I did not make any claims of dishonesty or charlatanry, I simply made a comments about where dollars have been spent. I would appreciate it very much if you ceased trying to put words in my mouth. (You did not say so explicitly, but you certainly implied it.)
I would be very interested to see a refutation of the idea that grant money has in fact been spent preferentially for pro-global-warming ideas. It would actually give me quite a bit of relief, and to some degree restore my faith in humanity, if someone could show me that it were not so.
I have no vested interest in calling scientists or "academics" dishonest. In fact I did not do so. I simply state facts as best I know them. My interest is the truth, without bias.
That's an interesting comment. I just ASKED for evidence of the truth. Why would you say I am not interested?
Here's a piece of truth for YOU: the truth is all I am interested in. I am not interested in rhetoric from the IPCC, nor articles (I don't care whether they are from NOAA or God himself) that make claims that are provably unscientific.
I want real evidence. The science and the data. It is all the other BS that I don't care about.
It is true that there have been an increasing number of deaths attributable to natural disasters, and also an increase of reports of natural disasters (tsunamis, etc.). However, deaths and incident reports do not equate to more disasters. Rather, it is due to the increasing concentration of population centers in disaster-prone areas, like coastal zones. That is a completely different matter. It does not reflect a greater number of disasters at all, but merely the depth of human stupidity.
So just to be clear: I am aware that the numbers of reports and deaths have increased. I am talking about an actual increase in the number and/or physical severity of natural disasters. If you can actually find evidence of that, I would really be interested in seeing it. (Hint: I doubt you can find such; the IPCC has already been caught with egg on its face over that one.)
"There have been hundreds of papers showing links between weather extremes and global warming."
Sorry, but there have not. If there are, I am sure you would not mind linking to at least a few of them.
I have looked into this myself before. And while I have found in fact many studies, none of them concluded that warming was linked to increased weather extremes.
"Oh, and then there's the fact that increased CO2 is turning the oceans acidic."
I understand about acidification, but that has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
"You obviously didn't read the rest of my comment, so I'll restate: there is vastly more money available for promoting the continued consumption of fossil fuels."
No, YOU did not pay attention to MY point: it doesn't matter how much money there is: what matters is who is actually spending it, and how much. And the fact is that the oil companies are funding little if any of the actual research on global warming.
"Any academic in an even slightly related field that is prepared to speak, research or publish material that denies AGW can be on the payroll of Big Oil. They are more than happy to pay for it. There aren't many that do so..."
Which directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, and in fact simply proves my point.
Nonsense. There is no evidentiary link between weather extremes and global warming. For that matter, contrary to what you say, natural disasters have not even actually been increasing in number.
"You can believe whatever you want, but at least admit that your approach is completely unscientific."
Who says that it is his approach that is unscientific, and not yours? You certainly haven't been following the principles behind that same process you describe.
Several points:
1) "accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and scientists in general" is simply not true. An objective counting of the numbers shows a far greater number of scientists who are skeptical about the concept of AGW than there are backing it. (See the Petition Project, just for starters. Even though it is a few years old now, signatories can have their names withdrawn if they change their minds. Few have.)
2) Models or no models, there has yet to be shown any strong evidence that directly links CO2 to actual warming that has been experienced, much less increased warming later. To say that the evidence is even circumstantial is being very generous. The word "tenuous" is probably more accurate.
3) Actually, the process you describe is not correct. What you describe is a method of improving models, not testing hypotheses. Using the process you describe, you can build very good models... that can still turn out to be very wrong.
The Scientific Method calls for formulating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and modifying them if the hypothesis did not correctly predict the outcome of the test. It is the REAL outcome of ACTUAL tests that you adjust your hypotheses and theories to match, not just models based on observations. If you can't test it, you don't have a theory. Period. No matter how much or for how long you refine your model based on mere observation.
This is a FACT: so far, there simply hasn't been enough time to test any of our climate models to any degree that should inspire confidence, no matter which side of the argument you are on.
The New Scientist piece about CO2 being "too small to matter" is misleading: recent studies have shown that CO2 and other gases migrate within ice, rendering ice core data less reliable than previously thought. Further, it contradicts itself: in one place it says data shows historic concentrations of 100 to 300 ppm, then in the very next paragraph it says that CO2 concentrations of the past have "remained steady". Sorry, but varying by 300% or more is anything but "remaining steady". This reflects the general quality of the whole piece; further down it further weakens its own argument in its description of volcano releases, saying that volcanic methane may have contributed more to warming than CO2 (which would serve to reduce, rather than increase, the significance of CO2 in warming models).
The middle link is even weaker. It does not present one shred of evidence, on the whole page, that there is anything tangible that can be done to affect climate change. So it refutes nothing. But perhaps more to the point: most so-called "deniers" do not claim that nothing can be done, but only question whether the enormous costs of doing enough to actually be significant might be better spent elsewhere. Which that link does not even begin to address.
And the last link you provide does not "refute" the idea that increased CO2 will cause greater growth of vegetation. That entire piece is just a collection of ifs, maybes, and perhapses. Their own concluding statement is telling here: "Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible."
So much for THAT "refutation".
Apparently, you are not familiar enough with the Scientific Method to know what refutation is.
I am puzzled why you say that. What's "perfect" about it?
Personally, it would not bother me at all if my winters were a couple of degrees warmer, even if that meant summers that were a couple of degrees warmer.
Human beings have lived through times that were both significantly warmer and significantly cooler than it is now. We actually know more about the cooler part because a cooler period was more recent. It wasn't terribly pleasant.
How do you know the present is perfect? A little warmer might be be just what the doctor ordered.
"... academic scientists don't make very much, at least not compared to oil and gas company scientists..."
While this may be true, it is not evidence of what you claim. In fact it is very misleading.
Few "academics" are on the payroll of oil companies. MANY academics got their research grants via a government system that has preferentially given them out to studies that deal with the subject of "global warming".
Regardless of the reason(s) behind that, it still amounts to a skewed expenditure of dollars... and NOT on the side of Big Oil.
For the most part how much money belongs to whom is irrelevant; it is who is spending it, and where, that matters.
The vast majority of so-called "deniers" do not deny climate change at all; they simply dispute whether it (or much of it, anyway) is caused by humans.
There is a very big difference, but there has been a tendency by the proponents of AGW to lump them all together into "climate change deniers", which is more than misleading. It is downright misrepresentation.
I stated myself that it was nipicking. So what's your point?
"I'm not saying that is what will or won't happen, but logically the two outcomes of 'greater global rainfall' and 'increased drought' are not mutually exclusive."
No, that's true, but again there is no evidence for it, either. The historical evidence of warmer times simply do not show evidence of greater extremes.
"Yes. The greater evaporation is what causes the droughts. This is exactly consistent with the predictions."
That isn't what the NOAA paper said. It said increased dryness during the winter is contributing to the droughts.
"I suspect the answer may be hidden in the paper."
And I strongly suspect that it is not. Repeat: if the difference between greenhouse gas effects and natural warming were ever actually quantified, with strong evidence behind it, scientists around the world would be shouting from the rooftops. They aren't, so it hasn't been. Which means that NOAA's claim of knowing how much of the drought was actually due to greenhouse warming is only so much (can't help myself) hot air.
BOTH of these articles directly contradict the vast body of evidence that has been found to date regarding whether warming (of any kind) will cause an overall increase in extreme weather effects. There simply isn't evidence for it. There MAY be evidence that droughts specifically in the Middle East will increase. But that is a far cry from an increase of droughts in general, or widespread drought. Any more than there is evidence that hurricanes will significantly increase in number or intensity (which is what Trenberth did in fact claim at one point, when the actual evidence was in direct contradiction to that claim and he knew it).
Nothing Trenberth says can be trusted anymore. Whatever his motivation was before, he lied to his fellow scientists about the research. Why should we think he would not do it again?
It isn't an Austrian concept because Austrians simply do not believe in the validity of controlling the money supply, either by government OR a central bank.
What was NOT said by the Mueller report, but is true nevertheless: Mueller simply confirmed the historical temperature record. His study had absolutely nothing to do with any difference between natural causes and man-made causes, nor (unlike the Jones, Mann et al.) does it pretend to make any predictions about future trends.
So in fact, the Mueller report is not even remotely evidence of, or confirmation for, AGW.
"That is the opposite of the conclusion reached by these two papers."
Not really. First, GP wrote "proof", and these papers don't prove anything, even if they are completely valid in their conclusions.
But without getting to that level of nitpicking, I still have to question whether they are valid in their conclusions, for several reasons. First, climate science has never provided good evidence that warming will lead to greater weather extremes. In fact, Keven Trenberth, who was quoted in the article, has been caught red-handed publicly telling blatant lies about that very issue. The fact is that evidence up to this point has all indicated that warming has not caused weather events that have averaged any more extreme than in the past. These papers would be contradicting a far greater number of others that have found exactly the opposite. Simple statistics tells me that I don't have much reason to believe that is very likely to be valid.
Secondly, while we know that warming causes regional changes, we also know that the record of the past shows that when it was warmer, it was also on average wetter then it is now. Warmer temperatures cause greater evaporation and greater precipitation. Period. (And yes, there is evidence of times past with both higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels than today.) Again: while nobody can predict regional changes, anybody who is predicting more droughts, on average, due to warmer temperatures is -- ahem -- all wet.
My other reason is that the NOAA article states this:
"Climate change from greenhouse gases explained roughly half the increased dryness of 1902-2010, the team found. This means that other processes, none specifically identified in the new investigation, also have contributed to increasing drought frequency in the region. "
Since NOBODY, so far, has been able to quantify ANY specific effects that are due specifically to greenhouse warming, this statement can only be an exaggeration at best. This is something that is literally impossible to know today, so how do they claim to know it? Why hasn't the fact that they "know" what the specific effects of greenhouse gas warming are, separate from natural warming, been announced to the public?
The answer is because it isn't so. This is an outrageous claim that would require all kinds of extraordinary evidence that simply isn't there. If this were actually known, it would be earth-shattering news to scientists the world over. But since it hasn't been... there you have extremely good evidence that this claim has no basis in fact.
So there you have two papers, both showing similar conclusions, and both making claims that contradict the vast body of evidence known to the scientific community.
"Industrial productivity is not going to increase domestically as long as it is significantly cheaper to manufacture products overseas..."
This is not at all a given. First, many companies have begun reducing or ending their outsourcing from the realization that the quality and reliability have been, on average, far lower than domestic production. You might argue that this is cost... it is just that it is indirect cost rather than direct.
But I agree with you that Government has been complicit in creating this problem; in many ways making it easier to outsource and even encouraging it. Agreements like GATT, for example, have proven to be anything BUT "free trade".
Congress could actually solve a lot of the problem by simply putting a direct and preferably heavy tax on companies that outsource to foreign countries. After all, outsourcing is (as we have finally learned beyond doubt and despite the early rhetoric) a drain on the economy. A tax would bring much of that revenue back, and at the same time discourage the practice of outsourcing to begin with.
Again, that is a cost. Which would make outsourcing much less attractive. I should note, however, that a direct tax is not a tariff, and presents far less conflict with international agreements.
To give a concrete example: the canonical Keynesian response to a boom is to tighten up the money supply, by increasing interest rates. This is currently done through the Fed. It could also be done directly through the government, if there were no Fed. So no, I am not saying that the Fed, per se, is a Keynesian concept. But the manipulation of interest rates and money supply, that is to say, the way the Fed has in fact been used since 1913, has in fact been been fundamentally Keynesian. And yes, I mean even in the years before Keynes' theory, because his economic theory includes much of what was then mainstream economic thinking.
