The article says, "Furthermore, everyone knows we are in our current economic pickle because greed, which slept through the Clinton administration, was awakened by the Bush administration's tax cuts and deregulation."
"Is it really true that political self-interest is somehow nobler than economic self-interest?"
Taking out the adjective, self-interest is self interest.
However, general observation gathers a lot of evidence that beings with political self-interest are usually more aware of the effects of their "greed" on an environment. Especially the global environment. Economic self-interest is about consume, consume, consume in order to profit profit profit. It matters not who or what is being ravaged. Political self-interest at least nudges people to stop, take a deep breath, and look at the effects of such a cycle on an environment. Political self-interest is perhaps more noble in that it requires one to view onesself in the larger context of his or her community at large.
Negative externalities, one of my favorite econ topics, are rarely addressed logically by beings who thrive on the consume consume consume in order to profit profit profit cycle.
> Political self-interest at least nudges people to stop, take a deep breath, and look at the effects of such a cycle on an environment.
No, it doesn't.
> Negative externalities, one of my favorite econ topics, are rarely addressed logically
NE's in practice are just an excuse to power-grab.
Look at all of the measures that are supposedly motivated by NE. Notice the dominant response is "let's tax" but the money isn't used to address the externality.
However, many attribute the decline to the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, during Clinton's reign: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp