J9 - The Danger Of "We Have To Fix Nature" As Justification For Government Intervention

While I was at the Mises Institute earlier this month, I engaged in a discussion with some other scholars in an effort to answer the question of whether the sciences of human action truly applied to all men and women, or whether there were different sorts of people who could possibly think differently. Karl, who is a brilliant doctoral student at the University of Angers, in France, noted that Mises allowed that human beings evolved from pre-logical creatures into the logical creatures we are now. Would it not be possible, then, for there to have existed some creature that had some of man’s logical features and not others? Would it not be possible for some creatures to evolve from man into super-logical beings? If so, are the findings of economics applicable to these sub- and super-human beings? 

This conversation, like every conversation at the Mises Institute, was more interesting and exhibited more wide-ranging knowledge than an entire month of an average history class. We eventually got around to talking about eugenics, and the dangers of classifying human beings. Now, I do believe that lower-class people tend to be more present-minded, while higher-class people tend to be more future-oriented, and that this mindset keeps them in their respective classes (see Rothbard). As far as explaining this phenomenon, I do not know whether to believe that it is caused by an ideological superstructure (see Marx), genetics (see Hoppe), isolation (see Sowell), or scarcity itself (see Mullainathan). This is an interesting topic, worthy of exposition in a much more formal setting than this humble blog post. But the point is not so much what the truth is, but what people believe the truth is, and what to do about it. You see, whatever causes the lower classes to be present-minded, the belief that it was caused by genetics, and the further belief that these genes could be weeded out by the State, is what led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of American prisoners, the infanticide of millions of fetuses, and the attempted extermination of inferior races by the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes. 

In bringing a problem to light, you are always inviting people to solve the problem, or at least attempt to. Unfortunately, many people automatically turn to government to solve the problem. This is very dangerous, and always unwise. My project is an attempt to demonstrate that the free market can make our world a better place. However, I must be careful to not present the problem in such a way that people would feel justified in calling upon the government to “fix nature,” as they did in the eugenics movement. That is why it is so important that I ground my project so firmly in general economics. This problem must be presented in the proper light; a light that leaves no doubt about the government’s ability to solve it. Government cannot begin to “fix nature” as well as the market can, and this must be made clear.

Advocates of government intervention sometimes point to the British health care system as an example of the success that comes from adopting solutions on a nationwide level (something that can be accomplished only by government decree, apparently). People argue similarly that solutions to climate change can only be effective if instituted at a nationwide level, and therefore this problem requires a government solution. According to the apologists, Great Britain’s healthcare system, which is not designed to make profits, saves more lives per pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than almost any other country. Okay. So Great Britain is very efficient with its healthcare budget; it’s achieved an economy of scale that American has not. However, any industry can be insanely effective if all of the economy’s resources are devoted to it. The fact is, we cannot tell how successful the British healthcare system is precisely because it produces no profits. Because its revenues are obtained through compulsory taxation and not voluntary payment, we do not know how much people actually value the services they receive, and we cannot know whether the resources that have been devoted to healthcare should have been used in some other industry. Without profit and loss, without economic calculation, the government cannot determine whether its programs are economical or wasteful. It therefore cannot be said that a government program is making us better off than we would be without it.

Can we fix nature? I believe that we can. How can we fix nature? That is a question for the entrepreneurs. Should we fix nature? That’s is not a decision for me alone to make. But should this decision be left to the government? Absolutely not. The government has no rational way of making such a decision. This process of changing the world, of improving the environment, must be left to the market. And my project must be sure to communicate that, or I run the risk of providing a justification for widespread government intervention, something that could cost many more lives than any amount of climate change.

J8 - Thinking About Assignment #1

I’m writing this to record my apprehension about my upcoming “Self-Designed Assignment.” 

