Nicely done….however, consensus opinion has indeed been wrong before. Female sexuality does not require a clitorectomy (whatever Victorians in England or large parts of the world today think), gastric ulcers are not caused by stress but by bacterial infection….you see the point? Does salt intake really cause hypertension? Given that the human kidneys are a very good regulating system for the amount of salt in the blood? Is 20 units really the healthy amount to drink….given that 50 units a week seems to have the same effect on mortality as being a teetotaller?

You see the point I hope. Some parts of the consensus really are true (tis gravity that makes apples fall, not just that the earth sucks), some are arguable (some recycling saves resources but not all of it does) and some are flat out lying (thos large falls in heart attack rates when smoking in pubs was banned).

Tim, wood vs trees.

You don’t need me to point out the disanalogy between the examples you cite and the overall science behind climate change. I mean, to pick on your most vulnerable example, the ‘science’ behind mutilating female generalia was, at best, very very bad.

Of course we need to be wary of consensus opinions. But that doesn’t change the big picture point I’m making – and challenging a consensus opinion isn’t sensible just because the opinion being challenged is a consensus; one needs good reasons to base a challenge upon. The climate change denialists are manifestly lacking in those.

“The climate change denialists are manifestly lacking in those.”

Depends rather on what part of the consensus we’re talking about.

Is climate change happening and are we causing it? Yes.

Just about everything else is still up for grabs. How bad is it going to be? Or in technical terms, what is climate sensitivity? No, the IPCC don’t know that either. Anything from 1.5 to 4.5 oC is best guess as yet. What should we do about it?

No, we’ve a problem, let’s do something, this is something so let’s do this doesn’t work.

A huge amount of what we’re told we ought to be doing (by Caroline Lucas, Geoffrey Lean, George Monbiot, Greenpeace, WWF, Plane Stupid and so on) is in fact, according to the IPCC itself and even according to things like the Stern Review, exactly what we should not be doing.

It really does depend upon what part of the “consensus” you want to talk about.

@3 Tim,

This isn’t a reason for not doing anything, however. Its too easy to criticise people trying to tackle something as complicated as climate change when what are needed are effective actions. Mistakes will be made, but doing nothing because we don’t have a perfect solution would also be mistaken.

“This isn’t a reason for not doing anything”

Of course….carbon tax, perhaps cap and trade. More globalisation, more freemarkets and capitalism (yes, really, all these things will help. Just read the IPCC reports).

“What” is done is important though.

“Of course….carbon tax, perhaps cap and trade. More globalisation, more freemarkets and capitalism (yes, really, all these things will help. Just read the IPCC reports).”

indeed.

This is one of the great, frustrating ironies of the climate debate, well brought out in Giles Wilkes’ ClimateHate pieces.

Although I’m not as convinced as you are that freemarkets can basically sort it all out – I reckon a very big role for government remains – I certainly agree that using market incentives to develop new technologies to get us out of the shit must be at the heart of any solution (though not the entirety of the solution). Although the state will need to structure the incentives initially (because they’re currently not how we need them), it’s the competition and creativity of market forces that will likely yield big results in solving this (if we do ever solve it).

Of course, most of the environmental lobby won’t listen. They are On The Left, and therefore Markets Are Always Bad (partly a result of not understanding that a market, in itself, is an a-political mechanism for allocating resources – and that the politics comes in when deciding when to use markets, and to what extent). What We Need – they cry – Is To Ride Around On Bicycles And Eat Only Lettuce.

Oh, and twitter vaguely about a Green New deal.

It is frustrating. And i bet somebody now accuses me of either being a “neoliberal” or having been duped by the “neoliberal consensus”.

Yes indeed, but cap & trade would have to set carbon credit prices much higher than they have been to be effective. There is also the matter of fairness, because cap and trade plays into the wider capitalist system that has prevented the majority world countries from developing their own industries. The risk is that the structural inequalities causing so many problems today would be reinforced, so many majority world countries would be unlikely to agree to it.

