Today marks the second anniversary of my first post on L3, The Curse of Coercive Recycling. In it I alluded that Robin Hood shouldn't be considered a standard of morality and today seems like an appropriate time to elaborate on that.
Robin Hood is on the surface a quality hero. His main nemesis is the Sheriff of Nottingham who taxes the people into poverty. Paired with his battles with Prince John, Robin Hood appears to be an archetype hero of liberty.
And on the whole I agree but I'm concerned when people sum up his actions as "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor," often confused with what he actually does: rob from the government and give to the poor. The mistaken mantra easily translates into an argument for progressive taxes and the equalization of wealth. Robin Hood becomes a sort of "medieval Che Guevara," as Wikipedia phrases it, not a defender of liberty.
Perhaps it is not Robin Hood that is the problem but the modern interpretation of him. But he is an icon and his character changes as culture molds it. I still think of this green-costumed bandit as a defender of liberty but sadly I doubt the general public feels the same way.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Monday, May 22, 2006
Respond Another Day
A few days ago I had a conversation with some friends about economics and trade. There was a lot of disagreement and naturally there are some things I wish I said but am not witty enough to think of it at the time. So here's a list of quick retorts if you ever find yourself on the other side of one of these claims as I did on Saturday.
Corporations only care about the immediate future. This is a rather strange argument in world where a firm is legally an immortal entity. Even stranger because all industries engage in investment (notably medicine, real estate, energy, computers). The only reason why we think all firms are so short-sighted is because most of their activity necessarily revolves around certain and immediate (thus urgent) changes in the world around them.
If a firm finds a loophole in the legal structure and uses it to their advantage, the firm should be blamed. So if I find a bag of money on the street with a sign that says "free money" I'm at fault if I pick it up? Paradoxically, the lawmakers who shamelessly created these flawed regulations are the same politicians who celebrate themselves for making laws that give people incentives to do good.
Only governments can reliably aid in a disaster because of their large size. Which is like saying ten people have an easier time agreeing on pizza toppings than two people. Human beings are not mindless ants; the capacity of our society does not increase as our bureaucracy inflates. Many specialized organizations do every day what governments can't.
People should give aid (such as water) away during disasters rather than sell them to ensure the most frail will get what they need. In reality, the strongest will be first in line for water they may or may not need while the weakest will definitely be least likely to lay their claim on the scarce and vital resource. Selling water forces people to prioritize and create the incentive for others to supply more. "Price gouging" merely advocates shaving isn't as important as living.
The only reason companies want to be located in the US is because the liability laws are slanted to their favor. Because the only thing Time Warner cares about is legal shelter in case someone claims TV really did rot their brain. There are hundreds of reasons for companies to leave the US; I find it hard to believe there is only one reason why those thousands (tens of thousands?) stay (to the point that I almost feel silly listing them: educated work force, high quality graduate schools, ease of immigration, favorable labor laws, proximity to financial institutions, stable government, etc etc).
Corporations only care about the immediate future. This is a rather strange argument in world where a firm is legally an immortal entity. Even stranger because all industries engage in investment (notably medicine, real estate, energy, computers). The only reason why we think all firms are so short-sighted is because most of their activity necessarily revolves around certain and immediate (thus urgent) changes in the world around them.
If a firm finds a loophole in the legal structure and uses it to their advantage, the firm should be blamed. So if I find a bag of money on the street with a sign that says "free money" I'm at fault if I pick it up? Paradoxically, the lawmakers who shamelessly created these flawed regulations are the same politicians who celebrate themselves for making laws that give people incentives to do good.
Only governments can reliably aid in a disaster because of their large size. Which is like saying ten people have an easier time agreeing on pizza toppings than two people. Human beings are not mindless ants; the capacity of our society does not increase as our bureaucracy inflates. Many specialized organizations do every day what governments can't.
People should give aid (such as water) away during disasters rather than sell them to ensure the most frail will get what they need. In reality, the strongest will be first in line for water they may or may not need while the weakest will definitely be least likely to lay their claim on the scarce and vital resource. Selling water forces people to prioritize and create the incentive for others to supply more. "Price gouging" merely advocates shaving isn't as important as living.
The only reason companies want to be located in the US is because the liability laws are slanted to their favor. Because the only thing Time Warner cares about is legal shelter in case someone claims TV really did rot their brain. There are hundreds of reasons for companies to leave the US; I find it hard to believe there is only one reason why those thousands (tens of thousands?) stay (to the point that I almost feel silly listing them: educated work force, high quality graduate schools, ease of immigration, favorable labor laws, proximity to financial institutions, stable government, etc etc).
Friday, May 19, 2006
The Four P's of Privacy
This week's Newsweek cover featured a massive phone set atop the White House with the headline "Spying On Your Calls." Micheal Hayden stares ominously at you in the Time cover next to big red letters asking "Does This Man Have Your Number?" The media in general is awash with stories and commentary about domestic spying.
I'm very pleased the reaction has been so strong but was surprised to hear on NPR today reasoning I hoped was long extinct. A reporter visited the National Mall and asked passerbys what they thought of the spying. To my surprise, they were overwhelming in favor it. One man gave the old argument that only people who have something to hide don't want the government to spy on them. This is a very scary line of reasoning, one that I've seen shot down on TV dramas, Hollywood movies and other media outlets, I naively thought it was purged from our culture. So I find it neccessary to summerize four reasons why this argument is a poor one.