Originally, I wanted to complete this “model project” by the end of the summer, so that students would be able to reference it while doing their own work. However, I didn’t quite realize how little time I’d have this summer: I leave my house for my first job at 8 o’clock in the morning, return home from second job around 10 o’clock at night. Then I go for my run, which sometimes takes two or more hours. So...very little time to get work done. I think that I’ll certainly be able to maintain an accelerated pace, and therefore continue to provide a model for the students, but my end date has been pushed.

Anyway, no matter how the overall schedule works out, I’ve been working on this project for three weeks now, which means that very soon I’m going to have to do a “Self-Designed Assignment.” Now, I have no doubt that I could produce something substantial to mark my progress. However, I don’t want to produce just anything. I want this to be a model project, something that the students will be able to draw inspiration from. So, I feel like this needs to be something grand. Unfortunately, I’m not very creative. 

These assignments are supposed to be “wrapped in the 5Cs.” I fancy myself to be very strong in the areas of critical thinking and communication. I’m less strong in the areas of curiosity and collaboration. And I’m weakest in the area of creativity. Now, some people might be tempted to use this project to work on their weaknesses (or at least say so). I think that this approach is unwise. If you’re good at one thing, and bad at another thing, I believe that there’s more to be gained by honing the skill you’re good at than trying to improve at the thing you’re bad at. If you’re horrible at something, then you could probably spend a considerable amount of time practicing that skill before you get to a point where you’re merely bad at that thing. Whereas if you dedicated that considerable amount of time to practicing the skill that you’re already good at, there’s a potential to move into an upper echelon of people with that skill. It’s more valuable to be an expert at piano and unable to play the violin than to be mediocre at both instruments. This is a mutated form of the law of comparative advantage. Productivity is increased through specialization. Therefore, I don’t think that I’m going to stress much about my lack of creativity. 

So, my assignments will likely focus on the other four Cs. This doesn’t mean that my assignments are going to lack creativity entirely. After all, I have a very loose definition of creativity, closer to what someone else would call originality. So everything I produce could be labelled creative. I’m just not going to consciously become more creative in the colloquial sense of artistic. I feel that this is an entirely appropriate course of action. I just wonder how impressive my assignment can be without some artistic creativity. Even the most captivating essays are just words on paper.

My other concern is deciding what content to include in this first assignment. During the past month I’ve read almost 900 pages of an economics treatise. I obviously can’t include everything I’ve learned in this one assignment. How does one embody “economic theory” in one paper (if that’s what I produce)?

In short, I’m stressing a little bit about this assignment.

J7 - How The Dismal Science Makes Me A Better Person

“The characteristic feature of this age of destructive wars and social disintegration is the revolt against economics.” 

Part of the war on economic science, especially in recent years, has been the presentation of information that is meant to paint economists as “bad” people. Studies have been published which show that economics students tend to be more individualistic, less charitable, less concerned with equality, and less supportive of government action, whether regulatory or distributary. Of course, while this campaign on the character of economists probably has its intended effect on the minds of the public, it does nothing to cast doubt on the teachings of economics itself. Unable to refute the truths given by the sciences of human action, the proponents of collectivism instead smear those who relay such truths.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with being less concerned with equality or less supportive of government intervention. From a different viewpoint than that of the Leftist writers of these character-attacks, these traits might even be considered virtues. But, rather than meet these Leftists on their own ground, I will make an even stronger claim: the study of economics has actually made me a better person, even from a Leftist point of view.

The study of economics is the study of people. An understanding of economics is an understanding of how others act. And through this understanding comes peace, acceptance, appreciation, and hope for the future. 

Economics teaches that every action is undertaken in an effort to remove some felt uneasiness. In other words, everything that people do is an attempt to be happier. Observing the actions of others, I know that they are driven by the same motive as I am; the pursuit of happiness. Understanding their motive allows me to empathize, and to forgive. Moreover, the economists have demonstrably proven that value is subjective, existing only in the minds of acting human beings. Therefore, there is nothing inherently better about reading the Wall Street Journal than reading People Magazine. Understanding that value is subjective encourages humility. I cannot judge the choices of others, for I know that they’re just doing what they think is best for themselves.

A proper study of economics leads to the realization that only the individual acts. Understanding this allows the economist to see through the words of a politician, always employing the royal “we,” and realize that not everyone who the politician claims to represent actually agrees with his views. Not every NRA member shares the sentiments of Wayne LaPierre. Not every African American agrees with Al Sharpton. A knowledge of economics reduces the tendency to stereotype people. When I meet a new person, I view them as an individual with certain characteristics, not as a faceless member of a certain group. 

Economics provides an understanding of scarcity, and an understanding teaches us that everyone faces choices. There are not enough resources to accomplish everything we desire; we must choose between alternative ends, selecting the most important desires for satisfaction, and leaving all other desires unsatisfied. This helps in the political scene, as I’ve stressed before. Conservatives don’t oppose government health care because they want people to be without health care; they oppose government health care because they value other uses of that trillion dollars more than universal health care. However, this knowledge can help in your personal life, too. For example, imagine that you call a friend and ask them to go out with you tonight. They say no; they’re going to the gym instead. The sense of rejection sets in. But the economist realizes that your friend did want to go out with you; it’s the scarcity of time that forced him to decline your invitation. He wants to go out with you, but he also wants to go to the gym. He can’t do both. Choosing the gym because he’s training for a marathon is not the same as rejecting you because he doesn’t want to see you. He values you; but, tonight, he values his fitness goals just a little bit more. Understanding this necessity to choose between valued ends helps the economist avoid feelings of offense or rejection.

An understanding of economic growth provides hope for the future, by revealing that there is a way for humanity to reduce the burden of scarcity and to raise standards of living for everyone. It also provides appreciation for our forbears who left behind the enormous capital stocks we employ today. An understanding of the division of labor provides a sense of peace because I know that each day, despite the rhetoric in the news, people choose to continue cooperating with each other. It also provides a desire for peace because that is the condition most conducive to cooperation and economic progress. 

For the past year I have been studying law. Now, the study of law is, in a word, all-consuming. Therefore, I have not engaged in much economic thinking this year. Moreover, the overwhelming volume of information thrust upon beginner law students had the effect of pushing a lot of old information out of my mind. Use it or lose it, as they say. Fortunately, I’ve been rather forcefully reimmersed in economic theory over the past two weeks through my preparation for and participation in an economics seminar at the Mises Institute. The experience has been rigorous, but satisfying. Reacquainting myself with economic theory has allowed me to regain a proper view of the world, one I had not realized that I had lost until I found it again. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity this project is providing me to continue using economics and improving myself.

The 5Cs

In discussions about the content of this program, Mr. Bott has continually stressed the importance of what he refers to as “the 5Cs.” These are, of course, critical thinking, communication, creativity, collaboration, and curiosity. Given my insistence on the crucial importance of definitions and writing as thinking, I believe that it is necessary for me to offer some thoughts on (but not definitions of) these concepts that students will hear about repeatedly throughout their projects.

The beginning of every quest for knowledge is a question. Every research project must therefore be fueled by curiosity. But what is the purpose of knowledge? Why do we seek to know things? It is inherent in the nature of the human mind to not only record the phenomena experienced by the sense organs, but to catalogue it. To do this properly requires that we not only learn all the attributes of a certain phenomenon, but also its cause. This understanding of causal relationships is of the utmost importance to man, because it is in the nature of man to bring about change in the universe. Only through knowledge of cause and effect can man create such change. The purpose of knowledge, then, is to enable us to create change in the world. This is why man is curious. He wishes to bring about conditions that please him and seeks knowledge that will allow him to do so. Now, look at the world. What do you want to change about? What knowledge do you need to bring about such change? The answers to those questions should determine the focus of your project.

To ensure that the information you find and the thinking you base upon it will bring about the change you desire, you must test it through the process of critical thinking. The Foundation for Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as “that mode of thinking...in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it.” As an art, critical thinking is meant to combat biases in one’s thought. Many people believe that to think critically is to consider or even argue the opposite viewpoint of the one personally held. However, I think that critical thinking is not so much about balance as about clarity. What exactly are you saying? What exactly is being said to you? What is meant by the words being used? What implied assumptions are being made? Of course, if, through this clarification process, you find one of your assertions to be erroneous you should correct yourself. There is no utility in false thinking.