I think we should also view climate change as an opportunity to improve the way we do things. Better technologies, more efficient use of resources and a more respectful approach to the environment would benefit us all. Countries like Britain, despite the damage done by labour policies, still have a strong base of expertise in science and technology which could be used to put us at the frorefront of a new green industrial revolution.

To be fair, I am disappointed. This article has been up over an hour, and still nobody has accussed me of being in league with the evil shape-shifting Lizard Overlords who are co-ordinating the entire conspiracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGTJErVNBU

8. I think it was a bit too abstract for the level of intelligence those types would bring.

This article has been up over an hour, and still nobody has accused me of being in league with the evil shape-shifting Lizard Overlords who are co-ordinating the entire conspiracy:

Well. Are you?

Pagar: If you have to ask, you’ll never know…

“Of course, most of the environmental lobby won’t listen. They are On The Left, and therefore Markets Are Always Bad (partly a result of not understanding that a market, in itself, is an a-political mechanism for allocating resources – and that the politics comes in when deciding when to use markets, and to what extent). What We Need – they cry – Is To Ride Around On Bicycles And Eat Only Lettuce”.

And only organic, nuclear free lettuce, ostentatiousy bought in the local farmers market on a busy Saturday morning for maximum effect “Of course it’s organic Gemma, look it’s still covered in authetic west country cows shit”. purlease………………

But seriously, I though the lefts objection was that markets are, almost by definbition, a product of, and a mechanism for, self interest, and as we all know, no collective good can ever come from acts motivated by self interest – I mean, how dare capitalists, most of whom can’t even spell “society” come up with a way of allocating resources which doesn’t involve the state ?

Cor, that’s not part of the Left I recognise. I thought such notions died with Andropov.

Most people understand and are happy with the idea of providing a service or goods for money in a fair marketplace. Its when you get to the Masters of the Universe and their securitised derivatives that it starts to look like black magic that trust begins to fail.

Lefties have some concern about the way markets are distorted by insiders and corporations as well as having too much influence on government. They have concern that market models are over simplistic and need to better reflect peoplee’s behaviour. Seems reasonable to me.

I think the analogy is actually pretty good. Neither medicine nor climate science are the exact sciences they proclaim to be, and both are subject to fads and potential ideological pressure. Essentially, because both are studying incredibly complex systems which require knowledge of overlapping disciplines.

It is why people still get to consent to EVERY physical procedure doctors perform. We have this because we know that if doctors had the power to order a procedure for patients against their will, the institution of medicine would be corrupted by sadistic mad men within a few years. The exception, of course, is psychiatry which is one of the few medical disciplines which may have harmed more people than it saved (it has gone through a misogynist phase, a eugenics phase and a homophobic phase). Shit early medical science is famous for killing and maiming people, and we are always told that climate science is young too. So why not apply the wisdom of experience and hold back a little bit.

Um, Nick… let’s not compare apples and oranges, eh?

@ 13 “Lefties have some concern about the way markets are distorted by insiders and corporations as well as having too much influence on government. They have concern that market models are over simplistic and need to better reflect peoplee’s behaviour. Seems reasonable to me”

But they are more distorted by government interventions, regulation, subisdies and interference. Governments have far more influence on markets than corporations do, and usually not in a good way (look what the current govt have done to the housing market for example).

Why do the left have such a problem with “simplistic” concepts anyway – is it because it leaves little room for obsurfaction, complication and thus intervention. Human behaviour is not always, (or necessarily at all) complex, the market reflects this.

Conspiracy – of course it’s a conspiracy,:- with an ageing population and the estimated extra demand on our NHS, blaming lifestyle, smoking, obesity etc on the person gives the ideal excuse not to treat.
Ironically, this is pure classical liberalism, – your choice, your responsibility.

“So why not apply the wisdom of experience and hold back a little bit.”

Oooh, I dunno. Maybe because the consequences of doing nothing are, on the balance of probabilities, FANTASTICALLY more dangerous than of trying to do something?

And no amount of obfuscation by Norman Lamont changes that. Anyway, you shouldn’t trust him because he was clearly responsible for murdering psychic British architects visiting Venice during the 1970s:

http://badconscience.com/2009/12/04/what-do-you-expect/

Nigel Lawson, not Norman Lamont.