Principle. Commonly the most cited argument, many, such as myself, don't think the government should spy on us not because we have something to hide but because it's wrong to do so. Similarly, I'm against the death penalty not because I think being on death row is in my future but because I find the whole idea morally repugnant.
Precedent. Another often repeated argument, this wonders if we allow the government extra ground, it acts as a stepping stone to invade our lives in other ways. We see this issue come up in the realm of the law: if we allow illegally obtained evidence to be used in court, then we've just make warrants meaningless.
Persecution. Closely related to precedent, this reason notes that when government is allowed to enter our private lives, they now have the ability to punish us for activities that have nothing to do with terrorism; for acts that are not wrong, but are illegal. (It also easier to justify making certain acts illegal if legislators know they can use NSA data to enforce them.) What's "wrong" changes from person to person.
Prosaic. This one's new to me; NPR mentioned a Jewish legal scholar that noted when people know they are being watched, they act differently, even if their actions wouldn't be seen as wrong to whoever's watching them. The mere act of spying makes society less diverse, people express themselves less, they take few risks. I wish I could remember the exact word the scholar used, but I think this one works very well.
I'm very pleased the reaction has been so strong but was surprised to hear on NPR today reasoning I hoped was long extinct. A reporter visited the National Mall and asked passerbys what they thought of the spying. To my surprise, they were overwhelming in favor it. One man gave the old argument that only people who have something to hide don't want the government to spy on them. This is a very scary line of reasoning, one that I've seen shot down on TV dramas, Hollywood movies and other media outlets, I naively thought it was purged from our culture. So I find it neccessary to summerize four reasons why this argument is a poor one.
Principle. Commonly the most cited argument, many, such as myself, don't think the government should spy on us not because we have something to hide but because it's wrong to do so. Similarly, I'm against the death penalty not because I think being on death row is in my future but because I find the whole idea morally repugnant.
Precedent. Another often repeated argument, this wonders if we allow the government extra ground, it acts as a stepping stone to invade our lives in other ways. We see this issue come up in the realm of the law: if we allow illegally obtained evidence to be used in court, then we've just make warrants meaningless.
Persecution. Closely related to precedent, this reason notes that when government is allowed to enter our private lives, they now have the ability to punish us for activities that have nothing to do with terrorism; for acts that are not wrong, but are illegal. (It also easier to justify making certain acts illegal if legislators know they can use NSA data to enforce them.) What's "wrong" changes from person to person.
Prosaic. This one's new to me; NPR mentioned a Jewish legal scholar that noted when people know they are being watched, they act differently, even if their actions wouldn't be seen as wrong to whoever's watching them. The mere act of spying makes society less diverse, people express themselves less, they take few risks. I wish I could remember the exact word the scholar used, but I think this one works very well.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Package Deals
In preparing for my micro final, I'm re-reading Donald Wittman's critique of public choice economics. PC (in its most basic form) claims that the political sector rarely achieves the efficiency of free market economics because of the incentive structure in play.
Wittman disagrees, claiming politics is as efficient as economics. I disagree with him but one claim he makes bears special mention. "Candidate develop reputations. If they have not kept their campaign promises in the past, they are less likely to be reelected or elected to a higher office. In economic markets, a firm's "goodwill" may be capitialized in the value of the firm and ultimately sold." (1397)
Implict in Wittman's reasoning is an astonishing assumption: candidates are not package deals.
In economics, there is not any product that, all at once, promises to make your car run smoother, feed your baby, improve your productivity, clean your air, secures your retirement and educates your child. Yet these (and more) resemble the standard claims of politicians. And while any one of these promises I can check and punish for on a product-by-product level, a candidate asserts to be a master at all of these. It becomes too easy to forget what he's promised to do and impossible to punish him for just that violation.
I'd buy Wittman's argument more if we lived in a world where each politician was only allowed on campaign promise and could only work on that one thing if elected. (Though there would still be other problems with this world.)
Wittman disagrees, claiming politics is as efficient as economics. I disagree with him but one claim he makes bears special mention. "Candidate develop reputations. If they have not kept their campaign promises in the past, they are less likely to be reelected or elected to a higher office. In economic markets, a firm's "goodwill" may be capitialized in the value of the firm and ultimately sold." (1397)
Implict in Wittman's reasoning is an astonishing assumption: candidates are not package deals.
In economics, there is not any product that, all at once, promises to make your car run smoother, feed your baby, improve your productivity, clean your air, secures your retirement and educates your child. Yet these (and more) resemble the standard claims of politicians. And while any one of these promises I can check and punish for on a product-by-product level, a candidate asserts to be a master at all of these. It becomes too easy to forget what he's promised to do and impossible to punish him for just that violation.
I'd buy Wittman's argument more if we lived in a world where each politician was only allowed on campaign promise and could only work on that one thing if elected. (Though there would still be other problems with this world.)
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Economic Darwinism
A few months ago, Bryan Caplan and I discussed a chapter of Landsburg's Armchair Economist entitled "Why Prices Are Good: Smith Versus Darwin." Landsburg claims there little connection between free markets and evolution. "The outcomes of biological processes are often inefficient, for the simple reason that there is no reason why they should not be." (p75)
Unlike Landsberg (and Caplan), I see no inherent difference between the two. There's inefficiency in ecology, but it also exists in free-markets. And there's reason for both of them not to be as such: the strongest (most efficient) survive.
