“If I messed up a funny story around my relatives, they would go ‘That’s not how you tell that joke. The prostitute has to be behind the drapes when the wife comes in.’ You went to Duke—that is an unbelievable privilege. I now have an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters degree from Duke University. And if I can figure out a way to use that, I will. I haven’t figured anything out yet. I think it’s pretty much as useful in real life as this outfit I’m wearing. But so what? I’ll take it. My point is we’re embarrassed about things we should be proud of and proud of things we should be embarrassed about.”
– Jerry Seinfeld drops some humorous truth bombs at a college speech.
I was actually there when Boris (Yeltsin) freed food prices. Replacing that planned, understood, thing with the complexity – and the impossibility of understanding its complexity – of the market is exactly what filled the shops with food.
Now do you see the point here? The dipshittiness of the basic demand being made about AI? The lawyer is saying that unless we already understand it all we shouldn’t be using it. But the entire point of the use of these complex not-understood things is that we don’t, in fact, know how it all works. Therefore we use this miracle thing to work it out for us.
To say that we can’t use AI until we know what the result will be is the same as saying we’ve got to use economic planning because we don’t know what the market outcome will be. We’ve even that long experiment – the 20th Century – to tell us how that worked out. Those who didn’t use the not-understood complexity remained shit poor.
More and more mainstream journalists (maybe we need to retire the term “mainstream” as it begs many questions) are sitting up and taking notice of the Argentinian president, Javier Milei. His openly declared support for radical classical liberalism and “Austrian economics”, for thinkers such as Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek and Milton Friedman are a breath of fresh air in these increasingly unpleasant, statist times. His package of reform moves, including slashes to the budgets of the Argentinian state, are inevitably attracting criticism and pushback.
This is to be expected. When Ludwig Erhard, the former West German economics minister, put the Deutschemark on a firm footing, ended price controls and cut forms of intervention, the UK occupying authorities, for example, thought he was nuts; when Poland pivoted sharply towards free enterprise in the early 90s, things got tough for a while as a lot of formerly concealed unemployment surfaced. The same happens in many other nations that adopt the “shock therapy” of moving off the morphine drip of cheap money. Imagine, if you will, the likely pain if Venezuela moves away from socialism; the UK had a tough time when Mrs Thatcher enacted reforms in the 1980s, and fashionable opinion thought she was mad and could not succeed.
It seems rather typical of this cycle, then, that Daily Telegraph economics writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues that Argentina is engaged in an “extreme” form of Austrian economics, and argues that it is all going wrong. AEP is a Keyensian; he sometimes writes intelligently but a lot of his predictions are way off base. He’s predicted the crackup of the eurozone so many times that his credibility is shot on that issue. He’s all for Net Zero and the policies to make it happen. But there is more than a grudging respect for Milei here – AEP knows that Argentina’s statist, Peronist culture is awful and needs to change. And AEP does argue that maybe Milei ought to take a leaf out of Erhard’s book on the issue of the currency. Unfortunately, AEP is a full-on fiat currency guy, who presumably agrees with Keynes that gold is a relic, etc.
In any event, people are noticing Argentina now. Its currency and debt is more highly valued; thousands of civil servants have been fired, and Milei is pushing to end a lot of controls. He faces resistance, and may not succeed. But here he is, more than six months into power, and I hope he succeeds. A prosperous, liberal Argentina would be a refreshing contrast not just to the Argentina of many recent decades, but to the horrible regimes of other Latin American states. And who knows – it would be nice if the UK could improve relations with such a country, maybe work out something over the Falklands, and forge closer trade ties with a country that the UK helped to build a century ago.
Consumer Reports. You probably have heard of it, as it has been around since 1936. Since then, it has offered valuable information to assess the safety and performance of many products and services, and has come to be widely trusted. So, you can understand why we were intrigued when it issued a blurb in one of its latest newsletters about…climate change. Wait…what?
Consumer Reports maintains credibility by conducting its own evaluations based on its in-house testing laboratory and survey research center. It is lauded because its website and magazine accept no advertising, and it buys all the products it tests. As a non-profit organization, it has no shareholders to be beholden to. In summary, it is completely independent of the industries it investigates, so its evaluations are not affected by anyone or any product it reviews.
So far, so good. Its mission statement indicates that
Consumer Reports works to create a fair and just marketplace for all. As a mission-driven, independent, nonprofit member organization, [Consumer Reports] empowers and informs consumers, incentivizes corporations to act responsibly, and helps policymakers prioritize the rights and interests of consumers in order to shape a truly consumer-driven marketplace.
We applaud Consumer Reports for its work in maintaining integrity within the marketplace of goods and services.
Which brings us to its latest emailed newsletter (which does not appear to be online). It doesn’t focus on a comparison of gas-powered clothes dryers or the best electric vehicle you should buy based on safety, features, ease of refueling, combustion potential of the lithium battery, or any other consumer-oriented criterion. No, its topic is climate change.
Seemingly out of character, the newsletter begins, “with Earth Day approaching, Consumer Reports has put a price tag on the potential failure to deal with climate change.” Then, in bold print, it proclaims that the price tag is “nearly $500,000 in extra costs to a baby born this year — an enormous financial burden for future generations.”
Where does Consumer Reports get this figure?
Although Consumer Reports usually provides numbers, these numbers fall short of being facts. If for no other reason that, contrary to the expectations of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it assumes (as an online article acknowledges but the newsletter doesn’t mention) a “’high emissions’ scenario, which represents a [so-called] consensus view of what will happen to global air temperatures if we remain on our current trajectory without additional mitigation efforts. Under that scenario, greenhouse gas emissions would roughly double and average air temperatures would rise more than 4°C (7.2°F) by 2100.”
That by itself inflates emissions, consequent warming, and, therefore, the estimated costs of climate change. Although the article (but not the newsletter) acknowledges that a “’low emissions’ scenario posits a faster shift to sustainable practices that result in carbon dioxide concentrations peaking around 2080 and air temperatures rising 1.5°C (2.7°F) before beginning to decline in the last decades of this century” — which the IPCC says is far more likely and would entail lower costs. The newsletter never tells us what the “low-emissions scenario” costs would be but gives us only the higher costs driven by the “high-emissions scenario.”
Be that as it may, the newsletter notes, “Consumer Reports wanted to detail concrete examples of what the financial costs of climate change can be for our kids and grandkids.” So, what did it find?
First up, housing:
Extreme weather-related damage can significantly increase the cost of repairing, maintaining, and insuring a home. The study estimates climate change could lead to an increase in housing costs of $125,000 over the lifetime of a person born in 2024.
Of course. More hurricanes and storms, more high winds, more flood waters, more heat, more snowfall — more of all the devastating things that are supposed to come from climate change — will gut your treasured abode.
Yes, if these events really did become more frequent and severe, they would do more damage to homes, and regardless of whether they do, insurance companies could take advantage of this scare by raising premiums. But in the world of real meteorologists and climatologists, we simply are not seeing an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather. Indeed, in theory, a warmer world should be a less variable world, because poleward latitudes warm more than those near the Equator, reducing the differential that weather systems seek to equalize.
Next up, energy:
Climate change is expected to increase the cost of heating and cooling a home. A rise in extreme weather conditions can also threaten power plants and other energy infrastructure, which could lead to expenses that companies pass onto their customers. The overall increase in lifetime energy expenses is an estimated $88,000.
We can see why cooling costs should go up, but wouldn’t the cost to heat your home decrease in a warmer world? Ah, yes, but — weather weirding. With global warming, we’re told, there must be more of everything, including cold outbreaks.
Nonetheless, we would argue that the transition to wind and solar energy is a far bigger threat to household energy costs. So called “renewable energy” is unreliable, intermittent, and expensive — not to mention the vast costs of expanding high-voltage transmission lines to service remotely-located wind turbines and solar arrays and of installing millions of charging stations for electric vehicles. If we are forced to use a higher percentage of wind and solar sources for our energy needs, energy costs will skyrocket and the available energy to run our heaters and air conditioners will plummet.
So, Consumer Reports’ estimate of $88,000 due to climate change is, in our view, far lower than the costs we will see if our power grids are forced to abandon coal and gas in favor of wind and solar.
Then comes food:
A changing climate is expected to disrupt food systems, reduce access to food, and lead to higher food prices, driving up lifetime costs for a 2024-born American by an estimated $33,000.
