Paul Krugman: "The only way we’re going to get action ... is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral."

William M. Briggs, Statistician » Wrong -> Immoral -> Illegal?

William M. Briggs, Statistician » Wrong -> Immoral -> Illegal? — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:29:57 GMT

Pingback from William M. Briggs, Statistician » Wrong -> Immoral -> Illegal?

re: Paul Krugman: "The only way we’re going to get action ... is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral."

TokyoTom — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:24:11 GMT

Silas, thanks for your comments.

I've fixed the link.

Second, I agree that Krugman and Callahan can be distingushed: Callahan is arguing for direct and indirect (via the media) pressure on firms/executives - viz., on private actors to change their economic behavior - while Krugman is arguing for moral pressures to change LAWS. My observation would be that communities and nations quite commonly codify social pressure in the form of laws, and moral opprobium is not something easily contained.

However, I think you're stretching beyond any useful bounds when you say that Callahan's argument could also produce the resoult that we don't need a pricing system/socialism works. I think he's rather acknowledging that social pressure, especially if organized, can influence corporate actors in effective ways. Plus he's impliedly arguing that direct regulation is extremely blunt and prone to all manner of mischief, so that non-state actions are, in balance, better. He has a point, but it's a generalized one that isn't clearly correct in the case of climate change.

Third, I agree that it is perfectly fair to frame climate policy *exploiters* as immoral. Sometimes straightforward engagement works better, and moral stands can be self-defeating if, as is common on the Mises blog, the moral stad is a tribal one that enables self-deception and essentially leaves the public stage to the others.

Finally, as for automakers, it still seems to me that a concern for their welfare is a substantial obstacle to better climate policy. But probably at this point it's the coal interests that are the more serious problem.

re: Paul Krugman: "The only way we’re going to get action ... is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral."

Person — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:11:03 GMT

First, TT, your Gene Callahan link goes to your blog's main page rather than <a href="www.fee.org/.../article.asp essay</a>.

But about Callahan's piece: I don't think the comparison you made in that context is accurate. Krugman want's moral suasion aimed at getting the political system right. Callahan, on the other hand, was advocating wishy-washy boycotts of "wasteful" companies. He doesn't even realize that far from being a good argument, far from being a bad argument, that's a damning admission of the weakness of his own arguments!

Why? Because if charitable "public awareness campaigns" can get producers to (for the most part) accurately price in the value of a very vital resource they're using up, then ... wait for it ... <b><i>Socialism works!</i></b>

See, we don't need the price system! Just as we can replace money-driven workers with common-good-driven workers, we can replace profit-driven resource valuation with common-good-driven buyers! "Economic calculation argument? What's that?"

Third, if we should be framing climate policy opponents as immoral, why shouldn't we also be framing climate policy *exploiters* as immoral? Those are the people whose favored course of action involves an unnecessarily wasteful policy designed to achieve non-environmental goals, or very narrowly important environmental goals.

Finally, I wouldn't worry about automakers -- they can <a href="silasx.blogspot.com/.../why-i-cant-stop-laughing-at-gm.html">barely afford regular operations</a>, let alone lobbying.