Prof. Caplan disagrees and recently he illustrates with this post. In The Tawny, Scrawny Lion a lion runs around all day chasing down animals. He eats a lot, but since he spends all day hunting, he stays thin and weak. This is pure deadweight loss, says Prof. Caplan, no doubt recalling the above quote from Landsburg.
I completely agree; it's deadweight loss. And just like a firm that's swapped in inefficiency, this lion is unlikely to reproduce, let alone survive for much longer.
Landsberg complains that the ecosystem has no prices, thus its inefficiency remains. But there are prices in ecology and just like all good prices, they convey relevant information. This lion is being told that there are too many lions in this ecosystem and if he doesn't find greener pastures, he's going to become a textbook example of creative destruction.
Unlike Landsberg (and Caplan), I see no inherent difference between the two. There's inefficiency in ecology, but it also exists in free-markets. And there's reason for both of them not to be as such: the strongest (most efficient) survive.
Prof. Caplan disagrees and recently he illustrates with this post. In The Tawny, Scrawny Lion a lion runs around all day chasing down animals. He eats a lot, but since he spends all day hunting, he stays thin and weak. This is pure deadweight loss, says Prof. Caplan, no doubt recalling the above quote from Landsburg.
I completely agree; it's deadweight loss. And just like a firm that's swapped in inefficiency, this lion is unlikely to reproduce, let alone survive for much longer.
Landsberg complains that the ecosystem has no prices, thus its inefficiency remains. But there are prices in ecology and just like all good prices, they convey relevant information. This lion is being told that there are too many lions in this ecosystem and if he doesn't find greener pastures, he's going to become a textbook example of creative destruction.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Look! A Girl!
I would like to welcome Jennifer, who has just promised to join L3. I met Jenny (I really don't know which one she prefers: Jennifer or Jenny) about two or three years ago at an IHS seminar. She just told me she'll be posting sometime next week. I look forward to her insights and commentary.
What Really Matters
While reviewing readings for my upcoming macroeconomics final, I stumbled onto a paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon called "Where Did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income." They agrued that between 1966 and 2001, only the top 10% of income earners experienced income growth equal to that of productivity growth. This reality runs counter to general macro theory where productivity growth is the direct cause of the growth of real income per capita. So what happened?
Dew-Becker and Gordon cite downward pressures on wages--deunionization, immigration, free trade--to justify the discrepency. This seems awfully lacking. If free trade decreases net exports, it must increase investments (BP=0). Fewer unions might decrease wages, but they also decrease demand for workers, which increases wages. Immigration might decrease demand, but it saves companies money which increases demand for labor in other areas. Money doesn't disappear.
At the heart of the problem is believing having less money means you become poorer. This is false. Suppose I give everyone in the US $2,500. Has everyone become richer? Nope; inflation rises to compensate (this analysis gets a little strange when you consider trade so let's make a simplifying assumption of a closed economy). Now let's suppose I give everyone in the US a $2500 fridge. Has everyone become richer? You bet they have (expect for that small minority that has absolutely no use for another fridge and despises it taking up so much space). How can this be? Aren't they the same thing?
Not at all. Money is a means to an end. Think of all the things the average American has access to now that they didn't in the 1960s. That fridge is well and beyond this one from the 50s, which features automatic defrosting and balanced humidity as some of its main selling points. We also have computers, cell phones, more colors for paint, iPods, longer lasting durables, etc, etc. In other words, just because the real income is not has high as it "should be" doesn't mean that lower 90% is getting shafted.
Dew-Becker and Gordon cite downward pressures on wages--deunionization, immigration, free trade--to justify the discrepency. This seems awfully lacking. If free trade decreases net exports, it must increase investments (BP=0). Fewer unions might decrease wages, but they also decrease demand for workers, which increases wages. Immigration might decrease demand, but it saves companies money which increases demand for labor in other areas. Money doesn't disappear.
At the heart of the problem is believing having less money means you become poorer. This is false. Suppose I give everyone in the US $2,500. Has everyone become richer? Nope; inflation rises to compensate (this analysis gets a little strange when you consider trade so let's make a simplifying assumption of a closed economy). Now let's suppose I give everyone in the US a $2500 fridge. Has everyone become richer? You bet they have (expect for that small minority that has absolutely no use for another fridge and despises it taking up so much space). How can this be? Aren't they the same thing?
Not at all. Money is a means to an end. Think of all the things the average American has access to now that they didn't in the 1960s. That fridge is well and beyond this one from the 50s, which features automatic defrosting and balanced humidity as some of its main selling points. We also have computers, cell phones, more colors for paint, iPods, longer lasting durables, etc, etc. In other words, just because the real income is not has high as it "should be" doesn't mean that lower 90% is getting shafted.
Pirates of the Coase Theorem
Suppose you buy some land in the Hollywood Hills, knowing its high price is partly justified by the great view the Hills yield (I assume the Hills are below smog level). Imagine now someone else bought some property just downhill from you and plans to build a big shopping mall that will ruin said veiw. What do you do?
If you're Johnny Depp, you sue West Hollywood to stop the construction. Citing environmental quality laws, the Pirates actor is trying to block the Sunset Strip development; the city's best defense is they don't think the actor uses his land enough, as he spends most of his time in France. So what? I can't remember the last I used my Risk board, but that's hardly grounds for anyone to take it from me.
It sounds like the parties could use a hefty dose of the Coase theorem. If you're not familiar with it, all it means in this case is a judge would determine who's right takes presedence (Depp to what he paid for, developers to using their land as they see fit) and then one party could pay the other to forgo their right. There's a lot of really cool implications from the Theorem but all you need to know is whatever the payments are between the parties, the result will be mutually beneficial.
Sadly, it seems to be a lot more fun to sue people than test the theories of Nobel Prize winners. Still, I wonder who has the right to what but my guess is Depp because A) he was there first and B) it's the Hollywood Hills: the view's the main reason why people live there and thus represents a large portion of the price he paid.
If you're Johnny Depp, you sue West Hollywood to stop the construction. Citing environmental quality laws, the Pirates actor is trying to block the Sunset Strip development; the city's best defense is they don't think the actor uses his land enough, as he spends most of his time in France. So what? I can't remember the last I used my Risk board, but that's hardly grounds for anyone to take it from me.
It sounds like the parties could use a hefty dose of the Coase theorem. If you're not familiar with it, all it means in this case is a judge would determine who's right takes presedence (Depp to what he paid for, developers to using their land as they see fit) and then one party could pay the other to forgo their right. There's a lot of really cool implications from the Theorem but all you need to know is whatever the payments are between the parties, the result will be mutually beneficial.
Sadly, it seems to be a lot more fun to sue people than test the theories of Nobel Prize winners. Still, I wonder who has the right to what but my guess is Depp because A) he was there first and B) it's the Hollywood Hills: the view's the main reason why people live there and thus represents a large portion of the price he paid.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
May's Most Random Wikipedia Page Is....
This month we honor RTÉ One On-Air Identity, a page that carefully catalogs the various logos of an Irish television station. For other "ident" chronicles, see here for ABC, here for NBC, here for BBC and here for PBS.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Into the Mind of a Statist
Taking a break from studying, I decided to watch a Star Trek (Voyager) episode entitled Future's End. The crew are taken back in time due to an accident with a vessel (the Aeon) from the 29th century (fyi, this series of Star Trek takes place in the 24th century). The (far) future vessel is also flung back in time. Both ships end up on earth, which the 29th century vessel crash landing the 60s and the 24th century vessel, Voyager, appearing in the 90s.
Star Trek has a general anti-libertarian bias but this two parter easily stands in the top ten. A local discovered the Aeon which he used to create massive advancements in the computer industry, building an extensive corporate empire. The crew realizes that the digital revolution that swept the 20th century was never supposed to have happened.
We find the CEO getting ready to send the Aeon to travel back into the future so he can get more technology to develop in (our) present. When told he doesn't understand the ship enough to safely travel and if he tries, the entire solar system in the 29th century will be destroyed, he proceeds anyway. "Captain, The future you're talking about, that's 900 years from now. I can't be concerned about that right now. I have a company to run."
While attempting to capture the CEO, two Voyager crew members crash land in Arizona where they are taken by redneck locals. They are clearly libertarian, believing the pair are from "the Beast" (the Federal government). The unnamed leader turns to them at one point and says "The are two forces at work in the world. The drive toward collectivity and the drive toward individuality. You are the former and I am the latter." They are painted as racist, arrogant, paranoid, violent and stupid.
From this episode we can peer into the mind of a statist with chilling clarity. They find libertarians crude and violent at best, dangerous and twisted at worst. So wanting to demonstrate the virtues of solidarity over capitalism, the writers transformed one of the greatest free market victories in recent history (the computer revolution) into cheap thugery.
People tend to clump with others like them; it's only natural. But with that internal association comes the danger of trivalizing the other side or misrepresenting what they complain about. There's a tendency to revel in what they dispise as we (libertarians in particular) remember only how our fellows perceive the display and forget how others will misunderstand it. Sometimes this tactic holds important shock value (such as when I call greed potentially ethical) but often it is counterproductive. One of the major neglected areas of libertarianism is remembering what the counter-argument is so one can better understand and relate to others. This is why I find this Voyager episode so painfully valuable.
Star Trek has a general anti-libertarian bias but this two parter easily stands in the top ten. A local discovered the Aeon which he used to create massive advancements in the computer industry, building an extensive corporate empire. The crew realizes that the digital revolution that swept the 20th century was never supposed to have happened.
We find the CEO getting ready to send the Aeon to travel back into the future so he can get more technology to develop in (our) present. When told he doesn't understand the ship enough to safely travel and if he tries, the entire solar system in the 29th century will be destroyed, he proceeds anyway. "Captain, The future you're talking about, that's 900 years from now. I can't be concerned about that right now. I have a company to run."
While attempting to capture the CEO, two Voyager crew members crash land in Arizona where they are taken by redneck locals. They are clearly libertarian, believing the pair are from "the Beast" (the Federal government). The unnamed leader turns to them at one point and says "The are two forces at work in the world. The drive toward collectivity and the drive toward individuality. You are the former and I am the latter." They are painted as racist, arrogant, paranoid, violent and stupid.
From this episode we can peer into the mind of a statist with chilling clarity. They find libertarians crude and violent at best, dangerous and twisted at worst. So wanting to demonstrate the virtues of solidarity over capitalism, the writers transformed one of the greatest free market victories in recent history (the computer revolution) into cheap thugery.