Grr

(Bring back the edit button thingy!!)

steve b

I think you have misunderstood the original post.

here’s a hint: it’s not really about medical science, it’s about something else.

“Although I’m not as convinced as you are that freemarkets can basically sort it all out ”

I’m absolutely certain that “free markets” can’t. Just as I’m equally sure that constructed markets (via pricing of exteralities etc) can go a long way to doing so. Hey, I’m one of the classical liberals, remember? We believe in things like public goods too, so there’s a place for basic science etc being govt funded.

What you will be very excited to know is that I’ve just accepted a book contract on this very subject, out in October. It will be jam packed full of the arguments against exactly the lefty/green version of environmental economics that drives you and Giles insane.

“Yes indeed, but cap & trade would have to set carbon credit prices much higher than they have been to be effective.”

Well, no, actually, not at all. If we’ve got the size of the cap right (which I agree is problematical) then a low price for a permit isn’t a problem at all. Imagine: we can only emit 100 tonnes. The price for a permit is 1 euro a tonne. Why would that be a problem? It means that everyone who used to emit tonne 101, tonne 102 and so on has found a way of avoiding those emissions for less than 1 euro per tonne.

That’s not a problem, that’s just bloody marvellous. We’ve solved the whole problem really cheaply.

If you were talking about a carbon tax then you’d be (more at least) right. But for cap and trade, as long as the cap is being obeyed, low prices is just fine and dandy.

Tim,

Good stuff. I look forward to the book.

I’ve scheduled a post at my place for tomorrow morning, expanding on this markets and climate change stuff. Expanding all the way to a discussion Machiavelli’s Discorsi, and the Roman general Scipio during the Second Punic War.

Fo’ real.

(Partner back from consulting managers in Chicago today; last chance to do long blogs of self-indulgence for a while).

the consequences of doing nothing are, on the balance of probabilities, FANTASTICALLY more dangerous than of trying to do something

But Paul.

Assuming your Dalek masters are correct and your 99 scientists have got an apocalyptic prediction right for once, you have to admit that there is a huge probability that whatever we do by way of response will fail miserably in having any effect on future climate change.

That’s got to be long odds on.

So I’ll have given up my Spanish holiday and bacon sandwich to try save the world (what about the methane produced by vegetarians?) and the chances are it will have no effect whatever on whether or not the baby polar bears will drown.

That’s what makes global warming action a pretty hard sell to anyone who is not insufferably smug and self-satisfied and wants to become more so.

That’s what makes global warming action a pretty hard sell to anyone who is not insufferably smug and self-satisfied and wants to become more so.

Can we please get away from this idea that libertarians/classical liberals are somehow not smug and self-satisfied?

They are the most smug and self-satisfied people on the planet, without exception. Even the most hair-shirt wearing eco-vegan pales into comparison to your lot.

20
Damn I thought it was about liberalism.

“the consequences of doing nothing are, on the balance of probabilities, FANTASTICALLY more dangerous than of trying to do something”

How can you possibly say that if the outcomes are unknown ?????

The sea level might rise a bit or a lot, that might or might not be a problem

Some areas will get hotter/colder/wetter/dryer, again a bit or a lot, that might or might not be a problem etc etec etc

It’s this alarmist, fatalistic element of the “climate change” message that sounds like mass hysteria and which turns so many people off.

WE ABSOLUTELY MUST PANIC – BUT WE DON’T KNOW WHY…….

‘Oooh, I dunno. Maybe because the consequences of doing nothing are, on the balance of probabilities, FANTASTICALLY more dangerous than of trying to do something?’

I disagree. We know that lack of economic freedom kills people, and we know that over powerful government can turn nasty very suddenly. we don’t know exactly what tackling climate change will achieve or what it will actually avoid. According to some alarmists it is already too late. So on the balace on probabilities, I will go with what we knows will save loads of lives rather than what might save a few lives. Go for growth!

I get it. Dr Feelgood is the chap telling the Labour Party that they can carry on spending as much as they feel necessary, and there’s no come-back as long as they control the printing presses. After all, last year’s deficit was more than fully funded by QE, and inflation is still really low…ish.