With an average life expectancy of about 76 years, that would amount to just over $500 per year, or $10 a week increase in added food costs. We’ve experienced that much in just the last three years, and it has had nothing to do with climate change.
But again, we will argue that, for several reasons, this is far less than the cost increases that will be imposed on food if we try to slow or stop global warming, as Consumer Reports urges us to do. If transportation networks adopt “Net Zero” standards, we will be forced to move food to market using electric trucks and trains — more expensive to build and operate than their internal-combustion counterparts. The never-ending quest to cover our farmland with solar panels and convert the crops we do produce into ethanol will reduce the supply of food, further driving up costs. So will banning nitrous fertilizers, since nitrous oxide is also deemed a “pollutant” because of its (relatively insignificant) contribution to global warming.
We’re not sure if the ultimate goal of this Consumer Reports newsletter is to scare parents into not having children or to scare children away from having traditional families. It might be, because later the newsletter proclaims, again in bold print, “Scary? Yes.” But no, actually the tact they take is the same one to which many environmental organizations recently have resorted. Scaring the public into action simply does not work — indeed, Chicken Little can proclaim only for a short time that the sky is falling until people begin to see through the ruse that Chicken Little is really Chicken Liar.
So, the new tact taken by the environmental alarmists — and by Consumer Reports — is that things are not hopeless, because, they claim, this $500,000 in added costs can be dramatically reduced if we work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make other critical decisions.
Consumer Reports pushes subscribers to join in their efforts to usher in a sustainable future by giving their readers “information you need to lower your costs today” and inviting them “to a broader discussion about what we can do together to make real change!” The closing exclamation mark is supposed to entice you to jump on the “Sign Up Now” button.
The newsletter was signed by Drew Toher of Consumer Reports. On the Consumer Reports website, Mr. Toher lists himself as a “campaign manager of community and corporate engagement” with expertise in — what? Climatology, atmospheric science, energy engineering, energy management, or environmental economics? Anything relevant to estimating the costs climate change will impose on people? No, his expertise is in “sustainability.” He focuses on initiatives that promote sustainable, energy-efficient choices for consumers. In other words, he is an ESG officer.
Perhaps the author of Consumer Reports’ online article from which Toher drew was better qualified? No. Scott Medintz is an editor, writer, and content strategist for Consumer Reports with a BA in English Language and Literature and an MA in English and American Literature.
That explains quite a bit.
But something else bothered us about this Consumer Reports newsletter. As we mentioned earlier, Consumer Reports is widely known for its independent testing, done in its in-house laboratories. It does its own research and makes its own decisions. But this newsletter deviates from that model. Its figures are straight from the alarmist narrative. Could it be that Consumer Reports hired a cadre of climate scientists, energy experts, or environmental economists to provide independent testing? Or might it have deviated from its model just this once and simply parroted these figures from another source?
The answer is right in the online article’s introduction:
You might have heard that climate change costs the United States economy hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Or that globally it’s expected to cause trillions worth of damage annually by 2050. But huge numbers like those are so abstract that it’s hard to see how the cost of climate change might affect our everyday lives. So a new report commissioned by Consumer Reports…might snap some of us to attention.
Wait, “…commissioned by Consumer Reports.” This certainly deviates from Consumer Reports’ standard operating procedure of doing its own, independent investigations without bias or external influence.
So, we wondered, just whom did they commission? Well, the article tells us:
…a new report commissioned by Consumer Reportsand conducted by ICF, a global consulting firm that conducts climate studies for businesses and governments…
ICF International Inc. was born as the Inter-City Fund in 1969 to finance and help minority-owned businesses apply for and secure governmental contracts. Since then, its focus has shifted radically. Today, it is the most important environmental organization you have never heard of.
ICF International Inc. staffs the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President — a little-known fact one of us (Legates) discovered when he served as the executive director of the USGCRP. It provides a yearly report on climate change to Congress called Our Changing Planet and is responsible for the content of the climate.gov website. In 2022, its annual budget from the United States government was a stunning $3.6 billion; In 2024, it topped $5 billion — an increase of nearly fifty percent during the first two years of the Biden Administration. It’s impossible to know how much money Consumer Reports paid ICF for this study. Maybe nothing — ICF certainly had all the resources it needed without a measly payment from Consumer Reports.