People tend to clump with others like them; it's only natural. But with that internal association comes the danger of trivalizing the other side or misrepresenting what they complain about. There's a tendency to revel in what they dispise as we (libertarians in particular) remember only how our fellows perceive the display and forget how others will misunderstand it. Sometimes this tactic holds important shock value (such as when I call greed potentially ethical) but often it is counterproductive. One of the major neglected areas of libertarianism is remembering what the counter-argument is so one can better understand and relate to others. This is why I find this Voyager episode so painfully valuable.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Noise Is Golden
I hate loudness. Few things are as intrusive as someone pumping up their stereo to some ungodly level or the sound of screaming kids. But I like freedom, more. If someone wants to run around and do those things in their free time, go for it. Just stay the hell away from me.
What's "loud" is of course a relative term. Just like chemicals, it's the dose that makes the poison. And because it's expensive to establish property rights over the air, we enter into a lot of commons problems. This is why it's not so confusing that Turkey bundled their new environmental laws with banning "noise pollution" with a $150 to $4,500 fine if you break the law.
A lot of these laws seem to stem from reasonable logic. A lot of people like silence. A lot of people like clean water. We get those things from a source no one owns, so a law is made to force everyone to comply. No free riding.
Yet this reasoning carries with it an assumption that we live in a world of black and white, right and wrong. In the real world, what's noise pollution to you is natural to me is too quiet for my Great Aunt Esther. Setting absolute standards for all of society, which is needed for laws due to enforcement reasons, ignores the fact that people are different.
A better solution would be to throw out the law and privatize public places. Those that like it quiet can congregate in Park A, where a local rules set the acceptable decibles very low. Noisy people can go to Park B, where it's fine to be louder. Just as some restaurants have a dress code, some places can have a noise code.
Admittedly there's potentially still spillover, especially if Park A is next door to Park B. But banning "noise pollution" all together suggests those in B are worth less than those in A. Laws tell everyone how to live. At least without the law there's the opportunity to discover a way for both parties to be happy. But I guess some people just can't stand knowing others are having a good time.
What's "loud" is of course a relative term. Just like chemicals, it's the dose that makes the poison. And because it's expensive to establish property rights over the air, we enter into a lot of commons problems. This is why it's not so confusing that Turkey bundled their new environmental laws with banning "noise pollution" with a $150 to $4,500 fine if you break the law.
A lot of these laws seem to stem from reasonable logic. A lot of people like silence. A lot of people like clean water. We get those things from a source no one owns, so a law is made to force everyone to comply. No free riding.
Yet this reasoning carries with it an assumption that we live in a world of black and white, right and wrong. In the real world, what's noise pollution to you is natural to me is too quiet for my Great Aunt Esther. Setting absolute standards for all of society, which is needed for laws due to enforcement reasons, ignores the fact that people are different.
A better solution would be to throw out the law and privatize public places. Those that like it quiet can congregate in Park A, where a local rules set the acceptable decibles very low. Noisy people can go to Park B, where it's fine to be louder. Just as some restaurants have a dress code, some places can have a noise code.
Admittedly there's potentially still spillover, especially if Park A is next door to Park B. But banning "noise pollution" all together suggests those in B are worth less than those in A. Laws tell everyone how to live. At least without the law there's the opportunity to discover a way for both parties to be happy. But I guess some people just can't stand knowing others are having a good time.
Instant Lion
Paradoxically, South African Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk will soon be presenting legislation that harms not only the tourism industry, but also the rich animal diversity the country offers.
According to Business Day, the regulation will probably ban "canned hunting," which is just a strange way of saying "breeding animals so people can shoot them later." Sounds like canned hunting is great for the environment. There are clear private property rights established over the animals, prohibiting the tragedy of the commons. Just like sheep, cattle and pigs are unlikely to go extinct, allowing people to raise lions and elephants ensure they never will, either.
The "problem" with the old system was it lacked coherenty. Filled with loopholes and difficult to enforce, they might as well not exist. But like a madman bent on jumping out of a window, the government is now reworking the laws to create "national uniformity." Sameness. Conformity. Solidarity.
It's just tragic.
According to Business Day, the regulation will probably ban "canned hunting," which is just a strange way of saying "breeding animals so people can shoot them later." Sounds like canned hunting is great for the environment. There are clear private property rights established over the animals, prohibiting the tragedy of the commons. Just like sheep, cattle and pigs are unlikely to go extinct, allowing people to raise lions and elephants ensure they never will, either.
The "problem" with the old system was it lacked coherenty. Filled with loopholes and difficult to enforce, they might as well not exist. But like a madman bent on jumping out of a window, the government is now reworking the laws to create "national uniformity." Sameness. Conformity. Solidarity.
It's just tragic.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Our Extra States
Brian Hollar recently referenced Alex Tabarrok and Arnold Kling concerning America's number of states. From Tabarrok,
Having fewer people per state can be quite nice: easier for governments to understand the needs of the people, creates more accountablity, creates more competition between states. Of course, it could also be worse; the local knowledge can be used to better control the locals and people are more likely to be compliant.
But that's really another post. Instead I'd like to point out to Brian (and Alex Tabarrok and Arnold Kling) that in a lot of ways, we have more than 50 states. No, I'm not talking about Puerto Rico. I'm talking about cities. NYC, Chicago, Houston, LA, Boston, and so on create a sort of competition between living in the metro area and living outside the city limits.
This may or may not be a good thing. At the same time, some of the most invasive rules come not from DC or your state capital but from the city you reside in. But I'm not sure adding states will change much unless you split parts of a city into federalized units with equal and independent power. Good luck with that.
...in 1789 the United States had 13 states and four million people. If the number of states had grown as fast as the number of people or if w in the United States had about the same amount of federalism as do the contemporary Swiss we would today have about 1000 states.
Having fewer people per state can be quite nice: easier for governments to understand the needs of the people, creates more accountablity, creates more competition between states. Of course, it could also be worse; the local knowledge can be used to better control the locals and people are more likely to be compliant.
But that's really another post. Instead I'd like to point out to Brian (and Alex Tabarrok and Arnold Kling) that in a lot of ways, we have more than 50 states. No, I'm not talking about Puerto Rico. I'm talking about cities. NYC, Chicago, Houston, LA, Boston, and so on create a sort of competition between living in the metro area and living outside the city limits.
This may or may not be a good thing. At the same time, some of the most invasive rules come not from DC or your state capital but from the city you reside in. But I'm not sure adding states will change much unless you split parts of a city into federalized units with equal and independent power. Good luck with that.
Monday, April 24, 2006
War On Drugs Claims More Victims
A plane carrying an anti-narcotics team overran the airstrip and crashed into several buildings earlier today. Among the dead was a three-year-old Afghan girl; a casualty of war.
The Helmand province, where the crash took place, is a hot bed of opium growing, supplying an astonishing 20% of the world's supply. The area is also claimed by Taliban insurgents who no doubt use the drug moeny to fund rather nasty practices, a fact the DEA surely uses to justify their presence in the area.
I have a better way of tearing apart this source of income for the Taliban: make drugs legal. Suppliers in more suitable countries (closer to the demand, better infrastructure) who don't fund terrorism will pop up and at the least the Taliban will have to lower its prices (if that arm of their organization don't disappear altogether). It's worth noting drug lords want drugs to be illegal, just as the mafia loved prohibition: less competition and more profit. That alone is a good sign to end the war on drugs.
And a little girl just might be alive right now, too.
The Helmand province, where the crash took place, is a hot bed of opium growing, supplying an astonishing 20% of the world's supply. The area is also claimed by Taliban insurgents who no doubt use the drug moeny to fund rather nasty practices, a fact the DEA surely uses to justify their presence in the area.
I have a better way of tearing apart this source of income for the Taliban: make drugs legal. Suppliers in more suitable countries (closer to the demand, better infrastructure) who don't fund terrorism will pop up and at the least the Taliban will have to lower its prices (if that arm of their organization don't disappear altogether). It's worth noting drug lords want drugs to be illegal, just as the mafia loved prohibition: less competition and more profit. That alone is a good sign to end the war on drugs.
And a little girl just might be alive right now, too.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Dancing in the Rain
Earlier this week, Lou Dobbs commented on President Hu's visit to the US. In a move that resonated in the minds of economists and non-economists alike, Hu paid a visit to Bill Gates before President Bush.
Like most non-economists Mr. Dobbs groaned at the news. Calling China a "Red Storm Rising," he blamed the US government for allowing manufacturing jobs to go abroad and creating a "...dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products..."
Mr. Dobbs is incorrect. The US is not dependent on China for these products no more than I am dependent on McDonald's for lunch. Firms choose to have their goods made there because it's cheapest and if China disappeared, we would still have them; they would just cost more.
Dependency implies the US economy is vunerable which is why this word is so completely inappropriate for describing outsourcing. Opportunities like moving factories to China makes the US economy more resilient, not less. Options can never make a person worse off. "Dependency" would require laws that force firms to produce in the country and no where else. Thankfully, the government isn't demanding people to put all their eggs in one basket.
Storms are violent but helpful things. They nourish the worthy and wash out the decripted so new life can grow and maybe florish. This process of creative destruction is one Mr. Dobbs finds so unfair, if he lived a hundred years ago he would certainly call for trade barriers so people wouldn't leave their farms to build the manufacturing sector he is now so desperate to protect.
Like most non-economists Mr. Dobbs groaned at the news. Calling China a "Red Storm Rising," he blamed the US government for allowing manufacturing jobs to go abroad and creating a "...dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products..."
Mr. Dobbs is incorrect. The US is not dependent on China for these products no more than I am dependent on McDonald's for lunch. Firms choose to have their goods made there because it's cheapest and if China disappeared, we would still have them; they would just cost more.
Dependency implies the US economy is vunerable which is why this word is so completely inappropriate for describing outsourcing. Opportunities like moving factories to China makes the US economy more resilient, not less. Options can never make a person worse off. "Dependency" would require laws that force firms to produce in the country and no where else. Thankfully, the government isn't demanding people to put all their eggs in one basket.
Storms are violent but helpful things. They nourish the worthy and wash out the decripted so new life can grow and maybe florish. This process of creative destruction is one Mr. Dobbs finds so unfair, if he lived a hundred years ago he would certainly call for trade barriers so people wouldn't leave their farms to build the manufacturing sector he is now so desperate to protect.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
The Really Thick Silver Lining
As French car manufacturer Peugeot-Citreon shut down a British plant, cutting 2,500 jobs, the BBC thought it would be informative if they relayed the thoughts of one laid-off worker, Paul Taylor.
Mr. Taylor is 46 and has worked for the plant for seven years. No doubt his whole life is turned upside down, a reality made worse knowing his once-co-workers are in the same position. He's concerned: "Now we have got 2,500 people looking at the same job....It is easier for them to close this plant than a plant in France. They can get away with it here....It is hard to see a future in this industry - manufacturing is dying." He ends his thoughts with "It would be nice to hear something positive."