That is right, Paul, isn’t it ?

PS “if they were after money, why wouldn’t they just go and work in biological warfare development programmes”

Ah yes, those BW projects that the MOD are funding so heavily ….

“You shouldn’t see the doctor if you can’t afford the bills.” (As the real Dr Feelgood once said, rather nicely summing up this debate.)

I see the pubs have turned out.

@ 21 Tim

I think that carbon emissions prices should reflect in some way the true cost of those emissions. I know its arguable that the market will find a price but current models do not incluse a lot of the costs due to polution, including CO2 emission. If somewhere down the line someone has to pay to treat disease caused by polution then shouldn’t that be factored into the price the polluter pays?

Sorry for the typos. Bloody Dell keyboards, another market failure…

@ 30 Yes and tobacco companies should pay for treating lung cancer, alcohol companies for liver cancer, junk food peddlers for diabetes, can manufacturers for car crashes…..etc etc.

Newslfash – they already do it’s called “tax”.

@ 23 – This week it was proved that the climate change/vegatarian/health fascist lobby have been peddling dodgy statistics again. Apparently the 18% of carbon emissions “caused” by meat eating would only be saved if we all gave up meat and ate……………..nothing at all in its place.

“I think that carbon emissions prices should reflect in some way the true cost of those emissions. I know its arguable that the market will find a price but current models do not incluse a lot of the costs due to polution, including CO2 emission. If somewhere down the line someone has to pay to treat disease caused by polution then shouldn’t that be factored into the price the polluter pays?”

Sure. Standard externality argument. Solved with Pigou taxes. The questions is, what should the tax level be?

Stern says that the total of all of those costs of emissions are about $80 per tonne CO2. Others say much, much lower but so what, let’s stick with Stern.

So, we should have a tax of $80 on a tonne of CO2 emissions. We’ve already got much higher than this for petrol in the UK (and yes, it’s been put on to pay for CO2 emissions. This is over and above paying for the roads etc). Air Passenger Duty was just about right and is now too high. Etc, etc etc.

UK total emissions are about 500 million tonnes CO2. UK taxes on emissions are something like £20 billion (both very rough figures).

Add in the exchange rate and some boring technical stuff (seriously, very boring technical stuf) and there’s an entirely valid argument that we’re done. We’re finished, we’re taxing emissions properly and now all we’ve got to do is wait for behaviour to change…..and that will change with hte technological cycle.

@34 Tim

Perhaps its happening. The question must be whether it will give the right results in time. I suppose we’ll all find out in the end but it makes me nervous. I’d like to see a bit more government involvement to stimulate markets, R&D etc in the right direction. I think it would be win-win done properly.

But why would paying tax to the government make any differenec to the environment anyway – this is the bit I’ve never understood about “green” taxes.

If you want to use the tax system to change behaviour then the overall effect has to be neutral for those that exhibit the “correct” behaviour, so increase the tax on Mr Averages petrol to make him drive less, but also reduce the tax on something else so that overall he’s better, or at least no worse off for changing his behaviour ? Otherwise it’s just a tax rise which no one will associate with the environment.

Oh dear. Will the mentalists ever accept we need to make changes to the economy to adapt for climate change? No? I’ll get my coat. Each LC post is great, the commenters are denialist nutjobs

But who is this mysterious “we” and what changes exactly ? Beleive it or not we can’t all trade in our cars for bikes, or generate our own electricity or live off our own recycled waste. I’m sorry that reality bursts youir little bubble and happy to be called a “nutjob denialist” if it makes you feel better, at least no one could accuse you of originality…….

If climate change is a scam in order to raise taxes, why does the Chinese Government take it seriously? Why has the Chinese Government been in talks with the Arctic Council regarding trade routes that will open as a result of ice melting in the Arctic Sea?