I didn't say it was merely having a central bank. Here, I will quote myself:
"Control of the money supply via the Fed, by means of manipulating interest rates (and printing money), is essentially a Keynesian concept, and we have had it since the Fed was created in 1913."
If you take out the words "via the Fed", and just leave the rest, it is still purely Keynesian: not the Fed itself, but the practice of controlling money and interest rates THROUGH the Fed. I did not say that a central bank by itself was Keynesian... the Fed is the third central bank we have had. But you cannot effectively practice Keynesian economics without one.
"But the idea that fiat currency is inherently bad and that we need to go to a "gold" standard, is alarmingly ignorant, as is the idea that all debt is bad and that government can never borrow money (especially during depressions or recessions as a stimulative spending effort)."
True... according to Keynesian economic theory!!! But not others. Have you been listening at all? There are other schools of economics that very, very strongly disagree.
My whole point was that there are ways to do things that do not agree with the Keynesian model, and history has been building up more and more evidence that Keynes was just plain wrong.
You can't separate the two: the very concept of controlling the money supply via interest rates and the Fed is fundamentally Keynesian. So you are saying that Keynesian theory was being used to manipulate things in ways that Keynes would not have approved. Fine. I can appreciate that. But it's still ultimately Keynesian economics!!! The fact that it may be in the hands of madmen does not by itself make it non-Keynesian.
I agree with your numbered points. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.
That may be so, but earlier, in 2000-2001, Krugman was happily cheering on the artificially low interest rates that eventually led to the housing bubble. He even went so far as to specifically say that the outrageously low rates on housing were a good thing and would help the economy.
It's nice that Krugman eventually got it right, but he was a bit slow on the uptake, having actively encouraged the bad behavior in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not make any claims of dishonesty or charlatanry, I simply made a comments about where dollars have been spent. I would appreciate it very much if you ceased trying to put words in my mouth. (You did not say so explicitly, but you certainly implied it.)
I would be very interested to see a refutation of the idea that grant money has in fact been spent preferentially for pro-global-warming ideas. It would actually give me quite a bit of relief, and to some degree restore my faith in humanity, if someone could show me that it were not so.
I have no vested interest in calling scientists or "academics" dishonest. In fact I did not do so. I simply state facts as best I know them. My interest is the truth, without bias.
That's an interesting comment. I just ASKED for evidence of the truth. Why would you say I am not interested?
Here's a piece of truth for YOU: the truth is all I am interested in. I am not interested in rhetoric from the IPCC, nor articles (I don't care whether they are from NOAA or God himself) that make claims that are provably unscientific.
I want real evidence. The science and the data. It is all the other BS that I don't care about.
And to clarify something here:
It is true that there have been an increasing number of deaths attributable to natural disasters, and also an increase of reports of natural disasters (tsunamis, etc.). However, deaths and incident reports do not equate to more disasters. Rather, it is due to the increasing concentration of population centers in disaster-prone areas, like coastal zones. That is a completely different matter. It does not reflect a greater number of disasters at all, but merely the depth of human stupidity.
So just to be clear: I am aware that the numbers of reports and deaths have increased. I am talking about an actual increase in the number and/or physical severity of natural disasters. If you can actually find evidence of that, I would really be interested in seeing it. (Hint: I doubt you can find such; the IPCC has already been caught with egg on its face over that one.)
"There have been hundreds of papers showing links between weather extremes and global warming."
Sorry, but there have not. If there are, I am sure you would not mind linking to at least a few of them.
I have looked into this myself before. And while I have found in fact many studies, none of them concluded that warming was linked to increased weather extremes.
"Oh, and then there's the fact that increased CO2 is turning the oceans acidic."
I understand about acidification, but that has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
"You obviously didn't read the rest of my comment, so I'll restate: there is vastly more money available for promoting the continued consumption of fossil fuels."
No, YOU did not pay attention to MY point: it doesn't matter how much money there is: what matters is who is actually spending it, and how much. And the fact is that the oil companies are funding little if any of the actual research on global warming.
"Any academic in an even slightly related field that is prepared to speak, research or publish material that denies AGW can be on the payroll of Big Oil. They are more than happy to pay for it. There aren't many that do so..."
Which directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, and in fact simply proves my point.
"The gaps into which they squeeze their denial gets ever smaller."
Claiming it is so does not make it so, nor does your propaganda about Republicans (which I am not, by the way).
Nonsense. There is no evidentiary link between weather extremes and global warming. For that matter, contrary to what you say, natural disasters have not even actually been increasing in number.
The guy who is primarily responsible for the spread of claims of weather extremes has been caught in his lies. That hasn't stopped him, of course, but that doesn't mean they are any less lies.
I was referring to real evidence, not this BS which has been made up out of whole cloth.
"We've definitely reached the point where the reasonably skeptical scientists are becoming convinced."
Please provide evidence for this claim, which does NOT consist of just other people claiming the same thing.
"You can believe whatever you want, but at least admit that your approach is completely unscientific."
Who says that it is his approach that is unscientific, and not yours? You certainly haven't been following the principles behind that same process you describe.
Several points:
1) "accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and scientists in general" is simply not true. An objective counting of the numbers shows a far greater number of scientists who are skeptical about the concept of AGW than there are backing it. (See the Petition Project, just for starters. Even though it is a few years old now, signatories can have their names withdrawn if they change their minds. Few have.)
2) Models or no models, there has yet to be shown any strong evidence that directly links CO2 to actual warming that has been experienced, much less increased warming later. To say that the evidence is even circumstantial is being very generous. The word "tenuous" is probably more accurate.
3) Actually, the process you describe is not correct. What you describe is a method of improving models, not testing hypotheses. Using the process you describe, you can build very good models... that can still turn out to be very wrong.
The Scientific Method calls for formulating hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, and modifying them if the hypothesis did not correctly predict the outcome of the test. It is the REAL outcome of ACTUAL tests that you adjust your hypotheses and theories to match, not just models based on observations. If you can't test it, you don't have a theory. Period. No matter how much or for how long you refine your model based on mere observation.
This is a FACT: so far, there simply hasn't been enough time to test any of our climate models to any degree that should inspire confidence, no matter which side of the argument you are on.
The New Scientist piece about CO2 being "too small to matter" is misleading: recent studies have shown that CO2 and other gases migrate within ice, rendering ice core data less reliable than previously thought. Further, it contradicts itself: in one place it says data shows historic concentrations of 100 to 300 ppm, then in the very next paragraph it says that CO2 concentrations of the past have "remained steady". Sorry, but varying by 300% or more is anything but "remaining steady". This reflects the general quality of the whole piece; further down it further weakens its own argument in its description of volcano releases, saying that volcanic methane may have contributed more to warming than CO2 (which would serve to reduce, rather than increase, the significance of CO2 in warming models).
The middle link is even weaker. It does not present one shred of evidence, on the whole page, that there is anything tangible that can be done to affect climate change. So it refutes nothing. But perhaps more to the point: most so-called "deniers" do not claim that nothing can be done, but only question whether the enormous costs of doing enough to actually be significant might be better spent elsewhere. Which that link does not even begin to address.
And the last link you provide does not "refute" the idea that increased CO2 will cause greater growth of vegetation. That entire piece is just a collection of ifs, maybes, and perhapses. Their own concluding statement is telling here: "Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible."
So much for THAT "refutation".
Apparently, you are not familiar enough with the Scientific Method to know what refutation is.
I am puzzled why you say that. What's "perfect" about it?
Personally, it would not bother me at all if my winters were a couple of degrees warmer, even if that meant summers that were a couple of degrees warmer.
Human beings have lived through times that were both significantly warmer and significantly cooler than it is now. We actually know more about the cooler part because a cooler period was more recent. It wasn't terribly pleasant.
How do you know the present is perfect? A little warmer might be be just what the doctor ordered.
"... academic scientists don't make very much, at least not compared to oil and gas company scientists..."