Now, strictly speaking, man does not create. The amount of matter in the universe is finite and fixed. Man transforms existing matter into his own image. He changes the world to suit himself better. In doing so, he leaves his own distinctive mark on creation. This is what we call creating; the mixing of our own essence with what has already been in existence. And, in fact, this process occurs in every action; we are always changing the world, in the weakest sense. To produce something original from a research project requires nothing more than offering your own thoughts about or analysis of some subject. This is why I think that it’s important to identify the biases (wrong word) in your thinking but not necessarily to remove them. They are the parts of your project that are strictly yours. They influence the questions you ask, your interpretation of the world, and the use to which you put the knowledge that you gain. Your whole project is a product of creative energy. The key is not to wonder how you can make your project more creative, but to ensure that you do not purge the creativity that already exists in it.

It’s important, however, to not take our creativity too far and thereby create a work of pure fiction, failing to answer the questions we set out to answer. We should maintain a link with the real world through collaboration with others. 99.9% of the information that we use every day resides in other people’s minds; almost nothing we do would be possible without these other minds. It would be unwise, therefore, to reject this tremendous advantage of a cooperative society. Collaboration benefits our projects by giving as access to the critical thinking of others, as well as their own thoughts and perspectives. Sometimes our assumptions are wrong. Sometimes our logic is flawed. Sometimes our course of inquiry is irrelevant. Sometimes our understanding of an issue is incomplete. Through collaboration we can become aware of other views and then either answer them with or incorporate them into our project.

Finally, through communication we answer our original question. Communication allows us to inform the world of the step we’ve taken toward effecting the change we seek, and to offer up the information we’ve discovered so that others can use it to take further steps. More fundamental, though, is the fact that your project cannot be completed, nor even your thinking fully developed, without communication. You cannot fully understand an idea until you can fully articulate it. It is through communication that your critical thinking will work. The concepts you grapple with and the conclusions you come to will remain muddy and unexamined until they are exposed to the light of the external world and required to stand on their own. Only through communication will we be able to really know what progress we’ve made.

Clearly, these concepts are not fully distinct from each other. They’re all part of the learning and thinking process. First, a question. Then research. Reflection and deduction, creative contribution. Critical thinking to analyze and refine one’s deductions. Collaboration for inspiration and refinement. Communication of one’s findings and ideas to oneself and one’s audience. They all flow from each other and work together.

The Importance of Defining Terms

I am unusually particular about the elucidation of one’s definitions and the exhaustive exposition of one’s assumptions when embarking upon an intellectual venture. Part of this fetish stems from my own personal interest in the etymology of words and their present-day interpretations, but my insistence is primarily fueled by my desire to understand what is being said, by myself and by others. Every term actually embodies a concept, a concept that, when considered fully, would yield pages of meaning. Society has managed to effect a radical economization of language by reducing these concepts to short and simple words and phrases, but we should never lose sight of the concept’s full meaning. Unfortunately, the current educational focus on the memorization of terms rather than the understanding of concepts has robbed us of much of the meaning inherent in our language. 

Language is a tool. It is a means of communication between individuals and an enabler of the cooperative division of labor. As it is a tool, its value must be judged solely on its ability to perform its function. It is silly, therefore, to speak of keeping a language pure or of defending the virtues of Standard Written English against the corruption of texting lingo or street slang. So long as the meaning that the writer intended to convey is the meaning received by the reader, the term functions perfectly. It is nonsensical to call the use “wrong.” It was clearly right for its purposes. It is, therefore, also incorrect to think that there is an objective meaning of a word. As communicating parties, we may agree to whatever definition we choose. Indeed, the first section of every legal document sets forth the definitions of the words used, and these definitions can change as the parties desire. 