So it’s an emergency Paul Sagar. We all know our procedures in a medical emergency: Check airway, breathing, circulation, staunch bleeding etc.
In an emergency caused by the depradations of one particular species, the human one, the very first and most obvious emergency procedure, before anything else, is to gain breathing space (not just for us, but the rest of the biosphere) by taking steps to stabilise the numbers of the human species. Curiously, for various reasons, libertarians and the left concur in their attitude towards stabilising the human population. As far as they are concerned, when it comes to numbers of human beings, more can only ever be better. And yes, I have heard all the arguments against population control. Yes, I know that all women have a right to reproduce to their heart’s content (who bestowed that right, I’m not sure). And yes, I know that in the eyes of decent human beings, I would like to exterminate the human race.

@ 39 I’d hazard a wild guess that they spot the opportunity to make some money out of new sea routes ?

Governments of all hues are interested in anything which has political traction, appeals to self-styled “opinion formers” and gives government an opportunity to regulate, tax and control their populances. It can be hijacked by both the right (corporate greenwashing, “ethical business”, and all that bollocks, they have turned “green” into just another marketing tool already)
and the left (enforced collectivism, redistribution of wealth to 3rd world and multiple opportunities to stick it to the man). “Climate change” is a politicians dream.

The real problem is, of course, over population – it’s not that we should use fewer resources, it’s that there are too many of us using them. But why use logic when you can just use emotive arguments to nag people into submission ?

“Curiously, for various reasons, libertarians and the left concur in their attitude towards stabilising the human population. As far as they are concerned, when it comes to numbers of human beings, more can only ever be better. And yes, I have heard all the arguments against population control. Yes, I know that all women have a right to reproduce to their heart’s content (who bestowed that right, I’m not sure). And yes, I know that in the eyes of decent human beings, I would like to exterminate the human race.”

Libertarians have a reason not for worrying too much about over-population. Rich people don’t have anywhere near as many children as poor people. Make the poor rich, and we will have population stability before long.

“I’d like to see a bit more government involvement to stimulate markets, R&D etc in the right direction. ”

On a personal level I’m right with you. My day job is with weird and wonderful metals….and the one that I’m majorly involved with is one that’s vital for making a certain type of hydrogen fuel cell. Lots more R&D money from the govt would be great for me, for I’d get some of it.

However, I do desperately try to avoid recommending public policy just because I benefit from it.

“If you want to use the tax system to change behaviour then the overall effect has to be neutral for those that exhibit the “correct” behaviour,”

Absolutely. Green taxes should be revenue neutral. Sometimes they even are (landfill tax was offset by a reduction in NI payments by companies).

As to population, yes, wealth is the answer. In fact, hte IPCC models include this. The high economic growth models have low populations….the low economic growth ones have high populations.

42 and 43:Nick and Tim W.
As soon as people get rich and educated they have fewer children. I know. How long does it take to get from poor to rich? Days, months, years, decades? The people of Bangladesh, living in a country the size of England, who complain that with projected rising sea levels, there isn’t going to be room for them in their country, have managed to more than triple their population from 50 million in 1960 to 160 million now, bigger than the population of Russia, 120 times its size. How long might it take 160 million people to go from poor to rich, and while they are undergoing that transformation, will they be having a moratorium on reproduction? I understand that since the notorious Live Aid days of the eighties, Ethiopia has managed to double its population. Same questions. On the World Service the other night there was a report on how housing for a proportion of the population of some city had been greatly improved, but that improvement had, at the same time been negated by growth in population, which had produced the same number of people requiring housing improvement.
I was listening to a another World Service programme recently, when they took a young person with all the PC attitudes to Kenya. She believed in everyone’s right to have as many children as they wished. That is, part of her assumed world, was that whenever people have sexual intercourse, it is an informed choice. They spoke to three people. Firstly, some government official in Nairobi. She gave the official answer as approved by greens and the left: “There are more cars in the state of Maine than in Africa”, she said. “It’s up to you to stop producing greenhouse gases, rather than us controlling our population”. Then they went to a festering slum of cardboard and corrugated iron on the edge of Nairobi, and asked a woman with six children if, given her time again she would have as many. No way, she said, 2 or 3 would be plenty. Then they asked a bloke in the slum how many children was ideal. He said that some always turn out bad, thieves, or whatever, so you have to have a few to make sure you’ve got one or two good ones”. So there you have it.
Birth control is not widely available in the third world because of (a) traditional, religious and male attitudes, and (b) because since the late 1960′s, westerners who could be enablers, have regarded it is in poor taste, at best, cultural imperialism at worst, to help provide birth control to the third world.
And now someone’s going to tell me that people in the third world need lots of children to help them tend their land, even when they haven’t got any.