Ok.
-Because the operations are moving to Eastern Europe, those there will benefit from the new job openings. Families in Eastern Europe grow richer.
-Because it's cheaper to operate there, the company will save money, allowing them to spend it on other things and by definition employ yet more people.
-Either that, or cars will be cheaper, but probably a mixture of the two will happen.
-Society will benefit from the additional services these newly employed people provide.
-2,500 are not looking for "the same job." I doubt you can build a car with over two thousand people who only know how to install windshields. The compeition isn't as bad as he thinks.
-There are now 2,500 smart people hungry to fill new gaps in the economy, contributing something valuable to society along the way. Some of them might retire but I'm confident the rest will find jobs.
-The ease of closing a plant in England as opposed to France is a testiment to progress. Adaptability in a world of constant change ensures society will continue to grow richer, even in unpredictable weather. Capitalism rarely stagnants.
-Manufacture IS dying in most developed countries, just as farming was mostly phased out a hundred years ago. Not a bad deal as most would prefer an air conditioned office to a factory floor to a dirty patch of land as a work environment.
-As long as the UK economy remains adaptable, a new sector(s) will rise up. Adaptability means opportunity.
-In all, there is a small net gain for global society in the short run and a much larger gain in the long run once new jobs are found. That might not matter much to you but your children (and their children) will thank you.
If you don't believe me, ask what you think would happen if UK textile manufacturers couldn't fire expensive workers during the twentieth century. Even if you weren't working a loom, your clothes would cost a lot more.
Mr. Taylor is 46 and has worked for the plant for seven years. No doubt his whole life is turned upside down, a reality made worse knowing his once-co-workers are in the same position. He's concerned: "Now we have got 2,500 people looking at the same job....It is easier for them to close this plant than a plant in France. They can get away with it here....It is hard to see a future in this industry - manufacturing is dying." He ends his thoughts with "It would be nice to hear something positive."
Ok.
-Because the operations are moving to Eastern Europe, those there will benefit from the new job openings. Families in Eastern Europe grow richer.
-Because it's cheaper to operate there, the company will save money, allowing them to spend it on other things and by definition employ yet more people.
-Either that, or cars will be cheaper, but probably a mixture of the two will happen.
-Society will benefit from the additional services these newly employed people provide.
-2,500 are not looking for "the same job." I doubt you can build a car with over two thousand people who only know how to install windshields. The compeition isn't as bad as he thinks.
-There are now 2,500 smart people hungry to fill new gaps in the economy, contributing something valuable to society along the way. Some of them might retire but I'm confident the rest will find jobs.
-The ease of closing a plant in England as opposed to France is a testiment to progress. Adaptability in a world of constant change ensures society will continue to grow richer, even in unpredictable weather. Capitalism rarely stagnants.
-Manufacture IS dying in most developed countries, just as farming was mostly phased out a hundred years ago. Not a bad deal as most would prefer an air conditioned office to a factory floor to a dirty patch of land as a work environment.
-As long as the UK economy remains adaptable, a new sector(s) will rise up. Adaptability means opportunity.
-In all, there is a small net gain for global society in the short run and a much larger gain in the long run once new jobs are found. That might not matter much to you but your children (and their children) will thank you.
If you don't believe me, ask what you think would happen if UK textile manufacturers couldn't fire expensive workers during the twentieth century. Even if you weren't working a loom, your clothes would cost a lot more.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Greed's Trilemma
Last week I ranted that greed has a bad rap and it some forms (especially in capitialist societies) it is actually quite ethical. In part this argument spawned from a post I did last year about how greed's definition is arbitary and effectively useless in today's society.
Last week's greed rant attracted a bit of response, notably from Brian, engendering a lengthy debate between the two of us (and some others). The biggest criticism I've faced is that I'm turning greed into the same as self-interest in order to make it a good thing. My counter is, again, that greed's definition is arbitary and unless I want to throw aside the wisdom of crowds, that's the only way. I have yet to hear a more satisfying definition.
Thus I turn to you, the reader. In effect, my argument is that defining greed faces a trilemma. There are three elements it should have but we can only pick two. Here are the choices:
1. Congruent with popular use.
2. Contains no arbitrary words.
3. Always undesirable.
We can ignore #1 and call greed "demanding beyond what's earned," which means forcibly taking what you have no right to take, though this would not fit when people refer to "corporate greed," etc. (I admit, this is still a little arbitrary but it's good enough to satisfy 2, though if someone comes up with something better I'll listen.)
We can ignore #2 and refer to the dictionary, knowing that the definition is insufficent because "excessive" is a matter of taste and perspective.
Or we can ignore #3 and admit that greed can be a good thing. I've used definitions of "focused self-interest," a burning desire to want more of X, and "the desire to improve our own welfare regardless of the impact it has on others." (The latter being suggested by Brian, though I showed how such a definition doesn't have to be bad....see the link to Brian's post.)
The question for the reader is: can you break the trilemma?
Last week's greed rant attracted a bit of response, notably from Brian, engendering a lengthy debate between the two of us (and some others). The biggest criticism I've faced is that I'm turning greed into the same as self-interest in order to make it a good thing. My counter is, again, that greed's definition is arbitary and unless I want to throw aside the wisdom of crowds, that's the only way. I have yet to hear a more satisfying definition.
