significant impact on someone who is paying him to speak, that fact that he is acting as a spokesman is VERY relevant. That`s why Scott Horton asked the question, and why Bob dodged it.

7. "by making an ad hominem"

Sorry, but if you want to split hairs, a "cui bono" argument is not ad hominem argument. In any event, Austrian economics tells us that we need to worry about the perversion of government via rent-seeking. If the wheels of our worrying about rent-seeking are ever to hit the road, it means that we have to keep asking "who benefits".

This of course complicates debate and cuts many ways; sorry that I can`t make life simpler for you.

8. "while avoiding discussing any issues Bob may be incorrect on."

Are you serious? I`ve had several years of substantive discussions on climate on the LvMI blog, and argue routinely with Bob on substantive matters, both on my blog and over at his. All you`re showing here is an unadmirable ignorance or shortness of attention.

In any case, your attention is welcome, but we can have a more intelligent and productive discussion if you`d check your inclination to reflexive negativity.

More on self-deception, mirror positions and libertarian reticence on climate policy

TokyoTom — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:46:00 GMT

I copy below (with minor changes for clarity) a further comment I made on the piece by Bob Murphy ("I'm Starting With the Man in the Mirror") to which I referred in my prior post. The comment on which I remarking is addressed by one commenter to Silas Barta:

cotterdan: I think the error in his view is that he will simply dismiss everyone on the other side of the issue as some shill for the oil companies. He doesn't see the fact that it is the political elite pushing for his ideas.

Can you see that you and your friends have mirror positions and each think the other is wrong, when in fact it is pretty clear that you are BOTH right - and that there are rent-seekers behind each position?

Of course the firms and investors that have been able to use the atmosphere as a free GHG dump don`t want to start paying for the privilege (to the extent that they have invested very heavily in protecting their current position), and of course there are others who think that this poses risks to them and what they value (and some who want government to make markets for them).

... I don't mind what ideas you have on saving the planet. I just don't want to pay for them.

I think we all share your reluctance to see government do anything coercive, and we share your reasons. Most commons problems are actually much more susceptible to local solutions that would occur if governments got out of the way and just let resource users come to terms on them, but given that that the atmosphere is shared globally AND there are countless other state actors that we just can`t force from the table, there is simply no possibility of entirely voluntary approaches arising (even though one could imagine them). Further, even while each government will act by force of law at home, make no doubt that any global agreements on climate change policy are in effect large-scale Coasean bargains.

While libertarians may be entirely unwilling to accept any state action, unfortunately the rest of the country (and the world) does not share their compunctions. As a result, it seems to me that the effect of a libertarian NO! is not simply to defend the status quo ante (which in my view wrongly allows once group of powerful rent-seekers to shift costs to the rest of society; YMMV), but to enable the adoption of overly-costly (and heavy-handed) approaches; viz., cap-and-trade w/ vast pork, versus rebated carbon taxes w/immediate capital write-offs, etc.

August 27, 2009 11:42 PM

Fun with Self-Deception and Rent-Seeking: Bob Murphy`s "Man in the Mirror"

TokyoTom — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:34:00 GMT

Robert Murphy, Austrian school economist and blogger, is in my book a remarkably thoughtful and insightful commentator on current economic issues, even as I find some of his arguments on climate policy and energy to be shallow.

Bob`s balance and relatively rare introspection are on display in his recent blog post, I'm Starting With the Man in the Mirror, in which he directly addresses the way that people with differing views on health care and climate change policy tend to see their own views and actions as virtuous, while seeing "the other side" as having evil motives and acting unfairly. Bob had started a blog post in such a vein, but then checked himself and realized that questioning the motives of all of the other side was probably unfair.

My own thoughts are that Bob`s post is as fine as far as it goes, but that it remains partisan and fails to discuss the way that rent-seekers deliberately seek to exploit our partisan predilections. This failure is not particularly surprising, given not only Bob`s evident self-identification as a partisan, but the fact that he works for the Institute for Energy Research, a Rob Bradley-founded think tank that, along with its partner, the American Energy Alliance is a front for a particular set of rent-seekers - the fossil fuel interests.

Bob`s entire piece is worth reading, but here is the introduction:

"OK I must confess that this Wonk Room hit piece on my compatriots really ticked me off. I had originally wanted to blog it with the title, "Definition" and the comment, "If you want to know what 'ad hominem' means, just check out this Wonk Room piece on the AEA bus tour."

"But then I calmed down a bit, realizing that the Wonk Room piece is really just the mirror image of what Glenn Beck did with Goldman Sachs, which I praised."

The piece concludes in a similar vein:

"I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis."

Bob adds a brief meta-insight that I wish he had explored further:

"Don't get me wrong, it is still perfectly consistent to think the elites in Washington are power-hungry liars. "

I left my own observations in a comment on Bob`s post, which I copy below:

Bob, on Goldman Sachs, you might enjoy this piece by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone.

Bob, I appreciate your attempt at even-handedness, and your implicit acknowledgment of how we are all plagued by problems of self-deception and confirmation bias, particularly with the context of battle with ideological enemies.

