He didn\’t like it

The book that is.

8 thoughts on “He didn\’t like it”

  1. Well it won’t be long before the rest of us get a chance to make up our own minds – I’ve just had an email from Amazon to say they are bringing forward the delivery date.

  2. That seems a thoughtful review.

    So, Mr Worstall, after reading that review – does he have any points?

    Tim adds: Yes, some fair ones too. I’m not sure about the “being clever” bit though. I still am astonished that anyone’s interested in what I have to say. And I certainly don’t regard myself as clever: which is precisely why there’s no delving into minutiae of economics, but sticking with very broad brush stuff. I don’t actually know the minutiae.

    As to the Keynesian bit: no, it’s not that I think it doesn’t work. It’s that even if it does it’s a short term thing. Creating millions of permanent green jobs isn’t the correct reaction to a short term lack of jobs. Creating millions of short term green jobs might be: but that doesn’t cover the operation of the energy infrastructure, which will be around for what, 30-50 years?

  3. Seemed like a fair review, with the exception of the “green jobs” bit, which seemed to miss the point, and I just commented over there to say so.

    (And for the record, while it looks like I just cribbed from Tim’s reply to Doug, I wrote and posted my comment at badconscience.com completely independently, and BEFORE Tim replied here.)

  4. The critic does rather give the game away here:

    “by touting job-creation as a political move (rather than a narrow economic one of the sort Worstall myopically focuses on) then the “green agenda” does not “defeat” its aims but may well in a political context advance them quite considerably.”

    Which rather proves the point that ‘environmentalism’ is not necessarily about the environment but is a polital movement with its own agenda.

  5. Yes, that seemed kind of obtuse to me too.

    “This policy won’t help the environment – in fact it’s actually purely politically motivated!”

    “Ah, now that’s where your completely wrong. This is actually a politically motivated policy, and it won’t help the environment at all.”

    “But…isn’t that what I just said?”

    “Not at all. You were assuming that it was intended to help the environment. We aren’t actually stupid, you know – we know quite well that it won’t help, ad we were just lying when we said it would.”

    “Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.”

  6. Cody et al;

    Regardless of whether you *approve* of the fact that the green “agenda” is a deeply political one (and thereby not a purely economic one), the point is that any serious anaylsis of it must surely engage on the political – as well as the economic – terrain.

    The fact is there is (effectively by definition and necessity) *no* political organisation/movement that exists as a purely economic set of imperatives. Now, you may find the green agenda more incoherent, stupid and self-serving than other political agendas/movements (and I’ll have sympathy here; I should have stressed in my review that I actually share a lot of Tim’s frustration with the sheer intellectual ignorance and one-dimensional simplicity of the environmental movements leading mega-mouths), but the fact is that if you want to offer a substantive critique, you have to acknowledge it as a political movement. And analysis of this is quite possible, whatever one’s personal value judgements of the movement itself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *