samuelson, robt

===

ASHINGTON -- On climate change, curb

your enthusiasm. It's not that the recent international conference in

Paris didn't take significant steps to check global warming. It did.

Nearly 200 countries committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees

Fahrenheit) from preindustrial times was reaffirmed. The trouble is that

what's being attempted is so fundamentally difficult that even these

measures may be wildly unequal to the task.<div class="subscriber-preview">What's

being attempted, of course, is the wholesale replacement of the world

economy's reliance on fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) for

four-fifths of its energy. To be sure, the shift is envisioned to take

decades, four or five at a minimum. Still, the vast undertaking may

exceed human capability.</div><div class="subscriber-only">Hence,

a conundrum. Without energy, the world economy shuts down, threatening

economic and social chaos. But the consequences of climate change,

assuming the scientific consensus is accurate, are also grim -- from

rising sea levels (threatening coastal cities) to harsher droughts

(reducing food supplies).</div>

    <div class="subscriber-only"><p>It's useful to split the discussion

into two parts. On the existence of human-driven warming, I accept the

dominant scientific view, mainly because I'm not technically qualified

to dispute it. But I have doubted that, without major breakthroughs in

energy technology, we can do much about warming. The addiction to fossil

fuels will triumph.</div><div class="subscriber-only">Paris

confirms that view. Rather than show how much progress we've made, it

demonstrates how little maneuvering room we have. Consider some

estimates from IHS, a consulting company. In 2012, it reports, the world

generated 45 gigatons of greenhouse gases, up 50 percent since 1990.

Without new policies, that total would rise to 60 gigatons by 2030, IHS

projects. But the national pledges made in Paris would hold the 2030

total to 50 gigatons. That's good news, right? Well, not exactly.</div><div class="subscriber-only">Limiting

global warming to 2 degrees Celsius would require that emissions in

2030 drop to 35 gigatons, reckons IHS. So even with the Paris pledges,

we're about 40 percent above the goal. Moreover, IHS thinks that some

pledged cuts won't materialize. They are political gestures or depend on

unproven technologies. There are no enforcement mechanisms.</div><div class="subscriber-only">Renewable energy -- mainly wind and solar power -- is supposed to rescue us. Quite likely, it won't.</div><div class="subscriber-only">True,

renewable energy is expanding rapidly in the United States. In the next

two years, the solar industry expects to double its installed American

capacity. In 2014, wind generation was up 51 percent from 2011,

according to government figures. Moreover, costs are said to have fallen

sharply. The wind industry puts its decline at 60 percent over the past

four years; the solar industry reports a 70 percent drop since 2009.</div>

        <div id="video-ad-asset-container" class="p402_hide">
            </div><div id="video-ad-asset-container" class="p402_hide">
        </div><div class="subscriber-only"><p>But these achievements

need to be qualified. For starters, renewables' rapid growth comes off a

tiny base. As a result, wind supplied only 4.4 percent of U.S.

electricity in 2014. Solar's contribution was smaller, about 1 percent;

for 2020, the industry's target is 3.5 percent. Global figures are

lower. The Economist magazine puts renewables' share of world energy

production at 1 percent. The fact that wind and solar are heavily

subsidized in the United States, through tax breaks, suggests that

recent cost reductions haven't yet made renewables competitive with

other energy sources.</div><div class="subscriber-only">Another

handicap is physics: Wind and solar generate electricity only when the

sun shines or the wind blows. They need backup power supplies. This

hasn't been (so far) a big problem in the United States, because we have

many "base" power plants -- typically fueled by coal and natural gas --

that can provide backup. Developing countries are another story.

Seeking to reduce their poverty, they need more bulk power, says Robert

Bryce, an energy expert at the Manhattan Institute. They have favored

coal.</div>

    <div class="subscriber-only"><p><b>Despite Paris, we haven't

acknowledged the difficulties of grappling with climate change, whose

extent and timing are uncertain. We invent soothing fantasies to

simplify matters. The notion that the world can wean itself from fossil

fuels by substituting renewables is one of these. The potential isn't

large enough.</div><div class="subscriber-only">Actual choices

are harder. For example, Bryce argues that only an expansion of nuclear

power could replace significant volumes of fossil fuels. But greater

reliance on nuclear poses its own dangers, including: the disposal of

atomic waste, operational accidents and the vulnerability to terrorism.</div><div class="subscriber-only">It's

true that technological breakthroughs could change this. We know what's

needed: cheaper and safer nuclear power; better batteries and energy

storage, boosting wind and solar by making more of their power useable;

cost-effective carbon capture and storage -- making coal more acceptable

by burying its carbon dioxide in the ground.</div><div class="subscriber-only">We

have been searching for solutions for decades with only modest success.

We need to keep searching, but without meaningful advances, regulating

the world's temperature is mission impossible.</div><div class="subscriber-only">Robert J. Samuelson is a columnist for the Washington Post.</div>==
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-war-against-exxon-mobil/2015/11/08/   ?

<div class="headshot-to-the-left"> <div class="bottomizer"> By <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/robert-j-samuelson">Robert J. Samuelson</a> November 8, 2015 </div></div> <article itemprop="articleBody"> If

you care about free speech, you should pay attention to the campaign

now being waged against Exxon Mobil. More than 50 environmental and

civil rights groups have <a href="http://350.org/the-department-of-justice-must-investigate-exxonmobil/" title="350.org">written</a> Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging her to open a “federal probe” of the giant energy firm. <a href="http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-for-probe-into-exxon-mobil-claims-on-climate-change" title="www.sanders.senate.gov">Bernie Sanders</a> and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/29/3717602/clinton-investigate-exxon/" title="thinkprogress.org">Hillary Clinton</a>

have also joined the chorus. The charge is that Exxon Mobil

“systematically misled the public” on climate change, even as its

executives recognized the dangers. New York’s attorney general has

already <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/exxonmobil-under-investigation-for-misleading-the-public-about-climate-change/" title="www.washingtonpost.com">launched an investigation</a>.

What’s

behind the latest assault are two recent pieces of investigative

journalism that, based on company documents, concluded that Exxon Mobil

played a double game. In the 1970s, when global warming began attracting

scientific attention, the firm “assembled a brain trust [that deepened]

the company’s understanding” of climate change, <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming" title="insideclimatenews.org">reported</a>

InsideClimate News. But in the late 1980s, the company switched to

“climate denial,” manufacturing “doubt about . . . global warming its

own scientists” had confirmed. <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/" title="graphics.latimes.com">Stories</a> in the Los Angeles Times <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/" title="graphics.latimes.com">told a similar tale</a>.

Not

so, responds Exxon Mobil (unsurprisingly). The investigative pieces

“cherry-pick” their evidence, exaggerating the divide between the

company’s scientists and corporate policy, <a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-says-climate-research-stories-inaccurate-and-deliberately-misleading" title="news.exxonmobil.com">says</a> Ken Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs.

As an example, he cites a <a href="http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/%7E/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/board-presentation-Feb-22-1989.pdf" title="cdn.exxonmobil.com">scientific presentation</a>

made to Exxon’s board of directors in early 1989 concluding that global

warming is, in the briefing’s words, “deeply imbedded in scientific

uncertainty . . . [and] will require substantial additional

investigation.” Instead, Cohen asserts, the Los Angeles Times portrayed

the presentation as demonstrating that the enormity of global warming

was settled.

Nor, he says, does Exxon Mobil oppose all action against climate change. Since 2009, it <a href="http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Discours_Tillerson_Exxon.pdf" title="www.manicore.com">has endorsed a carbon tax</a>,

a position shared by many environmentalists and economists. Taxing the

carbon in fossil fuels — oil, coal, natural gas — would raise their

prices. That would, at least in theory, encourage energy efficiency and

switching to non-fossil fuels. (Exxon Mobil prefers a carbon tax to a

cap-and-trade system, which it argues is harder to administer. Many

economists agree.)

The feuding between Exxon Mobil and environmentalists is long-standing. In a 2007 <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/032707_mccarthy.pdf" title="science.house.gov">report</a>,

the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) accused the company of

financing “a sophisticated disinformation campaign . . . to deceive the

public” about global warming. From 1998 to 2005, the UCS said, Exxon

Mobil gave $16 million to 43 groups that preached climate change

skepticism. (The company says it has since halted many of these grants.)

For

many environmentalists, it’s gospel that Exxon Mobil’s campaign stymied

remedial policies. Americans were unsure of global warming’s reality.

“We’ve had 20 years of delay because of the doubt and confusion sowed by

Exxon Mobil and [climate] deniers,” says Eric Pooley of the

Environmental Defense Fund.

This is questionable. For starters,

millions of Americans revile big oil companies; they’re not uncritical

consumers of industry propaganda. The larger problem is the inherent

difficulty of doing something significant about global warming. Fossil

fuels supply <a href="https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2015SpecialReportonEnergyandClimateChange.pdf" title="www.iea.org">four-fifths</a> of primary global energy. To stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, fossil fuel emissions need to go to about <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/briefing-the-15-options-for-net-zero-emissions-in-the-paris-climate-text" title="www.carbonbrief.org">zero</a>. How is that going to happen? <div class="moat-trackable pb-f-theme-normal full pb-feature pb-layout-item pb-f-page-newsletter-inLine" data-chain-name="no-name" data-feature-name="no-name" data-feature-id="page/newsletter-inLine" id="fqXleg2Bn4GLJp"> <div class="newsletter-inline-unit container " id="inline-newsletter"> <div class="signup-module row"> <div class="title-container col-xs-8"> Opinions newsletter

Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily. </div> <div class="sign-up col-xs-4"> </div></div></div></div></article><div class="moat-trackable pb-f-theme-normal full pb-feature pb-layout-item pb-f-page-newsletter-inLine" data-chain-name="no-name" data-feature-name="no-name" data-feature-id="page/newsletter-inLine" id="fqXleg2Bn4GLJp"><div class="newsletter-inline-unit container " id="inline-newsletter"><div class="signup-module row"><div class="sign-up col-xs-4"> </div> </div> </div> </div>There’s

no obvious answer, and any interim steps — whether a carbon tax or

cap-and-trade — would increase fuel prices. That’s a hard sell for

politicians and the public. Our political system is simply not good at

inflicting present pain for uncertain future gains. (For proof, see

budget deficits.) Moreover, progress in the United States and other

wealthy countries would need to be matched in China, India and other

developing countries whose energy appetite is still increasing.[NO MENTION PARIS]
 To

crystallize this complex problem into a conspiracy controlled by Exxon

Mobil is to engage in political make-believe. This is a dangerous and

self-serving exercise that brings us back to free speech. Genuinely free

speech transcends accepted and respected beliefs. It includes

viewpoints that are wrong, offensive and ignorant. We take pride in the

marketplace of ideas — a dividend of free speech — to sort the worthy

from the unworthy. If government assumes that function, you no longer

have free speech. The advocates of a probe into Exxon Mobil are

essentially proposing that the company be punished for expressing its

opinions. These opinions may be smart or stupid, constructive or

destructive, sensible or self-interested. Whatever, they deserve

protection. An investigation would, at the least, constitute a form of

harassment that would warn other companies to be circumspect in airing

their views. Matters could be worse if the government somehow imposes

monetary penalties or opens the floodgates to suits by plaintiffs’

attorneys, a la the tobacco industry. Significantly, the letter to

Attorney General Lynch does not allege any violation of law. Exxon Mobil (2014 earnings: <a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-earns-325-billion-2014-66-billion-during-fourth-quarter" title="news.exxonmobil.com">$32.5 billion</a>)

does not command our sympathy. But free speech does not belong only to

the sympathetic. Casting Exxon Mobil as the scapegoat for global

warming’s dilemmas is historically inaccurate and a political cheap shot

with troubling constitutional implications.==
One of the oldest public relations trick in the book is called the

“echo chamber” and it plays off the idea that if you repeat something

often enough it becomes the truth. Senator James Inhofe’s <a target="_blank" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano">political spindoctor Marc Morano </a>knows

this technique well and he has been using for years to shotgun blast

out misinformation on global warming to right-wing media and bloggers

for years.

In turn, these bloggers and media outlets blast out their own

rendition and before you know it the misinformation is bouncing around

the internet and inboxes all over the world.

Researchers at Thinkprogress have released the <a target="_blank" href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/17/marc-morano-jokers/">list of climate doubters</a> Morano relies on for his echo chamber. According to Brad Johnson who wrote the Thinkprogress article:

<div style="border: 1px solid LightGrey; margin: 10px; padding: 10px; width: 87%;">“Promoted

on the Drudge Report and Fox News, Morano’s moronic misinformation

enters mainstream discourse through columns by Barnes, <a target="blank" href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/george_will_disinformation/">George Will</a>, <a target="blank" href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/06/03/samuelson-deceptive-climate/">Robert Samuelson</a>,

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/06/03/172218/samuelson-deceptive-climate/">http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/06/03/172218/samuelson-deceptive-climate/
</a>
 and others. Many in the Morano gang are funded by right-wing think

tanks, though a few are committed activists, conspiracy theorists who

believe their homebrew interpretations of climate data. Others are aging

scientists with strong conservative beliefs, motivating them to

challenge action on global warming not because they disbelieve its

existence, but because they are ideologically opposed to regulation of

pollution.”</div>

Couldn’t have said it better myself. You can download a PDF version of the Morano list here: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Morano%20Denier%20Gang.pdf">Morano Denier Gang.</a> We’ll be adding more information about each of the individuals and their organizations over the coming days.==
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/06/03/172218/samuelson-deceptive-climate/

Our guest blogger is <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/HendricksBracken.html">Bracken Hendricks</a>, a Senior Fellow with American Progress Action Fund and the founding Executive Director of the Apollo Alliance.

<img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/robert_samuelson2.JPG" class="imgright" alt="Robert J. Samuelson" />In today’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101913.html">Washington Post</a> and a parallel piece in <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/139454">Newsweek</a>,

Robert J. Samuelson gets it wildly wrong on federal policy for reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, parroting a litany of falsehoods and

misrepresentations concerning the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade

legislation <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2008/06/pr20080602">now being debated</a> in the Senate. He writes:

<blockquote>The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade — a

complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases — is its complexity. This

allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in

essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax,

but it’s not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity,

but it’s promoted as a “free market” mechanism. Finally, it would

trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to

exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would

undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.</blockquote>

Samuelson is the one being “essentially deceptive.” Like most

detractors of action on global warming, Samuelson continues to push the

unsubstantiated notion that reducing emissions will tank the economy,

and thus is not worth the effort. The problem with this argument is that

it ignores the last three decades of science, misunderstands basic

economic theory, and overlooks the enormous opportunity presented by the

clean energy economy.

Inaction is by far the most expensive policy option. Global warming was correctly termed “<a href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/4/3/Executive_Summary.pdf">the biggest market failure in human history</a>”

by Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior economic advisor to the government of

Tony Blair. Establishing a price on emissions through a cap-and-trade

system actually improves the efficiency of the economy by ensuring that

market prices include the real social costs of pollution and

inefficiency. This is a basic fact of economics, popularized in the

early 1900s by economist Arthur Pigou and embodied by the contemporary “<a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Polluter_pays_principle">polluter pays</a>” principle. Recent studies by the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> and even the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/30/whreportclimatereport/">Bush Administration itself</a>

confirm the high costs of inaction and the existence of a wide range of

cost-effective actions to bring down carbon emissions and stimulate

economic innovation.

The “abstract” advantages of cap and trade are real.

Samuelson simultaneously argues that cap-and-trade is a backdoor carbon

tax while deriding its advantages over a tax. One of the fundamental

differences between a set tax and cap-and-trade is that while a carbon

tax assumes the government knows the proper marginal cost of emissions, a

cap-and-trade system <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/6/01958/0916">lets the market set the price</a>.

In an economy like the U.S. that has been functioning without any

effective greenhouse gas constraints, the initial cost of emissions

reductions is likely to be quite low as we capture the <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf">low-hanging fruit of efficiency gains</a>.

“Influence peddling” should be addressed in any system. As John Whitehead writes at the Environmental Economics blog, “Just like any government policy, <a href="http://www.env-econ.net/2007/06/carbon_tax_vs_c_2.html">both a carbon tax and cap-and-trade can be gamed</a>

through the political process. It is goofy to try to argue that one

would be gamed more than the other.” Samuelson’s concern about influence

peddling can be addressed by a commitment to <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/auction_revenue_report.html">auction 100% of the emissions permits</a>,

as advocated by the Center for American Progress. The opportunity for

gamesmanship would be minimized by a full, transparent, permit auction

instead of the free allowance giveaway advocated by most polluters.

Global warming is not just an environmental crisis — it is a public

policy problem. Given the choice between an innovation economy that uses

clean energy efficiently, and an economically devastating climate

crisis, the choice is obvious. It is time for naysayers like Samuelson

to stop pitting the economy against the environment, and recognize that a

safe and sustainable environment is the bedrock of our prosperity. That

is an idea worth investing in.

UPDATE: Ryan Avent at <a href="http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=1076">The Bellows</a> writes:

<blockquote>Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson has long

impressed me as one of the most hackish economic columnists not

associated with the Wall Street Journal and not named Ben Stein, but

today’s piece on cap-and-trade is dismally, embarrassingly stupid. Its

essential premise is that consumers and producers of energy don’t

respond to price signals, something so incredibly, obviously wrong that

even the dolt editors of the Post opinion section should have wondered

what was up. Samuelson should be ashamed of himself.</blockquote>

<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/28/miracle-american-oil-continental-resources-corporate-media-oil-exports">http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/28/miracle-american-oil-continental-resources-corporate-media-oil-exports</a>

wiki
Robert Jacob Samuelson (born December 23, 1945) is a columnist for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post" title="The Washington Post">The Washington Post</a>, where he has written about business and economic issues since 1977, and is syndicated by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post_Writers_Group" title="Washington Post Writers Group" class="mw-redirect">Washington Post Writers Group</a>. He was a columnist for Newsweek magazine from 1984 to 2011.

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div></div><div id="toc" class="toc">

<ul><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#Career">1 Career</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#Personal_life">2 Personal life</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#Journalism_awards">3 Journalism awards</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#Books_by_Samuelson">4 Books by Samuelson</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#Notes">5 Notes</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#External_links">6 External links</a></li></ul>

</div>

<h2>Career</h2>

He began his career in journalism as a reporter on the business desk of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post" title="The Washington Post">The Washington Post</a> in 1969. He left the paper to become a freelancer in 1973. His work has appeared in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_%28UK%29" title="The Sunday Times (UK)" class="mw-redirect">The Sunday Times</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic" title="The New Republic">The New Republic</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Journalism_Review" title="Columbia Journalism Review">Columbia Journalism Review</a>. He joined the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal" title="National Journal">National Journal</a>

in 1976, where he wrote the "Economic Focus" column. He was a

contributing editor there from 1981 to 1984, when he left to write for Newsweek.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson#cite_note-msnbc-1">[1]</a>

Samuelson does not vote in any elections as he believes that voting interferes with his impartiality as a journalist.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson#cite_note-2">[2]</a>

<h2>Personal life</h2>

Samuelson was born in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City" title="New York City">New York City</a> and raised in nearby <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Plains,New_York" title="White Plains, New York">White Plains, New York</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#cite_note-3">[3]</a> He received his bachelor's degree in 1967 from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University" title="Harvard University">Harvard University</a>, where he majored in government.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#cite_note-lumin-4">[4]</a> He and his wife, Judith Herr, live in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda,Maryland" title="Bethesda, Maryland">Bethesda, Maryland</a> and have three children, Ruth, Michael and John.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#cite_note-msnbc-1">[1]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J.Samuelson#cite_note-5">[5]</a> He has written three books.

<h2>Journalism awards</h2>

Samuelson has received:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson#cite_note-msnbc-1">[1]</a>

<ul><li>1993 John Hancock Award for Best Business and Financial Columnist</li><li>National Headliner Award for Feature Column on a Single Subject in

both 1992 and 1993; another in 1987 for Best Special Interest Column</li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Loeb_Award" title="Gerald Loeb Award">Gerald Loeb Awards</a> for Commentary in 1993, 1986 and 1983; Loeb finalist in 1988 for his columns on the October 1987 Wall Street crash</li><li>An Alicia Patterson Journalism Fellowship<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Samuelson#cite_note-6">[6]</a> in 1982 to research and write about the changes in the U.S. economy since World War II.</li><li>1981 National Magazine Award</li></ul>

<h2>Books by Samuelson</h2>

<ul><li>The Good Life and Its Discontents: The American Dream in the Age of Entitlement, (Random House: 1995) 368 pages, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0812925920" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn">ISBN 0-8129-2592-0</a></li><li>Untruth: Why the Conventional Wisdom Is (Almost Always) Wrong, (Random House: 2001) 304 pages <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780812991642" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn">ISBN 978-0-8129-9164-2</a> (trade paperback edition)</li><li>The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath: The Past and Future of American Affluence, (Random House: 2008) 336 pages <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780375505485" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn">ISBN 978-0-375-50548-5</a></li></ul>

<h2>Notes</h2>

<ol class="references"><li id="cite_note-msnbc-1">
</li></ol><div id="bodyContent" class="mw-body-content"><li id="cite_note-msnbc-1"> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4916745/site/newsweek/Meet">Newsweek: Robert Samuelson: Contributing Editor: Newsweek</a>", MSBNC, May 14, 2004. Accessed September 23, 2006.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2">
</li><li id="cite_note-2"> <cite class="citation audio-visual">Samuelson, Robert J. and Lamb, Brian (2010-12-22). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.qanda.org/Program/?ProgramID=1319">Q&A: Robert Samuelson</a> (Television production). Washington, D.C. United States: National Cable Satellite Corporation.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ARobert+J.+Samuelson&rft.btitle=Q%26A%3A+Robert+Samuelson&rft.date=2010-12-22&rft.genre=unknown&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qanda.org%2FProgram%2F%3FProgramID%3D1319&rft.place=Washington%2C+D.C.+United+States&rft.pub=National+Cable+Satellite+Corporation&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988" /></li>

<li id="cite_note-3">
</li><li id="cite_note-3"> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/opinions/samuelson.htm">Robert J. Samuelson</a>", The Washington Post. Accessed September 24, 2006.</li>

<li id="cite_note-lumin-4">
</li><li id="cite_note-lumin-4"> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.newsbios.com/newslum/samuelson.htm">Robert J. Samuelson</a>", "The Business News Luminaries" website of the "TJFR Group". Accessed September 23, 2006.</li>

<li id="cite_note-5">
</li><li id="cite_note-5"> <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.randomhouse.com/highschool/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780812991642">http://www.randomhouse.com/highschool/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780812991642</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-6">
</li><ol class="references"><li value="6" id="cite_note-6"> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.aliciapatterson.org">Alicia Patterson Journalism Fellowship</a></li></ol>

<h2>External links</h2><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en">

<ul><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://city-journal.org/2008/bc1231ds.html">Review of The Great Inflation, City Journal, 12-31-08</a></li><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032402276.html">Samuelson's columns in The Washington Post</a></li><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/samuelsonrobert/">Older columns by Samuelson in The Washington Post</a></li><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.c-span.org/person/?robertsamuelson">Appearances</a> on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-SPAN" title="C-SPAN">C-SPAN</a>

<ul><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?297228-1/qa-robert-samuelson">C-SPAN Q&A interview with Samuelson, January 2, 2011</a></li></ul>

</li></ul>

<table class="nowraplinks hlist navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Authority_control" title="Help:Authority control">Authority control</a></th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="text-align:left;border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid;width:100%;padding:0px">

<ul><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.worldcat.org/identities/containsVIAFID/65717682">WorldCat Identities</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_International_Authority_File" title="Virtual International Authority File">VIAF</a>: <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://viaf.org/viaf/65717682">65717682</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Name_Identifier" title="International Standard Name Identifier">ISNI</a>: <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://isni.org/isni/0000000116609329">0000 0001 1660 9329</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syst%C3%A8me_universitaire_de_documentation" title="Système universitaire de documentation">SUDOC</a>: <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.idref.fr/123947634">123947634</a></li></ul>

</div>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

    <div id="catlinks" class="catlinks" data-mw="interface"><div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category" title="Help:Category">Categories</a>: </font><ul><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1945_births" title="Category:1945 births">1945 births</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people" title="Category:Living people">Living people</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Harvard_University_alumni" title="Category:Harvard University alumni">Harvard University alumni</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_male_journalists" title="Category:American male journalists">American male journalists</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_columnists" title="Category:American columnists">American columnists</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_economics_writers" title="Category:American economics writers">American economics writers</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_male_writers" title="Category:American male writers">American male writers</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Newsweek_people" title="Category:Newsweek people">Newsweek people</a></font></li><li><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Washington_Post_people" title="Category:The Washington Post people">The Washington Post people</a></font></li></ul></div></div></div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">==<br /></font>