Whatever

• Paying taxes is patriotic? Boy, have we come a long way!
• Yeah, I know I said that if I had to vote then I would probably vote for Obama, but his pandering and economic ignorance is really why I can't vote for him (HT: Q&O)
• "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?"
• An Obama-gasm
  
• If you can't laugh at Manifest Destiny what can you laugh at?
• The Twenty-First Century's Nineteenth Century problem
• More socialized health care problems in the UK. And one of our own.
  

Solutions that aren't

Why do I not look to government to solve environmental problems? Two recent news items should help explain.

First, Time Magazine is reporting on the disaster that is ethanol.

Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.

...

[T]he basic problem with most biofuels is amazingly simple, given that researchers have ignored it until now: using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous amounts of carbon.

What has been a dirty little secret for years is finally becoming common knowledge. Yet, we still subsidize and encourage ethanol production.

The second item appeared today in the Raleigh News & Observer and deals with the disposal of Compact Fluorescent (CF) light bulbs (those new bulbs that you will be forced to purchase in a few years).

Disposal options: Don't throw fluorescents in the trash. The light will break and release mercury. In a landfill, it could contaminate the ground. If you must throw a burned-out CFL into the trash, seal it first in two plastic bags to prevent leakage.

The preferred method is to take CFLs to a recycling facility or hazardous waste facility.

So let me get this straight, I'm not supposed to dispose of the bulbs in the usual way because I will be contaminating the environment with mercury. Instead, I should drive to a central recycling facility to dispose of these bulbs, thereby contaminating the environment with carbon dioxide from my car.

Whatever!

Dog Blogging

Whatever

• Ha! Unintended my behind!
• It's Easter, so it must be time for Peeps
• Holding the sun
• Looks like a dog, sounds like a big ass bee
• What did you do at work today?
  

More on Obama

I listened to Barack Obama's recent speech on race and was impressed - it was philosophical and nuanced. As much as I don't like politicians I do like listening to people who have a gift for speech and who speak with depth on serious issues.

I'm not going to say much more about it because I think Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty nails it. Here's how he sums it up:

I'm thrilled, because after nearly eight years of bumbling belligerence, and of government by catchy phrases badly delivered, finally someone seems to understand that the American people don’t enjoy being talked down to. This is — finally — nuance without fuzziness.

I'm wary, because Obama's program really is just more of the same frank, old-fashioned big-government liberalism. It still makes me cringe, even after nearly eight years of hypocritical, new-fashioned big-government conservatism. The Bush administration has proven the importance of labels: Call something conservative, and it becomes acceptable to a wide swath of the population, no questions asked. Even if it can't at all be distinguished from LBJ-style war-and-welfare liberalism. I hope that once they are out of power, the Republicans will finally abandon their recent change of direction.

Read the whole thing.

Like Jason, if I had to vote then I would probably vote for Obama - the two alternatives are that bad. But I still plan on sitting this one out.

Whatever

• Umm...What!?
• George Bush then and now
• Some people have waaaay too much time on their hands!
• Gee, a government subsidized industry not living up to expectations. How surprising!
• Only if!
• No, I'm sorry, it just wouldn't be the same.
• Those damn Washingtonians, "they took our jobs!"
• Apparently, 2% of the people in England say they are "put off" by the price of prescription drugs (roughly $14...$14!!!). So, the solution is to have "free" drugs for everyone. There is so much to say, but....whatever!
  

Money, Knowledge, and Power

I tend to ignore those who repeat the blather about how money corrupts the political process. The phrase, like many repeated in the political arena, seems almost meaningless because almost everyone uses it. Being the cynic that I am, I tend to roll my eyes when I hear someone use that phrase even if I'm supposed to think that they are some intellectual spouting some deep political insight.

Larry Lessig, a Stanford law professor, is using this "money corrupts politics" idea as somewhat of a centerpiece for his Change Congress campaign. A recent blog posting on Wired.com briefly explains the current buzz around Lessig's movement. I'd like to comment on some of his statements in order develop my point about political corruption.

