Through the Broken Window

A co-worker passed along this list of Mankiw's 10 Principles.

I have some issues with his #7:

Governments Can Sometimes Improve Market Outcomes.
When a market fails to allocate resources efficiently, the government can change the outcome through public policy. Examples are regulations against monopolies and pollution.

I will accept his statement but not his examples. Sorry Mankiw...

There are numerous television ads and radio commercials on the risks and consequences of drug and alcohol use. The claim of the person speaking is that kids are less likely to do drugs if they are "educated" about the associated risks and consequences.

Is this true? Has anybody seen any evidence suggesting this? Any evidence to the contrary?

Since we know that there is no 'gate-way' effect, is scaring kids the most effective policy approach? We stopped doing that with sexual education some time ago, so why are we still doing it with drugs and alcohol and even tobacco use?

I guess when one outcome is "good" and the alternative is "bad" that really leaves no flexibility in understanding and application. There is no real middle of the road in the War on Drugs, is there?

What is your favorite form of government?

What is the most destructive, coercive, and costly? What is the price tag and in what way is it destructive?



The biggest and best coercive governmental group, to me, is the IRS. Although I do not know the price tag, it is destructive because it creates new winners and losers. Additionally, it has forced companies, businesses, and non-profits to fit into a particular mold, rather than exist for the greatest possible benefit to its share-holders and customers.

Other groups that are promising include the War Department and the "War on Terror", Health Care Regulation, Pension Insurance, and Medicaid.

But that isn't how the media reported it. Except for Slate anyways.

"Earlier this month, professor Yasmin Hurd of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine released a study showing that rats exposed to the main ingredient in marijuana during their adolescence showed a greater sensitivity to heroin as adults. The wire lit up with articles announcing confirmation for the "gateway theory"—the claim
that marijuana use leads to harder drugs...

On close inspection, Hurd's research, published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, doesn't show otherwise. For the most part, it's a blow to the gateway theory. To be sure, Hurd found that rats who got high on pot as adolescents used more heroin once they were addicted. But she found no evidence that they were more likely to become addicted than the rats in the control group who'd never been exposed to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, marijuana's main ingredient.

Doctors are testing an immunization regimen against tobacco.

If it works, they can then do the same think for fatty foods, sex, and caffeine -- along with more 'addictive' substances.

Check it out.

And I'm not talking about hotels.

This worked pretty well earlier, so I figured we could continue it.

What are your favorite western movies? Whether it is the old west (Tombstone) or the new western tarantino-type films...

Additionally, there are a lot of western/mexican movies too -- like Desperado and Once Upon a time in Mexico.

My two favorites are: Blazzing Saddles and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

CEO pay model

Welfare to Work Program

Outsourcing Jobs?

These are all interesting to me. I hope they will be to you. I still have access to them for free, so many of you might as well.

Here is a nice article on improving education through competiton fromthe Natiaonl Journal.

And this is why I care:

The current wave of technology-driven advances in productivity (and, to a much smaller extent, outsourcing) is impinging for the first time on educated white-collar workers in services, as opposed to the skilled or semiskilled blue-collar workers who felt the brunt of earlier labor-saving innovation in manufacturing. Better schools are not going to deflect very much of that pressure, or to save very many of those jobs. What might make a difference is a completely different approach to the whole idea of education -- one that helps people to change course midcareer, and that does more than pay lip service to the idea of lifelong schooling. This would be worth discussing.

Hat-tip to Dr. Craig Newmark.

Can the government create wealth?

I want all exceptions, examples, and arguments.

It is important to discuss the concept of wealth. Here's Bastiat, this fellow and another. You can also check out these definitions. There are many differing opinions and many examples, but is there any consistent definition throughout?

What do the past and modern economists have to say about this?

Can we get a vote together for the best war movies of all time?

I want everybody's top vote getter and their top five picks.

If you need a little refresher, here's a list of some of them.

Full Metal Jacket, Patton, Plattoon, Tora Tora Tora, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Das Boot, U-571, The Longest Day, The Devil's Brigade, The Dear Hunter, Sergeant York, Black Hawk Down...

Others that are not so much War Movies, but take place during war are:

Schindler's List, A Bewautiful Life (Vita è bella), and The Dirty Dozen

The movie that tops my list is Patton. My top five include: Full Metal Jacket, Sergeant York, The Bridge on the River Kwai, and Apocalypse Now.

Pagans

I saw the movie RV on Sunday afternoon with my dad and sisters. Overall it was a good flick, but there were a few statements that really stuck out.

Recipe for family comedy:

Mix one(sometimes two) funny, well-known (and many times beyond his/her prime) actor
Deeply loving and very supportive wife with an extremely strong, controlling exterior
Enviro-conscience and at the same time airhead older daughter
Intelligent and/or unpopular younger son

Place in large bowl and stir in two parts conflict with one part fart jokes/potty humor
Add a touch of slapstick and moral lessons learned
Bake at 450 for one hour
And voila, you have a wholesome family comedy with a happy ending

This movie pretty much sticks to the recipe, but there some pretty funny parts. Robin Williams is still funny.

My issues:

Early in the film, which in fact sets the stage for the future conflict and eventual RV voyage across the country, a friend of the older daughter was invited to a business party, where she insulted the president of the company -- blaming him for childhood obesity because he was responsible for putting sodas in all the schools ("Childhood obesity was on his head"). Obviously these are pretty standard leftist arguments with little evidence, but they appear to represent the opinions of a great many in this country. Additionally, at the very end, the wealthy president is again attacked. This time by the daughter. With many gasps of horror by the audience, she claims that his company sent many jobs overseas. The alleged "outsourcing" was the critical blow. Again, an issue as much beloved by the left -- as the right. It is amazing to me, but I think both sides have this one wrong. I think it is always a fun discussion, but Russell Roberts' The Choice covers it best. Why is outsourcing bad?


Even though I am critical of the film, I think it is still worth a rent or a visit over to Blue Ridge Theatres. You can't beat a buck fifty show.

Teen pregnancy and how it could/should affect public policy.

Via NewMark's Door

As I was waiting to watch the movie "RV" with Robin Williams on Sunday afternoon, I caught a glimpse at an advertisement for recycling services. It was a plead to participate in recycling and it was an arguement that I had never come across before and it went something like this:

Recycling supports 14,00 jobs in NC. A 20% increase in recycling participation would create 500 new jobs.

Okay class, please point out the problem with that statement. Has anybody else seen this before a movie or on TV? For more info, check out the website.

A few comments on the movie later.

Want to use electronics with your mind? To sense when your computer is about to crash? To have cyborg limbs? Very soon, you just might!

It's amazing to live in a time when these things are possible. With just the technologies I listed, we could provide the handicapped with greater functionality or improve the capabilities of healthy individuals. And there are still more advances coming from genetic engineering and nanotechnology. Pretty soon we might not even recognize ourselves. Which leads to the question should there be limits to man's ability to improve himself? Is technologically adapting man's body moral? What will it mean for society? Will it pit poor against rich? Human against Posthuman?

At least one person, Nick Bostrum of Oxford Univ., is thinking about these issues seriously. And his answers are suprisingly optimisitic. If you're at all interested in these questions, I recomend checking out his website.

Two links are particuarly interesting:

1. His article on the morality of improving humanity through technology.
   
   
2. His Tranhumanist FAQ. I especially like the section where he speculates as to how these technologies will impact society at large.

I would be interested to hear other's thoughts on this topic. In particular, how do you feel about the political consequences of some of these technologies? Would you agree with Bostrum that safe-guarding some of the more risky technologies, such as destructive nanotechnology, present public goods problems? Should the government play a role in distributing or regulating these technologies to keep them from falling into the hands of terrorists (similar to what is done with nuclear weapons technology)?

It's Roger Garrison! He hasn't published much latley, but he has several interesting articles and books on economic intellectual history, the study of macoeconomics in general, and Austrian economic theory in particular. I especially like his accessable (intermediate level) introduction to Austrian Business Cycle theory.

I really don't see the point of the legislature passing this new ban on incomplete gift checks. Will it actually accomplish anything?

Why not get rid of all the constraints on accepting monies and let each and every politician be accountable for the money they receive and the attached favors they give when they get into office.

One criticism to this argument is that it might create a greater incentive for inefficient allocations of resources to political ends (pumping up the public choice). However, we have to look at how much is currently allocated to dodging the bullets of campaign contribution regulation.

Under five is pretty damn good!! What am I talking about, you may ask.

The unemployment rate for June 2006 was at 4.6%. Not too bad.

One question: How can our economy continue to support the expanding public sector?

Check out the new release here.

Gun Dealer turns it around on Mr. Bloomberg. How do you like that? Too bad tax-payers have to finance all this, but I am rooting for the gun dealer on this one.

Here's the story.

Why is vigilantism bad?

After not being able to sleep last night, I popped the movie Boondock Saints in the DVD. It's always been one of my favorites!!

So after watching some of it I thought about the State's monopoly on law and police enforcement. If they set what appropriate activity is (both ethically and legally), then what is essentially 'good' and 'bad' is dictated or atleast influenced by state officials - judges, legislators, and law enforcement officers.