It becomes obvious, then, why explicitly setting forth our definitions is so important. If a term is meant to represent an entire concept, and yet has no fixed meaning, it is necessary to, when using the term scientifically, establish the intersubjective meaning of the term. For example, imagine the following exchange:

Person 1: I hate chickens.

Person 2: What? Why?

Person 1: They’re just so big and smelly.

Person 2: I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Are chickens really that big and smelly?

Person 1: They’re huge. And I especially hate that sound they make.

Person 2: You mean the crowing in the morning?

Person 1: What? No. I’m talking about that mooing sound they make.

Clearly, there is some confusion in the conversation above. Person 1 uses the word “chicken” to describe what Person 2 would call a “cow.” Now, again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with calling a cow a chicken. The problem arises when the two parties don’t attach the same meaning to the words. Now, the example above seems rather unrealistic. But allow me to offer another one:

Person 1: I hate capitalism.

Person 2: What? Why?

Person 1: It creates poverty and inequality.

Person 2: I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Aren’t those products of nature?

Person 1: Part of it is natural. But capitalism exacerbates it.

Person 2: You mean by allowing entrepreneurs to reap substantial monetary gains from the proper arrangement of the factors of production?

Person 1: What? No. I’m talking about the collusion between the big banks and the federal government to manipulate the money supply in favor of the wealthy.

I daresay that you’ve probably heard an argument like this before. But what Person 1 labels “capitalism” is what Person 2 (seemingly more economically literate) would call “corporatism.” And thus there is confusion between the two of them. They cannot fully convey their ideas to one another because their words don’t have the meanings they intend. Again, there’s nothing special about the words. But they must be defined before they are used so that the audience knows what concepts they actually refer to. 

The same rule applies to assumptions one makes in the course of one’s argument. There’s nothing “wrong” with making assumptions in the course of your argument. Indeed, this is the method of science, to describe the effects of a change in one variable assuming that all other variables are held constant. Additionally, some knowledge is beyond our grasp, or at least beyond our field of study. One does not need to become an expert in all subjects in order to comment upon one of them, even though his comment may have implications for other subjects. It is permissible to assume a condition to be true, if you do not know for sure that it is true, for the purposes of setting forth your thoughts on a topic. However, this assumption must be made explicit, so that those who are in a position to determine its veracity may do so. 

Without presenting one’s definitions and assumptions at the outset of an intellectual venture, it is impossible to accurately convey one’s thinking on a topic. It must, therefore, be a critical part of your project. Reflect upon your project, determine what concepts you’re grappling with, and define them. Reflect upon your project, determine what assumptions you’re operating under, and list them. Explain them, if you can. By doing so you improve dramatically the quality of your product, not only by adhering to a position of intellectual honesty, but by increasing the ability of your audience to understand the information you’re presenting.

J6 - Other Ways of Thinking About the Environment

One of the interesting aspects of my topic is the multiple meanings that could be attached to the word “environment.” Indeed, economics is not concerned with the objective features of things so much as with the subjective meaning attached to the things. For example, many behavioralists point to the price differential between name-brand and generic drugs as an example of human irrationality. But the discerning economist realizes that, although the chemical makeup of the two drugs is roughly the same, the two are, in fact, different goods, and therefore it is not irrational that they command different prices. The chemist sees no difference between the drugs, but the consumer does, so the economist must treat them as different goods.

A complete economic treatment of the environment, then, would need to analyze more than just the natural features of man’s environment. A complete treatment would need to consider the total set of circumstances under which a man acts. Such a treatment would need to address the man-made environment, the social environment, the cultural environment, the institutional environment, etc.

The title of my topic, Market Environmentalism, could therefore refer to a host of topics. How does the market system impact and improve the social environment? The cultural environment? The legal environment? These are all full and interesting topics in their own right, and ones that I would be eager to explore.

However, given the constraints I face, I will be focusing my efforts on environmentalism in the natural sense. Still, I think it will be impossible to avoid these other sense completely. What is market environmentalism, in the sense that I mean it (the improvement in environmental conditions brought about through the market process), but a shift from the natural environment to a man-made environment? Additionally, in the elucidation of my fundamental definitions and assumptions, I think I will need to address the fact that our environment consists of more than trees and rivers.

Hopefully, in the future, I will be able to study the effects of the market on these other senses of “environment” and integrate my findings with the results of this project.

J5 - What Is My Project?

While I briefly described what I meant by “market environmentalism” in Journal 1, I think that a fuller explanation is in order. Therefore, I’d like to take this opportunity to elaborate on what I want to explore through this project.

There is, in the Wealth Redistribution Debate, an argument called “The Day After Problem.” It is the realization of the fact that, even if we did redistribute wealth so that everyone in society had the same amount of money and wealth as everyone else, the day after this perfectly equal wealth distribution was achieved inequality would return. The day after wealth was equalized, people would go out and spend their money, buying consumer goods, investing in producer goods, donating to various causes, attending concerts and sports games, traveling to visit family and see sights. At the end of the day, some people would have more money than other people again. 

There are really a few points that can be drawn from this argument, and I’m sure that I’ll come back to some of them in the future, but the one that seems most important to me is that we live in a world of change. In fact, the concept of life implies the concept of change. It is theoretically possible to redistribute wealth within a community and to maintain that wealth distribution permanently, but the members of that community would have to be dead. Where there is life, where there is action, there is change, and, realistically, there’s nothing we can do to stop that.

For me, this point about the omnipresence of change has major implications for the climate debate as well. Even if we could develop and enforce a plan to reduce our carbon emissions to zero within just a few years (a few thousand well-placed bombs might do the trick), say January 1, 2020, there’s still the question of what we will do on January 2. Presumably, we will start to rebuild. We might do so in a way that again will produce carbon emissions. Or we might develop new development processes that produce no carbon but which, after a period of time, are discovered to negatively affect the natural environment in another way. The point is, we will continue to have an impact on the environment. We will continue to change the world, so long as we are alive.

The question I’d like to raise, then, is whether there’s any point in trying to restore the environment to a previous state of existence. Because, even if it were possible to do such a thing, that state couldn’t last for more than a moment, so long as human beings continue to live and act in the world. Would it be better, perhaps, to recognize our ability to effect change in the world and environment, to embrace it, and to use it to continue transforming our environment into a better state? The climate scientists say that our activities have changed the globe’s weather patterns. Can we use this information to embolden ourselves, empower ourselves, and seek the development of methods of actually controlling the weather? Can we eliminate hurricanes, or at least steer them away from populated areas? Can we reduce the severity of winter? We’ve depleted the ozone layer. Can we replace it? We have the power to destroy species. Can we obtain the power to recreate them? Can we further develop our control over forests and streams and wild animals and design a world that’s more suitable for us and for them? We change the world. Can we direct that change for good?

I take it for granted that such power is realizable only through the operation of the free market. However, that’s a powerful claim to make without justification, so a large part of my project will have to be such a justification. Why can’t the government develop this control? How would the two institutions (state and market) approach these problems? Why has government so far chosen the route of returning to a previous environmental state? To answer these questions, we have to ask what the proper way of viewing the environment really is. We have to have a proper understanding of the free market and of government. And we have to ask: How? Even if, after acknowledging the superiority of the free market over government and understanding the market’s functioning, the question remains: how can the market bring about a better environment? 

Very few people are asking these questions. The focus is on “saving” the environment. The main method of dealing with the environmental “crises” we face is to restrict the choices available and to retard progress if that progress might lead to a worsening of the “problem.” There is almost universal agreement that we’ve hurt the planet, that we’ve done something “wrong,” and that we must go back and “fix” it. Almost no one has embraced this evidence of man’s abilities and asked how we can use it to continue changing the world (as we must) in new and better ways. These are the questions that I’d like to ask and, if I can, answer.

I’m labelling this project “market environmentalism” because the market does not stop to ask “should?” or “how?” It just does things. If left unchecked, I believe the market would continue to enable man to change the earth and create a new and better environment automatically. This whole debate would be unnecessary without the intervention of government and its top-down “solutions.” That doesn’t mean that the market process that so enabled us wouldn’t be worthy of examination and explanation. But the necessity of asking and answering and addressing these questions arises, really, from the fact that our government is asking and answering and addressing an opposite set of questions.

J4 - Observations re: The Paris Agreement

I suppose that, since I’m doing a research project on a topic that relates to the environment, I should comment on President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. I really don’t want to. And that’s one of the best things about this program: I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to do. So, in commenting, I’m not going to really talk about the Paris Agreement, its scientific ramifications, or whether Trump’s decision to pull out was good or bad. I will, however, offer some commentary on the responses I’ve seen.

First, briefly, I just want to say that I very much enjoyed Trump’s Rose Garden speech. It was not only well-written but also accurately portrayed the decision that he was making. When I taught economics to college students, I dedicated half of an entire class to explaining why economics is known as “the dismal science.” The reason is because economists are painfully aware of scarcity, and therefore painfully aware of the cost of any action. I always explained it like this: “Economists might seem like jerks because they don’t favor free healthcare. But we don’t favor free healthcare because we know that nothing is free; providing free healthcare to everyone will cost someone an extra trillion dollars. And so we’re never choosing between free healthcare for everyone and nothing. We’re choosing between many different uses of that trillion dollars.” 

The Paris Agreement is the same. The President was not choosing between slowing down global warming and nothing. He was choosing between slowing down global warming and supporting the U.S. economy. And he chose the U.S. economy. He chose cheap energy for everyone and jobs for the coal sector and less regulations for manufacturers. And, from a Wertfrei perspective, there’s nothing wrong with that decision. It’s simply a value judgment that one may or may not agree with. And Trump’s speech on Thursday made that clear. He made clear that he was not choosing to hurt the environment for the sake of it; he was choosing to support industry over the environment.

Now, reading some of the responses to Trump’s decision, it’s clear that many people are terribly confused. Hillary Clinton, for example, tweeted that “Paris withdrawal leaves American workers and families behind.” This is the opposite of the truth. While the other 200 countries that remain committed to the Paris Agreement cripple their economies in an effort to reduce carbon emissions, the United States will be free to allocate resources economically and thereby become comparatively wealthier than we would be if we hadn’t withdrawn. Draconian regulations can never help workers; by refusing to implement the regulations that the Paris Agreement would require, President Trump has actually helped American workers and made American families wealthier. Clinton is exactly wrong.

The ACLU said that “Pulling out of the Paris Agreement would be a massive step back for racial justice, and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.” I must ask: Does the ACLU know what the Paris Agreement is, or is it simply joining in on the liberal condemnation campaign? Pulling out of the Paris Agreement ensures that energy for Americans will be cheaper than it would have been, and this energy fuels all types of American industry. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will cause goods to be cheaper than they would have been had we remained in the pact, which means that every American will be able to afford more goods. This especially helps the poorer Americans, for whom every dollar counts. I therefore fail to see how President Trump’s decision could be considered “an assault on communities of color.” If anything, this is a boon to them.

Finally, Senator Tim Kaine, echoing President Obama, said that the “U.S. private sector, researchers, cities, towns, and states will lead clean energy revolution despite lack of leadership from the White House and President.” I think that this is true, and I hope that they make amazing progress in developing new technologies and implementing cleaner manufacturing processes. This will be much easier to do now that American taxpayers are no longer on the hook for trillions of dollars as required by the Paris Agreement. This extra capital that American businesses will get to hold onto will allow them to innovate and upgrade much more economically than they would have been forced to under the Paris Agreement. I do think it’s amusing how the Democrats are coming out in support of private and state efforts to fight climate change when they are the ones who are always stressing the need for centralized, top-down solutions. Hopefully Trump’s presidency continues to dispel their belief in the State.