“and asked a woman with six children if, given her time again she would have as many. No way, she said, 2 or 3 would be plenty”.

And need I say it – they asked this woman when her old man wasn’t around.

@43 Tim

I notice you haven’t mentioned the concerns I raised about our current market-based system being used to control carbon emissions with regard to its impact on the majority world. You must admit the current global market has systematic distortions that are biased against developing countries? I would not want to see a system that simply allowed wealthy nations to export their pollution to poorer nations whithout any opportunity for the poorer nations to develop their own green economies.

“You must admit the current global market has systematic distortions that are biased against developing countries?”

Sure. We have idiot restrictions upon what you and I may buy from them. The solution to which is to declare unilateral free trade. Yesterday by preference.

@Tim Worstall

You’re the EU expert, isn’t there a EU thingy which would stop us unilaterally declaring the abolition of all tariff and non-tariff barriers? I’m not entirely certain I can think of a reason the UK retains any tariffs at all, bring back Richard Cobden.

In any case you’re correct, the trade rules are systemically biased against the poor world and have been for some time. Likewise the IMF’s voting structure is biased against the poor world too.

There’s something which worries me about cap and trade compared to a carbon tax I have been thinking about; if credits could be traded across national boundaries I think there would be a tendency for credits to flow from the developing world to the rich. Which would be great because it would give the poor world an income. But this income would come at the expense of industrialisation which is what you want for growth (services are good but industry and manufacturing toys, trash and textiles is what has always tended to drive growth). Moreover, this income would be temporary as the world switched to less carbon intensive technology.

So what worries me – and leads me to prefer a carbon tax to cap and trade – is that cap and trade may retard industrialisation in the developing world and only offer a temporary income in exchange.

“As soon as people get rich and educated they have fewer children. I know. How long does it take to get from poor to rich? Days, months, years, decades?”

You can do it in two or three generations with the right institutions. South Korea would be a classic example. Although in Bangladesh’s case it might be very difficult without allowing immigration. They would also have to kiss their patriarchal culture goodbye. Women’s rights are a good way to put a break on massive population growth.

@49. Indeed, about 50 years ago recently independent South Korea had half the GDP per capita as recently independent Ghana but now has something like 30 times that.

Population growth is something that its actually possible to address in positive ways, making people richer and enforcing women’s rights over their own bodies.

“You’re the EU expert, isn’t there a EU thingy which would stop us unilaterally declaring the abolition of all tariff and non-tariff barriers?”

Yes. Trade matters are exclusively an EU competence. Thus it’s the EU that sets said rules (BTW, import duties go to them as well).

I prefer a carbon tax for other reasons (essentially, that cap and trade leads to a great deal to much politicaly playing with favourites).

“Population growth is something that its actually possible to address in positive ways, making people richer and enforcing women’s rights over their own bodies.”

True, but…..it very much works from growth to lowered fertility. It’s changes in desired fertility that lead to falls in actual fertility, not provision of contraception (or abortion) that leads to a fall in actual fertility as a result of a previously unmet ability to control desired fertility.

I totally agree with you.

If you want to have a good laugh at Gordon brown, checkout this spoof tory poster campaign, funny
http://hubpages.com/hub/Tory-Poster-Campaign-Of-Gordon-Brown-Spoof

Nick @ 49:

“Although in Bangladesh’s case it might be very difficult without allowing immigration”.

Immigration to where? You make your bed, you lie on it. How are people ever going to learn, if they don’t experience the consequences? They created their own situation. It’s not our problem.

Tim Worstall @ 51

“True, but…..it very much works from growth to lowered fertility. It’s changes in desired fertility that lead to falls in actual fertility, not provision of contraception (or abortion) that leads to a fall in actual fertility as a result of a previously unmet ability to control desired fertility”.

