Everything You Need to be Anti-

by on December 10, 2007 · 12 comments

Here’s a very appealing Web video that has enough doom ‘n’ gloom to make your head explode.

It’s interesting to see the anti-everything (-trade, -globalization, -consumerism, etc.) worldview summarized so neatly. I would be very unhappy if that was my ideology. The video’s host obviously has not read (or has dismissed) Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource – to say nothing of Austrian economics.

There are legitimate concerns expresed in the video – with negative externalities in third world countries, for example. But, um, hiring workers in the third world is not a negative externality. And there’s no acknowledgement of how the rule of law and property rights in those countries would empower and enrich people there.

Still, this is good stuff to consider. I could do without giving or getting all that junque at Christmastime.

SHARE: 12 comments

About Jim Harper

Jim Harper is the Director of Information Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, the Editor of Web-based privacy think-tank Privacilla.org, and the Webmaster of WashingtonWatch.com. A Poli Sci major at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Jim served as Editor-in-Chief of the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly in his final year at Hastings College of the Law. Prior to becoming a policy analyst and advocate, Jim served as counsel to committees in both the U.S. House and Senate. He avoids genuine life experience by watching lots and lots of reality TV.

Read more articles by Jim Harper.

  • Bob Barretto

    Gee, a closed-minded reaction from the good people at CATO. There’s a surprise. The video is actually Pro- lots of stuff if you took the time understand, rather than just react.

  • Bob Barretto

    Gee, a closed-minded reaction from the good people at CATO. There’s a surprise. The video is actually Pro- lots of stuff if you took the time understand, rather than just react.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Bob, exactly what would an open-minded reaction look like? Jim calls it “appealing” and acknowledges that the video makes some good points. Does the mere fact that he disagreed with its conclusions make him “close-minded?”

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Bob, exactly what would an open-minded reaction look like? Jim calls it “appealing” and acknowledges that the video makes some good points. Does the mere fact that he disagreed with its conclusions make him “close-minded?”

  • http://www2.blogger.com/profile/14380731108416527657 Steve R.

    Very entertaining video. Makes very many good points. Even though I am very suspicious of corporate behavior myself, I think the video made numerous mistakes in explaining the economics and I was disappointed with the political jabs the video made.

    Relative to the goals of TLF, the comments of Annie Leonard on obsolesce hold quite true from the perspective of proprietary technologies, digital rights management, and spurious lawsuits. Think of the all the cell phones that had to be thrown away over the years because the vendors “locked” them and they became “useless” when a user switched from one company to another.

  • http://www2.blogger.com/profile/14380731108416527657 Steve R.

    Very entertaining video. Makes very many good points. Even though I am very suspicious of corporate behavior myself, I think the video made numerous mistakes in explaining the economics and I was disappointed with the political jabs the video made.

    Relative to the goals of TLF, the comments of Annie Leonard on obsolesce hold quite true from the perspective of proprietary technologies, digital rights management, and spurious lawsuits. Think of the all the cell phones that had to be thrown away over the years because the vendors “locked” them and they became “useless” when a user switched from one company to another.

  • Bob Barretto

    Enter, Tim Lee–Defender of all things CATO.

    Okay, Tim, close-minded is labeling the video “doom ‘n’ gloom” (which is CATO-speak for “the scientific evidence presented is far too complex for markets to explain, therefore must be invalid, and besides Julian Simon said blah blah blah”). The video, if watched to the end, is actually quite hopeful and offers good recommendations. The “mere fact that Jim disagreed with the conclusions” does not make him close-minded, rather, the fact that he never got to (or has dismissed) the conclusions makes him close-minded, and the fact that you are just plain close-minded (I’ve read your blog) makes you close-minded, too.

    Julian Simon’s model for “unlimited” resources has broken down (so CATO people, please stop invoking it). The increasingly strained world oil supply shows that throwing more ingenuity and money at a resource problem can’t always solve it (See also Ogallala aquifer, Atlantic cod, copper, nickel, natural gas, et al.–I know, more “doom-n-gloom”). If you consider the “externalities” directly related to the “Green Revolution” and industrial agriculture, Simon never won the original bet with Ehrlich in the first place.

    Agreed, the video is not perfect and has simplified some economic concepts for the general audience (and apparently some scholars), but it’s a 20 minute web video, not a podcast on market failures. For what it is, it does explain why good governance and equitable distribution of wealth is necessary for our common future. I hope you take the time to watch it to the end and consider some of their recommendations for your own consumption practices; I know I will.

    Oh yeah, power is transfered through knowledge structure and discourse, not property rights or rule of law.

    Happy Holidays!

  • Bob Barretto

    Enter, Tim Lee–Defender of all things CATO.

    Okay, Tim, close-minded is labeling the video “doom ‘n’ gloom” (which is CATO-speak for “the scientific evidence presented is far too complex for markets to explain, therefore must be invalid, and besides Julian Simon said blah blah blah”). The video, if watched to the end, is actually quite hopeful and offers good recommendations. The “mere fact that Jim disagreed with the conclusions” does not make him close-minded, rather, the fact that he never got to (or has dismissed) the conclusions makes him close-minded, and the fact that you are just plain close-minded (I’ve read your blog) makes you close-minded, too.

    Julian Simon’s model for “unlimited” resources has broken down (so CATO people, please stop invoking it). The increasingly strained world oil supply shows that throwing more ingenuity and money at a resource problem can’t always solve it (See also Ogallala aquifer, Atlantic cod, copper, nickel, natural gas, et al.–I know, more “doom-n-gloom”). If you consider the “externalities” directly related to the “Green Revolution” and industrial agriculture, Simon never won the original bet with Ehrlich in the first place.

    Agreed, the video is not perfect and has simplified some economic concepts for the general audience (and apparently some scholars), but it’s a 20 minute web video, not a podcast on market failures. For what it is, it does explain why good governance and equitable distribution of wealth is necessary for our common future. I hope you take the time to watch it to the end and consider some of their recommendations for your own consumption practices; I know I will.

    Oh yeah, power is transfered through knowledge structure and discourse, not property rights or rule of law.

    Happy Holidays!

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    the fact that you are just plain close-minded (I’ve read your blog) makes you close-minded, too.

    Well, I certainly can’t argue with an airtight argument like that.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    the fact that you are just plain close-minded (I’ve read your blog) makes you close-minded, too.

    Well, I certainly can’t argue with an airtight argument like that.

  • Brian

    Excellent, I’ve been looking for an example of what it truly looks like when an argument “begs the question.” bookmarks post

  • Brian

    Excellent, I’ve been looking for an example of what it truly looks like when an argument “begs the question.” bookmarks post

Previous post:

Next post: