Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
A False Statement in Today’s WSJ Editorial on “California Green Taxes”
The WSJ’s editorial writers often present some interesting thoughts, but today in this piece attacking California’s carbon mitigation AB32 efforts they republished a false “fact”.  It is true that a consultant estimated that California households will be paying an extra $3,800 a year in new regulatory costs.  But, this estimate is severely flawed and overstates the likely true costs.  Here is my cross-post sketching the issues and linking to my critique of that consultant’s report.
6 thoughts on “A False Statement in Today’s WSJ Editorial on “California Green Taxes””
Finding lies in the WSJ’s editorial pages is like finding sand in at the beach. It shouldn’t have come as that much of a suprise.
The comparison to the southern tier of europe, although possibly “funny and well-written”, is also tendentious garbage. We’re talking about a state whose anti-tax loons, applauded by the WSJ editors at every turn, have created fiscal conditions that make Ireland look good.
But Mitch is right: noticing falsehoods on the WSJ editorial page is like noticing that Karl Rove’s lips are moving.
Matt, great post (both of them)!! Usually I don’t care much for your freemarketeering ways, but it was nice to see you sticking up for little old California. Of course everyone here knows that regulations cost money. So does pollution.
What was that phrase about capitalism? Privatized gain, socialized loss…?
The WSJ’s editorial writers often present some interesting thoughts
I was going to make the same comment before I noticed this one. I haven’t seen an “interesting thought” in a WSJ editorial section in ye… decades. Most of the “thoughts” expressed there are blitheringly stupid-which makes one wonder why anyone would bother calling them “thoughts”-but even that only if they are not outright lies. The only change since the News Corp takeover has been the leeching of the editorial lies into the news section. Sorry, Matt, there is no “interesting thoughts” on that page-not today, not in a long time. What’ the difference between a Centrist and a spineless worm? A worm actually CAN be consistent…
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.
Finding lies in the WSJ’s editorial pages is like finding sand in at the beach. It shouldn’t have come as that much of a suprise.
The comparison to the southern tier of europe, although possibly “funny and well-written”, is also tendentious garbage. We’re talking about a state whose anti-tax loons, applauded by the WSJ editors at every turn, have created fiscal conditions that make Ireland look good.
But Mitch is right: noticing falsehoods on the WSJ editorial page is like noticing that Karl Rove’s lips are moving.
Matt, great post (both of them)!! Usually I don’t care much for your freemarketeering ways, but it was nice to see you sticking up for little old California. Of course everyone here knows that regulations cost money. So does pollution.
What was that phrase about capitalism? Privatized gain, socialized loss…?
The WSJ’s editorial writers often present some interesting thoughts
Whatever gave you that idea?
Matthew Kahn holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago. Not automatically damning, but he frequently displays the failed libertopian tendencies that institution is infamous for instilling.
I was going to make the same comment before I noticed this one. I haven’t seen an “interesting thought” in a WSJ editorial section in ye… decades. Most of the “thoughts” expressed there are blitheringly stupid-which makes one wonder why anyone would bother calling them “thoughts”-but even that only if they are not outright lies. The only change since the News Corp takeover has been the leeching of the editorial lies into the news section. Sorry, Matt, there is no “interesting thoughts” on that page-not today, not in a long time. What’ the difference between a Centrist and a spineless worm? A worm actually CAN be consistent…