I’m having trouble parsing that. Any way of putting that in a simpler form?

I have no doubt at all, that there are tens, if not hundreds of millions of women who would be glad of the opportunity to use contraception. They have large families because of expectations of their communities, families and menfolk, not because of their own volition. And I dare say there are also plenty of men, if the truth be told, who would like access to contraception. But if I were to pop over and offer them some, the libertarian would step in with a “Hang on, what’s the hurry? They need to wait a couple of generations?”

‘Immigration to where? You make your bed, you lie on it. How are people ever going to learn, if they don’t experience the consequences? They created their own situation. It’s not our problem.’

Well, Russia’s pretty empty and they’ll be strapped for cash in a few years time. But I wouldn’t be too worried about Bangladeshi immigration right here either, so long as we managed to avoid our dangerous habit of importing reactionary religious political ideals along with the incoming people (see: Respect, see: New Labour accidentally funding Hiz But Tarhir). I mean East London, is a wonderful place to live and work, apart from the politics!

Well, that’s what a lot of people think, yes.

“I have no doubt at all, that there are tens, if not hundreds of millions of women who would be glad of the opportunity to use contraception. They have large families because of expectations of their communities, families and menfolk, not because of their own volition. ”

It doesn’t really seem to be all that true though.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1273.html

“Ninety percent of the differences across countries in total fertility rates are accounted for solely by differences in women’s reported desired fertility. Using desired fertility constructed from both retrospective and prospective questions, together with instrumental variables estimation, it is shown this strong result is not affected by either ex-post rationalization of births nor the dependence of desired fertility on contraceptive access or cost. Moreover, despite the obvious role of contraception as a proximate determinant of fertility, the additional effect of contraceptive availability or family planning on fertility is quantitatively small and explains very little cross country variation. These empirical results are consistent with theories in which fertility is determined by parent’s choices about children within the social, educational, economic, and cultural environment that parents, and especially women, face. They contradict theories that assert a large causal role for expansion of contraception in the reduction of fertility.”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for providing contraception to those who desire it. I’m just arguing that it’s not all that effective in reducing the actual fertility rate. What is effective in reducing the actual fertility rate is women actually wanting to have fewer children….a reduction in desired fertility.

And the best thing we’ve found to alter desired fertility is economic development: that grubby gaining of filthy lucre.

Yes, things like the education of women help and so on (and such are to be desired quite for themselves not just any effect on fertility) but my view is (and I’m not going to bore you with hundreds of words showing it…another time perhaps) that such education is a result of rising prosperity, not a cause of it.

48. Left Outside

@Tim Worstall

‘ You’re the EU expert, isn’t there a EU thingy which would stop us unilaterally declaring the abolition of all tariff and non-tariff barriers? I’m not entirely certain I can think of a reason the UK retains any tariffs at all, bring back Richard Cobden. ‘

Two examples here of how EU rules tariff rules make us all poorer. They finally after 16 years of the ‘banana split’ reduced tariffs. However, there is still a tariff on Latin American fruit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8391752.stm

Tariffs on Asian shoe producers, which means consumers pay higher prices for shoes and trainers in order to subsidise Spanish and Italian producers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704041504575044640704474512.html

The obscenity of the CAP, which sees minimum wage consumers subsidising the lifestyle of rich farmers.

‘ Likewise the IMF’s voting structure is biased against the poor world too.’

You don’t just get votes for no reason. The voting allocation also means you must contribute the same percentage to the budget. The voting structure was set up in the post-war period with minor changes since and reflects the world economy as it used to be. It does need to be brought up to date but that means those who want more say must contribute more to the budget. It is often said that the US votes give them a veto. Europe also have a veto if they voted collectively. If anything the US are underrepresented with their votes. Any fundamental change in the voting structure to give Asia more votes would see Europe losing votes. For example, Belgium have more votes in the IMF than China.

