Carney on AIG’s big government ways

Posted by Ivan Osorio

In his Examiner column today, former CEI Brookes Fellow Tim Carney explodes the myth of as a stalwart defender of free markets that caved in at the sight of federal dollars coming its way:

in 2007 joined the U.S. Action Partnership (US-CAP), a group whose purpose is to lobby for federal restrictions on greenhouse gases. Specifically, US-CAP lobbies for a scheme of mandatory federal caps on greenhouse gas emissions with tradable emission allowances—a “cap-and-trade” policy pushed hard by Enron before that firm’s collapse in 2001.

As part of its change strategy, also joined the Investor Network on Risk, which describes as “focused on the financial risks and investment opportunities posed by change.” But this network is not, precisely speaking, focused on how change might create new risks or opportunities. Rather, it addresses risks and opportunities created by legislation passed in the name of addressing change.

Sadly, is not alone. We’ve seen this before.

For more on the Action Partnership, see here.

For more on the Investor Network on Risk, see here.

 Email This Post Email This Post  Print This Post Print This Post

Tags: , , , , , , ,

09/19/2008 @ 4:22 pm | Economic Liberty, Politics as Usual | Comments

Shacks for Rich People

Posted by Eli Lehrer

I recently came across Tumbleweed, the self-styled “tiny house company.” The houses that Tumbleweed builds in California and delivers to any site in the lower 48 states are, indeed, tiny. They range from 70 to 120 square feet. By comparison, a typical new home is a shade under 2,500 square feet, up from about 2,000 square feet 10 years ago and about 800 square feet in the 1950s. The Tumbleweed houses are also pretty to boot. For people determined to live a Thoreau-like life in the woods, they may be just the thing. I could even imagine an ordinary childless couple using one as a summer house. They do appear very well designed and even beautiful.

But, on a per-square foot basis, they’re some of the most expensive housing around: The smallest model, 70 square feet and $34,997, costs just about $500 per square foot. At this per-square-foot price, a typical new house would then cost about $1.25 million to build. Given that a lot in any semi-desirable suburb will add maybe $100,000 to $300,000, an average “eco-friendly” family house would cost about $1.5 million at that price. (Builders, however, will tell you that the per-square-foot cost almost always declines as a house gets larger.) I’m not clear, furthermore, what makes these houses so costly a per-square-foot basis–they don’t even have ovens, dishwashers, or freezers.

What bothers me a bit is that some of the owners of these shacks really consider themselves more virtuous than the average person because they live in these fancy shacks. (Watch this really annoying woman drive her house into a subdivision for an example.)

Given that there are pretty nice looking three bedroom mobile homes for less than these , I tend to think that their main market is, well, basically, rich people who want to live in shacks.

 Email This Post Email This Post  Print This Post Print This Post

Tags: ,

02/25/2008 @ 9:15 am | Culture, Environment, Sanctimony | Comments

  •  
  •