I hope you will continue the effort, even though it may come at a cost to effectiveness - sometimes there`s nothing like a broader understanding of the truth to get in the way of a good rant about the Truth.

The problems of self-deception, tribal division/conflict and their roles in rent-seeking are deep indeed, and you`ve barely scratched the surface.

I note, for example, that even though you try to be even-handed, you ironically identify those listed in the Wonk Room piece as your "compatriots"; if by implication the Wonk Room writers and others who support climate change action are NOT your compatriots, what country then are they citizens of?

I also note that those you call compatriots are officers of the Rob Bradley-founded American Energy Alliance, which is clearly an energy industry pressure group (and Republican-linked). You work at the free-market IER that Rob also founded, but apparently self-identify yourself with a group of fairly naked rent-seekers.

While it`s in our human nature to fall into partisanship, what`s more disturbing is the ways that rent-seekers deliberately try to take advantage of this penchant by fanning the flames of partisanship as a means of masking their own agendas while attacking others with competing preferences. This has been very clearly at work in battles over energy and environmental issues, where influence over government is the battleground.

I have made the point a number of times previously that such rent-seeking deserves much more attentions, but you have always professed puzzlement: what, ME, Bob Murphy, involved in a rent-seekers game?

To refresh your recollection, here are links to our previous discussions:

Bob Murphy, the Heritage Foundation and "green jobs" - ignore coal! We only pay attention to rent-seeking from greens/the left; and

In which I try to help Bob Murphy figure out just what the heck I`m talking about (when I say he`s entangled in a partisan, rent-seeking game).

I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis.

Well said. Now how about acknowledging how the rent-seekers are busy at work trying to manipulate our partisan impulses to take everyone for a ride?

I of course am aware that rent-seeking is ubiquitous in our current political debates, and on climate and energy issues, there are many rent-seekers in addition to fossil fuel interests. My point is that it behooves us to pay attention to the manipulations of rent-seekers generally.

Rent-seeking: CEI's Chris Horner comes clean and acknowledges that climate denialists and alarmists are peas in the same pod

TokyoTom — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:58:00 GMT

In an earth-shaking ;) essay in today's Human Events, CEI 's Chris Horner comes clean and acknowledges that climate denialists and alarmists are peas in the same rent-seeking pod. We have encountered Horner, former lawyer and now full-time scourge...(read more)

Luboš Motl 3: This lover of freedom and hater of irrationality can`t stand discourse and fantasizes about elimination

TokyoTom — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:27:00 GMT

I`m disappointed that my attempts at discourse with Lubos Motl have blown up. Lubos, a Czech physicist/climate science blogger who responded to my post on Bret Stephens` exegesis in the WSJ of the psychology of the cult-like "belief" by the...(read more)

Luboš Motl 2: The cool-headed overheat; to this "rational" scientist, I'm a freedom-hating hypercommunist Nazi who should be "jailed or executed"

TokyoTom — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:56:00 GMT

It looks like Lubos woke up on the wrong side of bed. BELOW is the type of "rational", "dispassionate" response that my previous attempt at discourse with Luboš Motl has earned from that fan of Bret "Mass Neurosis"...(read more)

Luboš Motl 4: His considered plan to eliminate enviros: they should be treated like N*zis, so it may be necessary to kill millions (less if we get started soon!)

TokyoTom — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:20:00 GMT

As noted on the prior thread , in a recent blog post, scientist Lubos Motl concluded that there " literally pandemics " of people writing stuff on global warming, and that is "simply ... no other help for the people who are writing most...(read more)

[Update] Mind Games: Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal panders to "skeptics" by abjuring science and declaring himself an expert on "mass neurosis"

TokyoTom — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:30:00 GMT

[Update: For an ongoing case study of the startling irrationality and "sick souls" of some of the "skeptics", see my related discussions with the physicist Lubos Motl: [Update] Mind Games/Luboš Motl: how an absence of functioning...(read more)

Jared Diamond: Those in stateless societies "enjoy" lives that are murderous and short

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:50:00 GMT

Jared Diamond has an interesting essay at the current issue of New Yorker, " Vengeance Is Ours ", that is worth considering. In the essay, Diamond not only describes the moral and political economy of cycles of personal and inter-tribal vengeance...(read more)

Frank Zappa: Slime is the tool of the Government (and of modern politics)

TokyoTom — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:46:00 GMT

[I ran this originally as a "page" rather than as a "post", when I had simply put up Zappa`s lyrics. Since "posts" might be more visible to visitors I`ve decided to post this as well.] I ran across some interesting and topical...(read more)

Nick Kristof on politics: why we conclude that I'm right, and you're evil

TokyoTom — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:10:00 GMT

Here's a very interesting piece by Kristof at the New York Times about the reactions of Obama and Clinton supporters, and introducing cognitive science studies of why more information often polarizes, rather than bringing people together . Divided...(read more)

"Climate Change, Evidence and Ideology"

TokyoTom — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:15:00 GMT

Libertarian law prof. Jonathan Adler has a brief but interesting post up at the Volokh Conspiracy blog, explaining something of the internal conflict he faces in favoring limited government but acknowledging that it is likely that man is pushing the climate...(read more)