First, Lessig is quoted as saying "Money corrupts the process of reasoning...They [legislators] get a sixth sense of how what they do might affect how they raise money." Again, being the cynic that I am I would question whether politicians "reason" about any piece of legislation that crosses their desk (e.g., the PATRIOT ACT). Nonetheless, this statement begs the question: What are legislators doing that would cause them to have to worry about how they raise money?

Let me move on to his second statement: "Lawmakers need to be free from a system that requires them to constantly raise money in order to free them to simply think about how to craft good public policy." I could go along with this if we had a government of limited scope; a government that didn't meddle in the affairs of other nations; a government that wasn't involved in the birth, eduction, business, pleasure, and retirement of the citizens it is supposed to obey; but we don't have that kind of government. We have a government that pervades society, and increasingly inserts itself into the affairs of the people. The knowledge needed to craft "good" policy in a complex society is not knowable even by intelligent men like Mr. Lessig.

I can anticipate the response to the above statement: Legislators will consult the wisest members of the appropriate fields before drafting legislation. This is a naive, Utopian conceit that still assumes knowledge that is not knowable. On economic issues, should you consult an economist or the business man that must make profit and loss decisions? On technology, should you consult the big players in the industry or the guy tinkering in his garage? On health care, should you consult hospitals which are few in number or the vast number of health care consumers clamoring for "free" drugs and medical procedures who, by the way, will be voting in large quantities in the next election?

What it comes down to is that money isn't the problem. Money in politics is like a fever - an effect of a more serious cause. That more serious cause is an insidious disease that can consume anyone. That disease is power.

Money, on the other hand, is the medium of exchange with which those who must succumb to power purchase access to those who exploit power. Fixating on that medium obscures the true source of corruption.

If Mr. Lessig is serious about corruption in politics he should be looking to curb its true source. I fear, however, that he is not serious because his policy recommendations only consolidate more power in the hands of politicians (e.g., government funding of political campaigns).

So, maybe I shouldn't ignore those who use the phrase "money corrupts politics." It's a marker that tells me that the speaker either doesn't understand the true source of political corruption, or the speaker wants access to that source.

Whatever

• Apparently, Lou Dobbs is just the latest in a long tradition of 'whiners' (HT: Carpe Diem)
• Holy Ice Chips, Batman! They've stolen our memory!
• Lawrence Lessig wants to ban Congressional earmarks, but is that such a good idea?
• The world in music; a city in dishes
• Isn't America neat!
• Phew! I'm safe for now. But my job is so lame.
• The dollar crisis is getting uglier every day
• More evidence that increasing wealth is the best way to enable man to solve his problems
  
• The future of computing is exciting! But, apparently we will still be stuck with the lame keyboard interface.
  

The Danger of Myth

In response to the Raleigh News & Observer's Q Section question "What makes a perfect president?", I sent the following

In the Local Voice column of Sunday's Q Section, people responded to the question “what makes a perfect president?” by listing personal traits they look for in a candidate. Things such as intelligence, integrity, and the ability to “think outside the box.” While these traits may be well and good, it seems that people are looking for men who they can mythologize instead of men who will perform the mundane task of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States – the actual duties that should make for a “perfect” president.

The main article seemed to capture this view by showing how we've created a mythology around past presidents. The authors seemed to think that this development is a good thing, and even go so far as to suggest that candidates should “harness the power of mythology” to “become part of the myth.” I have to disagree. Creating myths around men who wield the power of government only distorts history, and turns us into what John Adams feared - a nation of men, not of laws.

Whatever

• There is a potty joke here somewhere, but I'll leave it at just being really neat
• This is an interesting dilemma. Should you be able to sue the company that made the defective product? Or should you be able to sue the institution that said the product was safe?
• I thought secession was bad??
• This is just disturbing
• It's funny (read tragic) what government will do to make sure data align with a political agenda. Or what individuals have to put up with to serve that political agenda.
  
• The Nordic miracle isn't so miraculous
• The good old days are now
• Power seeking scoundrels can't let family ties stand in the way, can they?
• Let me guess, in a hundred years we will be complaining about how man is destroying the planet by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Seriously though, this is why we need to resist those who call for wealth destruction as a way to solve climate problems. Climate change is an engineering problem that can only be solved with increasing wealth.
  

Obama and Change

A friend of mine asked for my thoughts on Barack Obama. I alluded to my opinion in my previous post, but I wanted to expand on it here because some libertarians seem to be warming up to Obama.

My friend also sent me this link to Lawrence Lessig's video on why he, Lessig, supports Obama over Clinton. I will try to address some of the points in that video.

Peace for a change

I agree with Lessig's message that electing Obama would give us the best chance for getting out of Iraq. Being against this war from the beginning, I have been tempted to support Obama just on this issue alone. In fact, Obama's 2002 speech opposing the war expresses some sentiments with which I can agree. In particular, the following

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances...I don’t oppose all wars...What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war...A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

I can agree with this attitude, but I don't think it goes far enough. What is Obama's philosophical approach to foreign policy in general? Looking at his foreign policy page, I see a hodgepodge of diplomatic efforts that rely on the U.S. being heavily involved in the affairs of other countries. For example

Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

And if the "economic pressure and political isolation" doesn't work? How far is Obama willing to go? And does this policy risk harming the good will we have with the Iranian people?

What about a non-interventionist policy that pulls U.S. troops, money, and influence out of the affairs of other countries? What are Obama's criteria for a "smart" war? I may be cynical, but my guess would be that Obama, like Bill Clinton, will justify bombing foreign countries with rhetorical flash, and his supporters will eat it up.

How much change, really?

A word on this idea of "change." All candidates for president running against an incumbent in the opposite party are for change. They may wrap it up with noble rhetoric like "changing the tone in Washington," but in reality they just want to change who holds the reins of power. I defy you to name a national election in your lifetime in which someone was not calling for "changing the tone in Washington." Bush in 2000 called himself the "uniter". In 1988 George H.W. Bush was running on a platform of a "kinder, gentler America." This from a man who was essentially the incumbent.

Let's call this Orwell's Law: a word's meaningfulness is inversely proportional to the number of political placards it is printed on.

So, I don't think Obama is for "change." Yes, he wants to end the war in Iraq, but that's about as far as it goes. I know he talks about warm and fuzzy concepts of unity and bringing people together, but I'm sorry, I've heard it before.

He is basically running on the same platform that all Democrats have run on for the past 70 years - the continuation of the New Deal. Take a look at the Issues tab on his website and tell me what's different about his proposals? He may not give hard details, but the basic outlines are pure New Deal statism. Almost every bullet item begins with "The Obama program creates..." or "The Obama program increases.." Yes, the details of his plans may be structurally different from some other candidate's, but how is it philosophically different? Quibbling over which department runs a new program or what percentage increase a program should get is not fundamentally different from what we've seen since the 1930's.

The problem I see is that these programs create constituencies and an entitlement mentality that cause domestic conflict. Any new program that Obama creates will be for a constituency that will fight tooth and nail to see it continue or expanded by future administrations. When the inevitable budget crisis comes, lobbying for those programs will increase and pit one set of constituencies against another.

Take Social Security, for example. Anyone who questions the efficacy or financial health of Social Security is deemed an enemy of seniors. Touch it and your political career is in jeopardy. You can say the same for Medicare, Medicaid, eduction, and to a lesser degree the minimum wage, and public funding of the arts.

Take this piece of legislation co-sponsored by Obama himself. Even if this bill is well-intentioned, having the government define a "Patriot Employer" creates a mindset of division and ugly nationalism, and gives future lawmakers more ways to pander to the masses.

By growing the scope of government, Obama is creating more ammunition for future political wars. How many times have you heard the phrase "this next election is the most important in our lifetime"? I think I've heard it in nearly every election since I've been politically active (1988). Why do people say this? Because the federal government has taken on so much responsibility that even slowing its growth is considered to be the end of civilization.

