Monday , October 22 2018

Potpourri

Summary:
==> This is an old but very interesting post from Mark Bahner on atmospheric CO2 and how quickly it could be removed if need be. ==> A very interesting post from David Beckworth on the yield curve (HT2 Scott Sumner). But most important–look at this analysis from Ben Bernanke back in 2006!! Not only was the Bernank totally wrong, but his wrongness is relevant to right now. ==> An interview with Stan Bush, who was instrumental in one of the greatest scenes in American movie history. ==> On the latest Contra Krugman: How to Unwind the Welfare State. ==> A petition to free Ross Ulbricht. ==> Venezuela’s annual price inflation rate is apparently more than 1 million percent… ==> I raise concerns about the Curbelo carbon tax bill, and Veronique de Rugy criticizes carbon

Topics:
Robert Murphy considers the following as important: , , ,

This could be interesting, too:

Don Boudreaux writes Some Links

Don Boudreaux writes Can You Outsmart an Economist?

Robert Murphy writes The Nobel Laureates

Don Boudreaux writes Some Links

==> This is an old but very interesting post from Mark Bahner on atmospheric CO2 and how quickly it could be removed if need be.

==> A very interesting post from David Beckworth on the yield curve (HT2 Scott Sumner). But most important–look at this analysis from Ben Bernanke back in 2006!! Not only was the Bernank totally wrong, but his wrongness is relevant to right now.

==> An interview with Stan Bush, who was instrumental in one of the greatest scenes in American movie history.

==> On the latest Contra Krugman: How to Unwind the Welfare State.

==> A petition to free Ross Ulbricht.

==> Venezuela’s annual price inflation rate is apparently more than 1 million percent

==> I raise concerns about the Curbelo carbon tax bill, and Veronique de Rugy criticizes carbon taxes too.

==> I was amazed to see this letter to Nature (keep in mind that “climate mitigation” means “government policy actions taken to slow climate change”):

Our analysis shows that by 2050, the potential for a sizeable
increase in the risk of hunger is higher in the RCP2.6 scenarios
under climate mitigation than in the RCP6.0 scenarios without
mitigation in all socio-economic futures and economic mod
els, despite the fact that RCP6.0 scenarios have more severe cli
mate change and greater reductions in crop yields (Fig. 1a–c;
Supplementary Fig. 11). With the SSP2 socio-economic backdrop,
the population at risk of hunger in 2050 increases by 24 million
(2–56 million: the range represents variation across models here
after) with the climate impacts of the RCP6.0 scenario, compared
with the baseline scenario. This number increases by around
78 million (0–170 million) people with the combined climate
impacts and emissions mitigation policies of the RCP2.6 scenario
(Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 14 for the global and regional
baseline scenario). Most of the increase in hunger in the RCP2.6
scenarios is caused by the implementation of climate mitigation
policies, not the climate change impacts.
Robert Murphy
Christian, Austrian economist, and libertarian theorist. Research Prof at Texas Tech and author of *Choice*. Paul Krugman's worst nightmare.

Leave a Reply

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