Thus I turn to you, the reader. In effect, my argument is that defining greed faces a trilemma. There are three elements it should have but we can only pick two. Here are the choices:
1. Congruent with popular use.
2. Contains no arbitrary words.
3. Always undesirable.
We can ignore #1 and call greed "demanding beyond what's earned," which means forcibly taking what you have no right to take, though this would not fit when people refer to "corporate greed," etc. (I admit, this is still a little arbitrary but it's good enough to satisfy 2, though if someone comes up with something better I'll listen.)
We can ignore #2 and refer to the dictionary, knowing that the definition is insufficent because "excessive" is a matter of taste and perspective.
Or we can ignore #3 and admit that greed can be a good thing. I've used definitions of "focused self-interest," a burning desire to want more of X, and "the desire to improve our own welfare regardless of the impact it has on others." (The latter being suggested by Brian, though I showed how such a definition doesn't have to be bad....see the link to Brian's post.)
The question for the reader is: can you break the trilemma?
Friday, April 14, 2006
Free Market Gives Us More Free Stuff
Google now offers Google Calander, which is supposed to be quite good (and given Google's reputation, I bet it is). I don't really have a lot of meetings and events to keep track of, but I'm going to use it anyway, just to see.
Some people don't like it when firms give away their product (like Microsoft's Internet Explorer). These are the same people who run up the free sample ladies in grocery stores and kick them in the shins.
Some people don't like it when firms give away their product (like Microsoft's Internet Explorer). These are the same people who run up the free sample ladies in grocery stores and kick them in the shins.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
The Virtues of Capitalism
Deirdre McCloskey kicked off the first annual James Buchannan seminar this past Friday. I've only known McCloskey through the book she wrote on the rhetoric of economics (entitled The Rhetoric of Economics) and naturally assumed this was to be her topic on Friday. It is, after all, one of her most famous and important areas of research.
I was completely wrong: McCloskey instead tackled the virtues of economics and how economists focus too much on "prudence." Prudence is a strange virtue in that it descibes a sort of patience and sound judgement, in other words things that are smart to have in them of themselves. The other virtues are good--if that's the right word--because they help others. Prudence, in its most basic form, helps the actor only.
Economists talk about prudence a lot and we have different names for it. Self interest. Risk-aversion. Rational expectations. The other thing we talk a lot about is greed, much to McCloskey's dismay.
She feels greed is not a dimension of capitialism and capitalism requires all the virtues. Vices have no place in genuine free market activity. I take issue with this. Not only does greed play a fundamental (and moral) role, the flavor of greed economists talk about captures the very virtues McCloskey thinks we are ignoring.
Greed can be quite holy. Most generally it is about desiring a better life (usually for yourself, but it can also be for others). This is Hope. It also must, by definition, include the idea that people believe money (or whatever tickles their fancy) is a means to the end that is the better life. This, for a lack of a better word, is Faith. (We can expand the means framework beyond "money" to explain suicide bombers and so forth, again finding they have faith that their strategy will grant them what they hope for.)
We economists talk about the ethics of greed, we do not say greed is always good. We agree that taking others' stuff by force is not a moral manifestation of the so-call vice. Greed must be the motivation for trade (not theft) for it to be ethical. This is Justice. Greed also generates Courage, for it is what motivates people to take chances and stand up for what they believe in, and Temperance, for those that are too "couragous" don't achieve their desires. Love is perhaps the most closely connected to Greed itself: Love for money, Love for fame, Love for others.
It's just like Quark (from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) said. "Greed is the purest, most noble of emotions."
I was completely wrong: McCloskey instead tackled the virtues of economics and how economists focus too much on "prudence." Prudence is a strange virtue in that it descibes a sort of patience and sound judgement, in other words things that are smart to have in them of themselves. The other virtues are good--if that's the right word--because they help others. Prudence, in its most basic form, helps the actor only.
Economists talk about prudence a lot and we have different names for it. Self interest. Risk-aversion. Rational expectations. The other thing we talk a lot about is greed, much to McCloskey's dismay.
She feels greed is not a dimension of capitialism and capitalism requires all the virtues. Vices have no place in genuine free market activity. I take issue with this. Not only does greed play a fundamental (and moral) role, the flavor of greed economists talk about captures the very virtues McCloskey thinks we are ignoring.
Greed can be quite holy. Most generally it is about desiring a better life (usually for yourself, but it can also be for others). This is Hope. It also must, by definition, include the idea that people believe money (or whatever tickles their fancy) is a means to the end that is the better life. This, for a lack of a better word, is Faith. (We can expand the means framework beyond "money" to explain suicide bombers and so forth, again finding they have faith that their strategy will grant them what they hope for.)
We economists talk about the ethics of greed, we do not say greed is always good. We agree that taking others' stuff by force is not a moral manifestation of the so-call vice. Greed must be the motivation for trade (not theft) for it to be ethical. This is Justice. Greed also generates Courage, for it is what motivates people to take chances and stand up for what they believe in, and Temperance, for those that are too "couragous" don't achieve their desires. Love is perhaps the most closely connected to Greed itself: Love for money, Love for fame, Love for others.
It's just like Quark (from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) said. "Greed is the purest, most noble of emotions."
Sunday, April 02, 2006
April's Most Random Wikipedia Page Is...
On Mike's request, I decided to repeat last month's theme post and offer the most random Wikipedia page for April: TLA. Be sure to check out this subsection of the article.
A close runner up was The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, which is quite an extensive article for a country that doesn't exist.
A close runner up was The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, which is quite an extensive article for a country that doesn't exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