Conclusion

I respect Obama's stance against the Iraq war, and I can understand why people may want to vote for him on this issue alone. But as a libertarian, I am disturbed by his trust in government to solve so many problems. His overall philosophy is still that of welfare at home, intervention abroad.

I fear that many libertarians are getting drawn in by Obama's rhetorical skills. While I find it somewhat refreshing to hear someone passionately express their beliefs with skill, I would hope that libertarians would not get caught up in the religious oratorical flair of a gifted politician.

By the way, I haven't voted since 2000 and would not have voted for Obama anyway. Politics is not the way to solve problems.

Whatever

• American jobs created because of trade with China...who'd a thunk that?
• I can't believe I'm saying this but I long for the Clinton years
• Hacking the Earth
• Zeus gets pissed when his flock worship a false idol
• For a second there I was thinking that Obama might not be so bad because of his advocacy for ending the war in Iraq. Now I'm cured. Patriotic Employer sounds so bad we should change the term from Orwellian to Obaman. (HT: Coyote Blog)
  
• Markets promote peace; governments promote wars
• Someone got the future correct in the 1960's, but I'm still waiting for the flying car (hey, is that Wink Martendale)
• What a surprise

Whatever

• Oh the joys of socialized medicine (HT: Positive Liberty)
  
• The Law of Unintended Consequences - "what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system"
• Ok, now they have all their bases covered
• Weren't these called sails in the past?
• "Once you go bot, you never go back"
• Oh wait, here is some more joy

Myopia

One of the arguments made against the free market is that businesses are shortsighted - only concerned about short-run profits. Now, I'm not going to make a sweeping claim saying "no they aren't" because that would be simplistic (just as the original claim is). The truth of the matter is that some business are shortsighted and, of course, some aren't. The market process has a way of sorting out those entities whose vision (short or long) doesn't align with consumer interests.

My own personal experience shows that companies can be both long- and shortsighted at the same time. For example, I currently work in the rail industry as a software architect. Like a lot of technology companies, there is a tendency to produce software quickly without looking at the long-term costs of "rushing to get into production." While at the same time the rail industry is spending billions to upgrade their rail network. In one case you have a short-run view to get products delivered, while in another you have a long-run view of protecting future revenue.

I had a discussion with someone this week about the health care industry and whether or not such companies were shortsighted. He gave the example of the shortsighted companies that just wanted to produce drugs, for example, that only dealt with treating current problems and not investing in research for cures to diseases like cancer. (This was also part of discussion about the so-called conspiracy to keep the cancer cure secret from the public.) This is not true, of course, because there are lots of companies spending billions to find cancer cures. What the correct mix of investment for producing treatments for current problems and searching for new cures is something only the market process can determine.

I bring this up because the claim that the market is shortsighted goes along with the claim that government is better at long range planning. This is silly on its face because politicians have an incentive to pander to constituents on a time frame based on the next election. A perfect example is ethanol. Everyone knows that ethanol is at best no better than regular gasoline, and when all environmental impacts are taking into consideration, may even be worse. Yet we spend billions on subsidizing ethanol in part because Iowa is the first test for presidential candidates.

Anyway, Steven Landsburg has a great article on the shortsighted "stimulus" plan now circulating in Washington (HT: Cafe Hayek). Here's a quote:

Ultimately, the only solution to unemployment is for displaced workers to get retrained and find their way back into the workforce. The new stimulus package only delays that process by propping up dying industries for a while and postponing the day of reckoning. Ultimately, there will be just as much hardship because the stimulus package can't last forever. Why spend all this money trying -- and probably failing -- to delay the inevitable?

Whatever

• Scalping is becoming legit - an example of how law trumps legislation. See this EconTalk podcast regarding scalping.
• Free trade destroys jobs that would not exist if it wasn't for free trade - and we're all better off because of it
• I don't see why we should care about the nationality of the scientist if we benefit from the science. Having said that, however, can I go to my local school board and get a tax refund since they are apparently not doing their job? I mean come on! How is it possible that there are people "unable to answer correctly when asked if the Earth moves around the Sun"?
• Using thoughts to control external devices. Where can I buy my exercise robot?
• Ah, the French and their "pro-consumer" laws
• Don't trust any video you see from now on
• It's always sad to see an industry pander to politicians. It's even sadder that they have to.

The Firm

Russ Robers over at Cafe Hayek has another good EconTalk episode. He talks with guest Mike Munger of Duke University on the Nature of the Firm. The concept that I took away from the conversation was that firms economize on transaction costs. This may sound a bit arcane, but take a listen anyway. You may appreciate the company you work for a little more.

Speaking of The Firm...

Is Space Exploration Worth the Costs?

Over at the Freakonomics Blog Stephen Dubner asks this question to a panel of 'space authorities'. The post is a long one, but the consensus is yes, space exploration is worth the costs. I'd like to comment on some of the answers.

Let's start with G. Scott Hubbard. He states, in part

2. We explore space and create important new technologies to advance our economy. It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit.

I'm inclined to be skeptical of this figure, but even it is accurate we have to ask the question "compared to what?" Mr. Hubbard has apparently never heard of Frederic Bastiat. I won't rehash the seen/unseen argument, so go read it yourself.

Along with the seen/unseen argument there is a political angle to this as well. How would politics be different if there weren't billions of dollars available for the taking by crafty politicians trying to buy votes with extravagant projects for congressional districts?

Mr. Hubbard continues:

3. Space exploration in an international context offers a peaceful cooperative venue that is a valuable alternative to nation state hostilities. One can look at the International Space Station and marvel that the former Soviet Union and the U.S. are now active partners. International cooperation is also a way to reduce costs.

Umm...didn't we race into space to beat the Soviet Union, not to cooperate with them? Yes, it's great that we cooperate now, but that's not the way it was from the beginning.

Some more from Mr. Hubbard:

4. National prestige requires that the U.S. continue to be a leader in space, and that includes human exploration. History tells us that great civilizations dare not abandon exploration.

'National prestige' reeks of nationalism to me which contradicts #3 above with regards to 'peaceful cooperation'. Maybe we need fewer 'great' civilizations and more that respect basic rights of the individual. Besides, I hear this argument from every do-gooder and 'grand' thinker who wants to solve some big problem or erect some monument to our greatness. I say to these people "open your wallet and get your fingers out of mine."

Having said all of that, I have always been a fan of astronomy and space exploration. I love hearing about new discoveries and seeing images from the Hubble Space Telescope. I even listen to the Astronomy Cast on a regular basis. I just don't think it's right to force others to fund my hobbies. Maybe if I had less of a tax bite I could privately fund some of these efforts.

More to come...maybe.

Whatever

• They screw up the energy market then to "solve" the problem they violate the rights of individuals
  
• People still think that the U.S. healthcare system is based on free markets, Ha!
• Ah, the ignorant masses don't seem to know when they are being oppressed (sarcasm!).
• One big stupid piece of legislation, 102 court cases to take away property rights. Wonderful!
• I said soon after hurricane Katrina hit my hometown that the recovery would be one of the biggest boondoggles in history. Not only is it a boondoggle, it is apparently taking forever for the doggle to boon!
  

Hoops Goulet

ESPN tends to have some of the more amusing commercials. Back in the 90's they created some to promote their NCAA Basketball coverage and I that they were some of the best. Here are a few.

This one is about UCLA.


Dicky V.


Deano!


This was my favorite.


I almost forgot about Downtown!

New Year's Whatever

• This is one example (and here's another) of why I am not pessimistic about Global Warming. As we grow richer we can solve ever more problems. We just need to make sure the enviro-socialists don't destroy the wealth-producing engine that is the market economy.
• This story should convince anyone that humans and monkeys have a common evolutionary ancestor
• Traffic anarchy (HT: CafeHayek)
• So, the Fed acts to curb "risky" lending practices, then the Senate acts to make it easier for sub-prime borrowers to get loans. Oh brother!
• George Will has some good views on the whole sub-prime mortgage mess