The Economics of Morality
As you may know, I generally don't do political posts on the blog, so keep in mind that I am only posting this because it is too funny not to. On the other hand, it's not as funny as this
(Sure, the Daily Show is always funny, but only check the site once every two months or so, so I miss a lot of it.)
In other news, I continue to be bothered about the new "pro-CO2 accumulation" ads I mentioned the other day. I looked up the organization that creates them on Source Watch to see who is paying them to produce this crap.
They provide a list of the companies actually seem to support both the view that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is a good thing. (note, the stance of these ads is no longer focused on the contrived "controversy" of human caused climate change, rather, they take a bold new stance, effectively saying "yeah, CO2 is increasing. Yeah, it's due to human activity - but it's a good thing".)
The list is a lot of the usual suspects - companies you would expect to lie because their entire business model is based solely on the burning of fossil fuels. But among them, there are also some companies that have attempted to make more serious claims about "environmental responsibility" such as IBM, and ones that I would expect to care more about their brand, such as Coca Cola.
The thing I found a bit more interesting though - and was not expecting - is that it shows the 1999 salaries of the top employees:
- Fred L. Smith, president, $134,940
- Sam Kazman, general counsel, $89,103
- Thomas P. Miller, director, economic policy, $82,775
- James Gattuso, vice president, policy/management, $82,213
- Clyde Wayne Crews, director, competition & regulatory policy, $75,615
Now, I don't think it would come as a shock to anyone to hear that I am not making 134,000 / year. I don't know if that would tempt me to make such bold-faced lies as these ads just to keep the job (although I tend to doubt it). Nor do I make even $75,000 a year. (in fact, I recently make the decision to once again be "partly employed" making less with lots of free time). Regardless, I would have thought they must be making a lot more... I can't understand how $89,000 a year can be enough to suppress this Sam Kazman's conscience... Now, there is always the chance that he knew nothing of these recent ads (or many of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's past projects), after all, sometimes those at the lower levels are very good at pulling the wool over the heads of those poor, poor executives at the top (cough, cough).
Still, I am intrigued at the economics of morals. How much is enough to make a man or woman give them up? And is that why the execs get paid so much? And is that why there are fewer women executives - it costs more to get them to give up their morals? (I doubt that last one, but I'm just thinking out-loud.)
I want to be clear, of course, that I am not arguing the legal issues of what the CEI or Sam Kazman and his crew are promoting - apparently that CO2 should not be classified as a pollutant. Obviously they know more about the law than I do, and if they are just "doing their job as an attorney", it is a slightly different story - much as a public defender who defends someone they believe to be guilty would. But these ads are just bullshit, and they have nothing to do with law and everything to do with trying to manipulate folks who have not had the time or privilege to take a close look at the science.
And I have no idea why it upsets me so much...
Comments
Kevin, I have not seen the lies. Are searching them out? I don't think there is positive evidence one way or another about hi levels of CO2 being bad. We think it is raising the earth temperature and we think think thats bad. We do know its bad for our present way of human life and many animals. But it will also make the habitat of many others much more wide spread. However, if we also think that man should let nature alone (no drilling, no cutting trees, no blocking the streams from salmon migration, ect) and man is not significantly adding to CO2 (which we really don’t know) then raising earth temperature is natural. Is that bad or not? It has been rising for more years then man can count. You can’t have it both ways
Posted by: billy | May 22, 2006 08:13 AM
I would not care so much if it was an ad saying:
"We believe that incresing emmissions is the only realistic thing to do right now. We doubt that climate change is real, although we will present no studies that support our belief, please look at these two studies here that show that in some places of the world the ice is getting thicker - although please note that the researchers belive that their findings are actually evidence *for* the cliamte change we deny."
That would be honest. But thats not what the ads said. Instead they obviously discarded the true findings of the articles. (although there is always the chance that the producers never *read* the article or researched what it means, but that is just plain unprofessional and I don't understand why they would want their name associated with it)
However, I think it is not so much the ad itself that bothers me, as trying to figure out what would make someone make an ad that presents those studies *supporting* the evidence of climate change, and tell people that they actually contradict it.
And I can't understand why they would do it because I can't understand how they would need more money. If they were poor people living hand-to-mouth I totally understand why they would make it their work to knowingly lie.
If they were arguing the leagal aspects, I totally (well.... ) understand why they would make it their work to make sure that things go according to the laws, even if they personally disagree that it is a good thing.
I even understand how someone would be tempted to willingly mislead people if they are offered increadibly huge amounts of money....
But their salaries are not increadibly huge.
Granted, they are obviously getting lots of other back-scratches and what not, and they obviously have other income streams, being lawers and all, but then it begs the question: "What is it about that last 78,000 that is so enticing that they would willingly produce and promote such a lie to such a large number of people?"
Posted by: kevin | May 22, 2006 10:24 AM
What is it about money that makes people steal and kill to get it? Why did the Enron big wigs ruin so many of their fellow employees lives so they could add millions to their already millions. The difference is that this hits closer to your home (your belief) then what the hundreds of other high priced CEO’s are doing every day. The world is filled with this greed.
Posted by: billy | May 23, 2006 10:12 PM
"Why did the Enron big wigs ruin so many of their fellow employees lives so they could add millions to their already millions. The difference is that this hits closer to your home (your belief)"
I felt the same way about Enron (and almost all the other CEOs or top management type people I meet). The "hits closer to my beliefes" thing is true in terms of why I wrote about it. It's not a new thought, but I don't generally write about all the other issues that make me sick - even though they do make me sick. If I did I would be wasting more time in front of the computer than I do now! Somehow I picked this one because it is a combination of blatant lies and something I have studied enough about to be confident in my position.
Posted by: kevin | May 23, 2006 10:41 PM
Those are not particularly high salaries for "high level" people in DC, where I assume the think tank is located. I'd be really surprised if everyone listed couldn't make more in the for-profit sector. Which, unless they're getting under the table payments, seems to indicate they believe what they're saying.
I work for a nonprofit myself (in a completely different field) and absolutely would not unless I strongly believed in the nonprofit's mission, as I could clearly make more money at a for-profit.
Posted by: Mike Linksvayer | June 8, 2006 04:47 AM
Hi all. It really doesn't matter if the person who hurt you deserves to be forgiven. Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself. You have things to do and you want to move on. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Lisinopril buy online. I found only this - lisinopril abdominal pain. Lisinopril, password myocardial is a almost palpable action woke old high or such riders of the achievement. Lisinopril, the enough tourism is viewed under the murmur pressure. With respect :cool:, Alban from Uganda.
Posted by: Alban | March 1, 2010 01:08 AM