Vigilantes are in competition with that monopoly and historically governments have not been too keen on the idea. Much the same way that militias have lost support and gained a significantly more negative conotation.

Power of the individual to act against what they know to be wrong is discouraged. Is this necessarily a good thing? I know at first thought it looks like a really bad idea, but for the majority of people, why not? Is a lynch mob any 'better' than capital punishment? In my mind the only thing seperating them is a thin veil of "legitimacy".

A Co-worker sent me some of these. I guess she was really bored...

Do you love the 80's?

Chicken, what?

Shake that thing

Wasting time...

And my personal favorite: Despair.com

A constitutional right ??!! Is that also a constitutional entitlement or do they actually pay for the service?

Juveniles are the first to lose their rights. Cameras come up and curfews come down. All in the name of 'safety'.

Good news for Wal-Mart!!

Some updates on that infamous Massachusetts health reform bill...

Check out the Mises article... Woes for WalMart.

My wife and I are still living apart and things are not very convenient. Hopefully by the end of the month that will change, but who's to say exactly what will happen.

Luckily, this is nothing new to us. We did the whole long-distance relationship thing all through the summer and winter breaks of college and then the last year and half full time.

Does anyone have any good stories on long distance relationships?


I will follow up with some of my own, but I figured I would let someone else get the ball rolling.

Many of these sorts of opinions are held by the folks on the left.

Interestingly enough, they seem to be held by many religious groups as well.

In my opinion, the notion that indivdauls can only act in particular ways or achieve great things with the assistance of some other group, some deity, governmental action and assistiance or by the sheer grace of God is flawed.

For me that really down-plays the will and ability of human beings, especially in the achievement of groups of people that feel that they could only accomplish great things, or get a good income because of the people that came before them and paved the path for them.

I don't know why I have such a problem with this thinking exactly. It just seems to me that it gets people into believing their own stereotypes and following those "self-fulfilling prophecies" about their own individual limitations.

Perhaps it is because I don't believe that people can not achieve great things because they are held back by some invisible 'force' that keeps them poor, or limits their upward mobility. Since I believe that anyone can accomplish great things, I do not believe in the convenient excuses built into failure -- somebody was out to get me, they only hire this type of person, or they don't like people like me. For me, that's just a cop-out. A convenient, self-limiting psychological crutch that maintains our complacency and shadows our laziness. Why do any more, if we can make ourselves believe that somebody else is holding us back -- the key is to blame some one else for our own failures.

Never taking any individual responsibility is the key to this type of life and is intimately tied to believing in "owing someone else" when things do go well, because life is beyond our control. We must first appease the gods , since we are mere puppets on a string.

I think Sheldon Richman is the reason I am moving more left-libertarian. That, and working for the government. I have come to see the modern coporatocracy of America.

Here is his explanation of Left-Libertarianism.

This is good and is very applicable to North Carolina.

With increased suburbanization into more traditionally rural, agriculture-based counties surrounding the Capital City, who will the State of North Carolina side with?

The Farmers or The Suburbanites?

Here is a new interesting story about the original Spanish-Mexican conflict.

This is a good read!

Bloomerg pondering third party option for 2008.

I wonder what is to happen in NC...

I've been watching 7th Heaven re-runs recently and I was suprised how secular the show is, considering it revolves around a preacher and his family. I was really expecting a discussions about conversion and how Christianity is one true religon. But 90% of the episodes I've seen deal with not having sex before marriage. On the rare occasions that anyone is persuaded to convert, it's based on the secular benefits that a church provides. A sense of community, help in times of need, and personal moral direction.

Don't get me wrong, those are very excellent reasons to go to church. But are those good reasons to convert to Christianity? After all, couldn't Muslims or Jews or Buddhists claim the same thing?

Even when the show's character's are discussing sex, they give very secular explainations for why you should wait for marriage. STDs, unwanted pregnancies, run away dads, and so on and so forth. But isn't the only thing that matters is that God doesn't like it?

What about the question of whether the Christian God actually exists? What about the problems of interpruting and trusting the Bible? Has 7th Heaven taken the God out of Christianity?

Really, I can't complain too loudly. The show is heart warming, which is rare for TV these days. Plus, the writers do a good job of making the characters believeable (most days). Anyways, tell me what y'all think.

I wish I had seen Chris's post sooner. The author of the article he links, Vedran Vuk, makes some pretty peculiar claims. For one, Vuk claims that programs like Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) break-up families because they mostly help single mothers and that some how gives fathers more incentive to leave. The author was on-line earlier this week for questions and I hate I missed it because I certainly have a few...