While this may be true, it is not evidence of what you claim. In fact it is very misleading.
Few "academics" are on the payroll of oil companies. MANY academics got their research grants via a government system that has preferentially given them out to studies that deal with the subject of "global warming".
Regardless of the reason(s) behind that, it still amounts to a skewed expenditure of dollars... and NOT on the side of Big Oil.
For the most part how much money belongs to whom is irrelevant; it is who is spending it, and where, that matters.
The vast majority of so-called "deniers" do not deny climate change at all; they simply dispute whether it (or much of it, anyway) is caused by humans.
There is a very big difference, but there has been a tendency by the proponents of AGW to lump them all together into "climate change deniers", which is more than misleading. It is downright misrepresentation.
"Proofs are for mathematicians."
I stated myself that it was nipicking. So what's your point?
"I'm not saying that is what will or won't happen, but logically the two outcomes of 'greater global rainfall' and 'increased drought' are not mutually exclusive."
No, that's true, but again there is no evidence for it, either. The historical evidence of warmer times simply do not show evidence of greater extremes.
"Yes. The greater evaporation is what causes the droughts. This is exactly consistent with the predictions."
That isn't what the NOAA paper said. It said increased dryness during the winter is contributing to the droughts.
"I suspect the answer may be hidden in the paper."
And I strongly suspect that it is not. Repeat: if the difference between greenhouse gas effects and natural warming were ever actually quantified, with strong evidence behind it, scientists around the world would be shouting from the rooftops. They aren't, so it hasn't been. Which means that NOAA's claim of knowing how much of the drought was actually due to greenhouse warming is only so much (can't help myself) hot air.
BOTH of these articles directly contradict the vast body of evidence that has been found to date regarding whether warming (of any kind) will cause an overall increase in extreme weather effects. There simply isn't evidence for it. There MAY be evidence that droughts specifically in the Middle East will increase. But that is a far cry from an increase of droughts in general, or widespread drought. Any more than there is evidence that hurricanes will significantly increase in number or intensity (which is what Trenberth did in fact claim at one point, when the actual evidence was in direct contradiction to that claim and he knew it).
Nothing Trenberth says can be trusted anymore. Whatever his motivation was before, he lied to his fellow scientists about the research. Why should we think he would not do it again?
It isn't an Austrian concept because Austrians simply do not believe in the validity of controlling the money supply, either by government OR a central bank.
What was NOT said by the Mueller report, but is true nevertheless: Mueller simply confirmed the historical temperature record. His study had absolutely nothing to do with any difference between natural causes and man-made causes, nor (unlike the Jones, Mann et al.) does it pretend to make any predictions about future trends.
So in fact, the Mueller report is not even remotely evidence of, or confirmation for, AGW.
"That is the opposite of the conclusion reached by these two papers."
Not really. First, GP wrote "proof", and these papers don't prove anything, even if they are completely valid in their conclusions.
But without getting to that level of nitpicking, I still have to question whether they are valid in their conclusions, for several reasons. First, climate science has never provided good evidence that warming will lead to greater weather extremes. In fact, Keven Trenberth, who was quoted in the article, has been caught red-handed publicly telling blatant lies about that very issue. The fact is that evidence up to this point has all indicated that warming has not caused weather events that have averaged any more extreme than in the past. These papers would be contradicting a far greater number of others that have found exactly the opposite. Simple statistics tells me that I don't have much reason to believe that is very likely to be valid.
Secondly, while we know that warming causes regional changes, we also know that the record of the past shows that when it was warmer, it was also on average wetter then it is now. Warmer temperatures cause greater evaporation and greater precipitation. Period. (And yes, there is evidence of times past with both higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels than today.) Again: while nobody can predict regional changes, anybody who is predicting more droughts, on average, due to warmer temperatures is -- ahem -- all wet.
My other reason is that the NOAA article states this:
"Climate change from greenhouse gases explained roughly half the increased dryness of 1902-2010, the team found. This means that other processes, none specifically identified in the new investigation, also have contributed to increasing drought frequency in the region. "
Since NOBODY, so far, has been able to quantify ANY specific effects that are due specifically to greenhouse warming, this statement can only be an exaggeration at best. This is something that is literally impossible to know today, so how do they claim to know it? Why hasn't the fact that they "know" what the specific effects of greenhouse gas warming are, separate from natural warming, been announced to the public?
The answer is because it isn't so. This is an outrageous claim that would require all kinds of extraordinary evidence that simply isn't there. If this were actually known, it would be earth-shattering news to scientists the world over. But since it hasn't been... there you have extremely good evidence that this claim has no basis in fact.
So there you have two papers, both showing similar conclusions, and both making claims that contradict the vast body of evidence known to the scientific community.
I call bullshit.
"Industrial productivity is not going to increase domestically as long as it is significantly cheaper to manufacture products overseas..."
This is not at all a given. First, many companies have begun reducing or ending their outsourcing from the realization that the quality and reliability have been, on average, far lower than domestic production. You might argue that this is cost... it is just that it is indirect cost rather than direct.
But I agree with you that Government has been complicit in creating this problem; in many ways making it easier to outsource and even encouraging it. Agreements like GATT, for example, have proven to be anything BUT "free trade".
Congress could actually solve a lot of the problem by simply putting a direct and preferably heavy tax on companies that outsource to foreign countries. After all, outsourcing is (as we have finally learned beyond doubt and despite the early rhetoric) a drain on the economy. A tax would bring much of that revenue back, and at the same time discourage the practice of outsourcing to begin with.
Again, that is a cost. Which would make outsourcing much less attractive. I should note, however, that a direct tax is not a tariff, and presents far less conflict with international agreements.
To give a concrete example: the canonical Keynesian response to a boom is to tighten up the money supply, by increasing interest rates. This is currently done through the Fed. It could also be done directly through the government, if there were no Fed. So no, I am not saying that the Fed, per se, is a Keynesian concept. But the manipulation of interest rates and money supply, that is to say, the way the Fed has in fact been used since 1913, has in fact been been fundamentally Keynesian. And yes, I mean even in the years before Keynes' theory, because his economic theory includes much of what was then mainstream economic thinking.
"Control of the money supply via the Fed, by means of manipulating interest rates (and printing money), is essentially a Keynesian concept, and we have had it since the Fed was created in 1913."
If you take out the words "via the Fed", and just leave the rest, it is still purely Keynesian: not the Fed itself, but the practice of controlling money and interest rates THROUGH the Fed. I did not say that a central bank by itself was Keynesian... the Fed is the third central bank we have had. But you cannot effectively practice Keynesian economics without one.
Yes, the case I mentioned was a few years before the Lawrence decision.
"But the idea that fiat currency is inherently bad and that we need to go to a "gold" standard, is alarmingly ignorant, as is the idea that all debt is bad and that government can never borrow money (especially during depressions or recessions as a stimulative spending effort)."
True... according to Keynesian economic theory!!! But not others. Have you been listening at all? There are other schools of economics that very, very strongly disagree.
My whole point was that there are ways to do things that do not agree with the Keynesian model, and history has been building up more and more evidence that Keynes was just plain wrong.
You can't separate the two: the very concept of controlling the money supply via interest rates and the Fed is fundamentally Keynesian. So you are saying that Keynesian theory was being used to manipulate things in ways that Keynes would not have approved. Fine. I can appreciate that. But it's still ultimately Keynesian economics!!! The fact that it may be in the hands of madmen does not by itself make it non-Keynesian.
I agree with your numbered points. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.
That may be so, but earlier, in 2000-2001, Krugman was happily cheering on the artificially low interest rates that eventually led to the housing bubble. He even went so far as to specifically say that the outrageously low rates on housing were a good thing and would help the economy.
It's nice that Krugman eventually got it right, but he was a bit slow on the uptake, having actively encouraged the bad behavior in the first place.