In retrospect, maybe Consumer Reports is correct after all, in a twisted sort of way. It will cost a newborn more than $500,000 if current carbon-reduction legislation, racing through the federal government and many state legislatures, becomes the law of the land. But the costs of abandoning coal, oil, and gas and adopting a wind- and solar-based energy source for our country will be higher; much higher. Moreover, we must start paying closer attention to ICF International Inc, a little-known but major player in shaping our environmental future.
Some people on the right worry that immigration will cause America’s white population to be largely replaced by non-whites. This hypothesis is sometimes referred to as “The Great Replacement”. There is a great replacement occurring, but these worriers have things exactly backwards. (As an aside, this post will not examine the pros and cons of a changing ethnic mix. Rather, I’ll argue that the feared change is not occurring.)
To understand why the Great Replacement theory is wrong, it’s helpful to begin with a bit of American history. A century ago, people tended to think about the white race in a more narrow fashion. The original settlers in the 1600s and 1700s tended to be white Anglo-Saxon protestants (WASPs) from northern Europe. This was followed by a new wave of settlers from places like Ireland, Italy and Eastern Europe. Although today we regard these more recent immigrants as white, they were initially viewed as being members of a very different ethnic group—what we would call “minorities”. Over time, they became more successful and assimilated with the majority WASP population. Here’s a screenshot of some books that discussed how these groups became “white” in a cultural sense. (Again, I am using race here as a social construct, not a biological category.)
Today, the vast majority of immigrants come from Latin America and East Asia. They are gradually assimilating with the majority white population, often via intermarriage. In 100 years, the descendants of Asians and Hispanics will be viewed as being just as white as Italian-Americans, Jewish-Americans and Irish-American people are viewed today.
My daughter is a good example. People who meet her for the first time almost universally regard her as “white”. And yet my daughter’s mother is from China. Thus in a sense my East Asian wife is being “replaced” by a white daughter. That’s the actual “Great Replacement”.
It is true that there is somewhat less intermarriage between whites and blacks, but that fact doesn’t change the basic picture. Since 1990, blacks have constituted between 12% and 13% of the US population, about the same as in 1870. The Great Replacement theory is mostly about the effects of Asian and Hispanic immigration, and that’s where assimilation is occurring at a rapid pace.
You will occasionally see predictions of whites becoming a minority at some point in the future. Don’t believe them. I’ve seen this sort of prediction off and on for my entire life, and yet in a cultural sense whites are just as dominant as ever. What changes over time is our concept of what it means to be white. This category will be continually redefined in such a way as to keep whites in the majority. I suppose some on the left might view that process with suspicion, but I believe that assimilation is a very positive development. The greatest ethnic strife tends to occur in countries that do not experience assimilation.
Charging extra for specific preferences, such as a seat selection on a flight, enables lower basic prices, increasing access to no-frills options for lower-income customers, while allowing businesses to customize their services to individual customers’ preferences. Airlines unbundle in-flight food and checked bags, for example, leading to more profit opportunities and lower base fares. Yes, “price discrimination”—charging various customers different amounts for the same product—can sometimes be harmful to customers on net. But banning such unbundling when consumers put wildly different values on certain services can price out poorer consumers and compel others to pay for services they neither want nor need.
Likewise, overdraft fees from banks help disincentivize costly behavior. Banks incur costs and face heightened risks when customers overdraw their accounts. Overdraft charges help deter this behavior in a well-targeted way, by imposing charges on those customers whose accounts become overdrawn. Capping or constraining overdraft fees doesn’t eliminate these costs and risks; it just means someone else must be charged for them in a different way. Banning overdraft charges thus means higher prices for some other subset of a bank’s customers.
As I said in the blurb on the book this is one of my favorite chapters. Specifically, I wrote, “Particularly good are the chapters on rent controls, price controls on oil and natural gas, and so-called junk fees, which are really fees to solve problems that would exist without them.”
Bourne quotes President Biden’s attack on “junk fees.” I get the impression, given Joe Biden’s low or close to zero understanding of economics, that Biden thinks that eliminating junk fees won’t cause any prices to rise.
Log in