1) What exactly is the causal link between a government helping needy families (normally those led by single mothers) and fathers leaving those families? The best explaination I could come up with is that the father cares just enough about his family that he doesn't want to see them starve if he leaves. So, with a welfare check on stand-by, he can skip town with a slightly lighter conscience. But if that's the case...

2) Wouldn't the same consequences result from Vuk's world of increased family charity? What's the difference to the father whether his baby-momma is fed by the state or by her family? Seems like the father's incentives to leave remains the same. But let's not forget the fact that...

3) you can only receive aid from TANF for a few months at a time. Not to mention you can only be on the program for a total of 5 years in your life-time. So, quantitatively, how strong are the incentives Vuk's worrying somuch about? EXACTLY how strong? Did he take the time to do the measurements? And while we're at it...

4) How does Vuk account for the pro-family incentives that TANF might have? Maybe, providing mothers the ability to leave bad husbands today results in stronger families in the future. I don't know. But Vuk doesn't even seem aware of the possibility. This is an important question for both his qualitiative or a quantitative arguments.

And These are only a few of my questions. Honestly, I see more holes in his arguments than I see keys on my keyboard. But If anyone would care to set me straight on these issues, I am more than open to conversation. :)

Reading Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" about two weeks ago, I came upon an interesting selection that is both comical and a bit heretical. Either way you look at it, it's interesting.

Here is the passage:

...Now it [Babel fish] is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

I definitely recommend reading Adams. Quick read with a quirky perspective. It's some good stuff.

The founder of Scientology was a very interesting person. His life and just about everything surrounding him is up for debate. The church claims one thing, while most outside it claim another. Additionally, the church has been involved with re-writing history as needed to maintain their stories.

Some questions:

Are all churches like this about their prophets and founder? Is this fanaticism or faith?

A little more on L. Ron Hubbard

All Together Now : Common Sense for a Fair Economy — by Jared Bernstein, senior economist of the Economic Policy Institute — explores how modern-day hyper-individualism has trumped a sense of collaboration and joint responsibility and thus, distorted America's current political and economic debate. The book shows how runaway self-reliance not only has unbalanced the economic and political discourse, but also, and more importantly, has hamstrung efforts to develop effective solutions to shared social and economic problems.

Obviously I am not a fan of the title or description (hyper-individualism??!!), but it should be an interesting read. Still, I am not sure if it is worth the price. Would anybody like to review it?

It looks like there site is down right now, but here is the EPI link.

This is good. Check it out!

There was an interesting fellow on Charles Osgood's Sunday morning show. He was a business owner who happened to lose a fair amount of stock equity because of a blogger that spread rumours and made several libelous claims about his product. As he said on the show:

Yes I believe in freedom of speech, but somebody needs to manage it.

I think this is the way a lot of people see and think about rights and freedoms. Somebody needs to be in charge to manage it. Essentially, if a right or freedom is centrally directed though, it can be conveniently denied by political and social groups at a whim. Is it really much of a right if it can be denied?

Indeed, can we have freedom that is free? Or does it need to be "managed" by someone?
Practically speaking though, I don't think there exists a freedom that is free. It needs to be managed by a court system or a group of individuals that explicitly state the rights and freedoms of individuals. Even though I do not think there needs to be any group to "manage" First Amendment rights, since the courts can handle defamation on a case by case basis, there does need to be people to outline those rights either initially (Bill of Rights) or in the context of a dynamic government organization in which we live.

Do freedoms need to be managed?

Grillz are out in Texas

One red paper clip for a house

I posted this over at the Locker Room, but it bears repeating: Syd Barrett, founder of Pink Floyd, dies at 60.

Min Wage up again. And this time it is set to pass. $6.15 for the lowest legal wages. I guess this is a good step forward for illegal workers, but not so much for those choosing to take on legal employment. Edwards apparently backs it. I am not sure why anybody cares, but the N&O covered it.

Back seat drivers have to buckle

Government planning at work

A look at the Interstates at Age 50.

I was watching Cops on Saturday. Not usually my cup of tea, but when in Danbury, do as the Danburians. Anyway, I was struck by the smug, self-satisfaction that these officers had in arresting individuals that may not (and in fact weren't) hurting anyone or posing any danger to others around them. There was one incident, in particular, that stuck with me the most.

It was this young women with her daughter. She was driving a red truck and was pulled over for being 'suspicious'. There was another individual in the car with them, and upon closer inspection there was found to be two syringes and traces of heroin in one of them. Obviously when the questions were asked one was found to be lying. The police sided with the other woman (not the one with child). To me, it appeared like the mother was in fact the most sincere, even to the point of tears, crying for the well-being of her child and told the officers the truth -- she was in fact in the neighborhood to learn how to turn tricks and make some money. Upon hearing that honesty, she was arrested and then seperated from her child. It was actually very sad to see that these officers took such a sick satisfaction in a job well done.

Obviously I am not the best judge of character, or ultimately of the best caretaker and provider for that little girl, but it is hard to believe that those officers can know what is best for anyone but themselves, at any time. To make it even worse, they justified their action by saying that "perhaps she will learn her lesson, after some time in prison and having her child taken away".

It is not just that her rights (self-conviction and improper search and seizure) were violated, but also that these sort of policing activities are commonly used. Even more so, these actions will fall predominantly on the poor and less educated, who are not even aware of their rights.

How will giving someone a wrap sheet make them better off? If they actually committed a crime, then this action might be justifiable, but even them we still have to look at the rehabilitation vs. retribution issue within the american criminal justice system. The problem with criminality (and the increasing numbers of criminals) is that they are criminals for life. They are guilty until proven innocent. Note: whether they are found to actually be guilty after the fact does not justify loss of civil liberties.

Okay, sorry about the tangent, but I was totally displeased by their actions and felt bad for the young girl and her child, whom will be in custody of the state (or already is). Of course the State knows what's best, but why not just take our children at birth, so we don't get so attached?

Is crime an inferior good? Except for white-collar crimes, this might be true.

What about drug use? For some drugs perhaps...

Are common staples like food, water, gasoline considered Giffen goods during a natural disaster?

Check out this blog post. It might take a re-reading.

I hope everybody got to join in the fun of celebrating sports subsidies!!

Check out the results here and make sure to read the recent Mises Article.

Also, be sure to check out other Sport subsidies: The AllStar Game on Tuesday

And of course right here in our own backyard, swimming susidies in Greensboro.

Georgia keeps the ban

Wildfire of Climate Change

Min up in Mass

Cycle safety static

This article in the WSJ reminds me of a thought I had many moons ago. I was thinking about how individual drivers might use the speed limits of varying arterial roadways and highways as a pricing mechanism for usage. Of course they take into account expectations of time delays, congestions levels, and risk of accident or injury as well. Given the lack of an actual explicit pricing system, this might serve as a proxy.

Although it is treated much like a congestible public good and provided by all levels of government, transportation services can easily be carried out in the private sector and had been up until recently.

Any thoughts?

What makes a government legitimate?

A new bill introduced in the NCGA would make it a Felony for drivers to have "false, hidden, or secret compartmentsin their cars."

The ACLU is already up in arms.

The apparent goal of the bill is to stop transportation of drugs and illegal immigrants.

Some earlier posts prompted me to add this clarification. Libertarians should ardently and unabashedly celebrate July 4th: Independence Day. It represents the end of the tyranny of oppressive, centralized government. From July 4th 1776 until the Constitution was ratified in 1789, we were at our most free - something definitely worth celebrating.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

"May [the Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of
arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form [of government] which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."

This the heart-warming commencement speech given by Whitney Houston at ESU on June 9th. If you have yet to see this, I absolutely recommend this beautiful piece.

Remember kids...don't do drugs!

Although we have never really covered Enron, the death of Ken Lay brings the topic back into the spotlight. I know many of us have our opinions and feelings pretty well established about this issue, so I pose this statement:

The Enron scandal was a government failure.

Discuss...

Are fireworks a public good?

If not, why do they appear to be treated as such?

Just an observation from the holiday season....

At a time when the ratings of the popularity polls of the United States are at an all-time low in many countries, it prompts me to ask:

Why should we care if people like the United States?

What's so great about the United States that they should adore this country at all times? Democracy? Apple pie and baseball? The endless appeals system? Or is it our commitment to counter terrorism and provide world-wide freedom by force?

Just like a friend of mine in graduate school that was so sincerely concerned about opinion polls in other countries, Mo Rocca was on Charles Osgood's sunday morning CBS show prompting all Americans to watch the World Cup, because that's what the world cares about. So why not care a little more and sit in front of the television a few more hours this week. Take one for the old world team...

But, really. I never understood why we should care. Why does it matter?

On this Fourth of July we should all remember the United States of America, whether its for the good or the bad. So, why should the world care and why should we care how the world feels?

This should be interesting....

Here's a question I would like to honestly know the answer to:

Why is history so Statist?

Why is everything about politicians, plans, laws, governments, and even the measure of 'progress' a fucntion of state action and intervention?

Is it because of the bureacracy and the paperwork, where we get the records? Is it because those that win write the history and so state-driven military powers are the focus? Is it because they pay for it and the extra coverage is the tribute?

Anybody, want to take this one?