This analogy of a doctor with a patient just doesn’t work. We have a far better understanding of the human body than the whole system of the Earth. We can say for instance that someone fed lots of arsenic will probably die fairly soon, from the evidence of prior poisonings. We can’t say the same about the Earth’s environment.
Anyway, human beings will be extinct or obsolete by 2050 or so, at the outside, replaced by some sort of AI. Ask any computer scientist. There is as much consensus about that as global warming.

@Tim Worstall
I’m still struggling with your market solution. When businesses from wealthy countries can buy up huge swathes of resources from poor countries just because they have the capital and the poor countries have a corrupt government and no capital to speak of how is that the solution? I see no tariffs or other interference, it looks like a free market to me.

The result is the impoverishment of the resource base of an already poor country, the theft of the capital and still no industrialisation to bring the country out of poverty.

You don’t just get votes for no reason. The voting allocation also means you must contribute the same percentage to the budget. The voting structure was set up in the post-war period with minor changes since and reflects the world economy as it used to be. It does need to be brought up to date but that means those who want more say must contribute more to the budget. It is often said that the US votes give them a veto. Europe also have a veto if they voted collectively. If anything the US are underrepresented with their votes. Any fundamental change in the voting structure to give Asia more votes would see Europe losing votes. For example, Belgium have more votes in the IMF than China.

But the UK with 60 million people has 4.8% of the votes but China with 200 times more people has 3.8% of the votes. We abandoned any connection between voting rights and property in the 19th Century domestically, its about time the same was done internationally too.

Europe can lose votes and Asia can have them, I’m fine with that. I’ve little faith that Asian elites will do much worse with them than Europeans elites have.

@ Left Outside

I quite agree that the voting structure in the IMF needs to be modernised to reflect the contemporary world. However, bringing it up to date would be based on share of the world economy rather than population size. The problem with getting that change requires an 85% supermajority. The European states who would lose out in the modernisation have enough votes to prevent that supermajority.

I made an error earlier saying China had a lower voting quota than Belgium. Their voting quota was increased past Belgium in 2005.

Richard, on the shoes thing….well, I’ve been saying this for some time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article733019.ece

“Leave aside for a moment every economist’s suspicion of such tales of dumping; on close examination they almost never turn out to be true. Think, instead, of what is happening if it actually is true. The taxpayers of Vietnam and China are being gouged by their governments. This money is then — via the subsidy to manufacturers — being offered to us, the shoe buyers of Europe. We get a pair of shoes plus whatever the subsidy was to spend on whatever else it is we wish.

It is near insane that the peasant in the rice paddy be taxed to make us Europeans even richer. But if our rulers actually looked out for us, they wouldn’t slap a tariff on the shoes. No, the only rational response to such an offer of free money is that (attributed to) Calvin Coolidge. When offered his first pay cheque as US President he said to the Treasury messenger who brought it: “Thank you. Please come again.” “

“I’m still struggling with your market solution. When businesses from wealthy countries can buy up huge swathes of resources from poor countries just because they have the capital and the poor countries have a corrupt government and no capital to speak of how is that the solution? I see no tariffs or other interference, it looks like a free market to me.

The result is the impoverishment of the resource base of an already poor country, the theft of the capital and still no industrialisation to bring the country out of poverty.”

As someone whose day job is in the metals business allow me to point out a very basic point.

When you purchase the right to, for example, mine something, you’re creating industry. Not preventing it, not moving it to another place, you’re actually creating economic activity where there was none before.

Yes, but the profitable part of the industry may not be in the country that experiences the environmental damage due to extraction and associated processes and the capital exchanged is likely to be mostly siphoned off by corrupt elites.

I understand your position but I thinks its idealistic, not reflecting the way things really happen.

Anyway, human beings will be extinct or obsolete by 2050 or so, at the outside, replaced by some sort of AI. Ask any computer scientist. There is as much consensus about that as global warming.

Ooh, I’d like to see you point to some actual published research to back that up.

oh just ignore me, drank lots of cider last night and posted rubbish all over the internet.

I assume Dr.Feelgood has you on milk and alcohol?
The latter may be safe, but Martin Millar has exposed the dangers of the former:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Milk-Sulphate-Starvation-Martin-Millar/dp/094779591X