If You're not a Socialist, You're a Monster

Neil Irwin believes that if you spend more than what he deems appropriate on a bottle of wine (apparently it only applies to goods that are bought and sold second-hand for some reason).

If you are about to drink a $3,500 bottle of wine, you have to think for just a minute about this option instead: Drink a $100 bottle of wine that is about as good, but from a less renowned chateau. And deploy the other $3,400 to pay for malaria-preventing mosquito nets in Africa.

What makes $100 an acceptable amount? I have no idea. I guess it's because I'm not as morally developed as Neil Irwin.

If the person who drinks a $3,500 bottle of wine also donates $1 million to charity is he still a monster? I guess so, because that's what Neil Irwin said. I'm glad we have his clear and irrefutable arguments to help us understand what's right and wrong.

How the Media Deceive

Sarah Kliff's title is a little more neutral, but if you read this story, and think about it, it's clear that one title is misleading and the other is accurate. It's true that both title's are technically correct, but one leaves out relevant information (the fact that Maryland's rates are already pretty low), and, therefore, provides no information about how Obamacare will affect premiums.

I would've given the paper a pass if it said something like "Rates could fall by as much as X %".

They Just Don't Understand Nuance

I've noticed a tendency among Leftists to equate doing nothing about an issue to being against that particular issue.  I had a friend from Latin America who hated George W. Bush. Incredulously, I asked why he would hate George W. Bush since he barely did anything to Latin America. His response, "Exactly."

The Left wants government to do stuff for them. If Republicans don't believe the government should provide money to certain things, then they take that as Republicans being against them. Look at the contraception debate. I, and fellow Libertarians I know, believe the government should not have a regulation mandating free contraceptives for women. It's not because we're against their use, we just don't believe that's in the government's purview.

The Left distorts that opinion and says we're against contraceptives and against women's rights and we hate women.

The newest piece of evidence is Eduardo Porter's piece.  In it he says, "But there is an odd inconsistency in conservatives’ stance on procreation: many also support some of the harshest cuts in memory to government benefit programs for families and children." Just because we don't want the government to bestow extra privileges on certain people for certain activities doesn't mean we're anti-children.  There's no inconsistency in reality, only in the small minds of Leftists who think everything is black and white--you're either with us, or your against us.

I remember when they claimed they were the party of nuance.

President Obama Mischaracterizes Tax Burdens

I could only make it through a couple paragraphs of President Obama's speech. Eventually, I realized how lengthy it was and gave up. Not before I read this, though.

"We changed a tax code too skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families."

In what way was the tax code skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families? The United States had the most progressive tax code in the world at the time, and it's even more so now. Not only is it inaccurate, it doesn't make any sense.  How can a tax code possibly be skewed towards those who pay higher rates and higher dollar figures?  Plus, "at the expense of working families?" The tax code isn't zero sum.

Who wrote this?

"Research" on Middle-Out

I confess I have no idea what the Middle-Out Theory. I'll probably add a post soon on that.  But this summary of "research" showing that it works is awful. Let's take them one by one.

First, the author cites correlation, but unfortunately for him correlation does not imply causation. Economic growth could cause income equality or something else could cause both.

Second, he cites the large percentage of entrepreneurs that come from the middle class. Well, they might come from the middle class, but I bet the money that funds them comes from the wealthy.

Third, he says that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to spend money and spending money helps the economy. I believe even Krugman only believes this is true when resources are unused (a recession) not necessarily when times are good. So this may be evidence.

Finally, he says that because middle class people try to keep up with wealthy people and spend themselves into debt, then it's better if wealthy people just didn't have the money. This sort of logic is twisted. Just because some people can't control themselves doesn't mean you should punish others.

And the Record for Most Time on Meet the Press without Answering a Single Question...

I listened to July 14th's Meet the Press, and I was disgusted by the poor job David Gregory did by letting his guests, namely Harry Reid, get away without answering his questions.

Harry Reid (2005): "Senate rules can only be changed by a 2/3's vote in the Senate or 67 Senators."

Gregory asked Reid why it was bad to change the Senate rules with a simple majority when he was in the minority but it's ok now.  The answer: Republicans filibuster more now and filibuster different things. Notice how this ignores the concreteness of his original claim, he doesn't mention the rules. Instead, he just filibusters.

Gregory: The Immigration law will result in continuing numbers of illegal immigrants in the country, not solving this problem.

Reid: Republicans hate Obamacare.

Gregory: Stay on immigration.

Reid: Many Republicans support the law.

Again, does not address the main problem those Republicans who are against it have.

Gregory: Is it reasonable to restrict, to some extent, late-term abortions?

Reid: Republicans blocked a Transportation, etc. Bill to prevent women from getting contraceptives.

Gregory: Answer my question.

Reid: We shouldn't talk about fringe issues.

Gregory: Answer my question.

Reid: We should talk about more important issues.

This interview was infuriating. Avoid at all costs.

Economics is not a Religion

Mark Buchanan is far off base here. He's basically arguing that Economist pass themselves off as objective analysts when in reality they're extremely subjective. But at worst, what he's arguing is that Economists should include in their analyses the things he believes are good and bad--"social disruption of a community," democracy, political power of corporations, and income inequality. At best, he's saying Economic analysis doesn't go deep enough into the system's complexities.

A good Economist doesn't make value judgments as Buchanan wants. He's not going to say a policy is bad because it hinders democracy because that presumes that democracy is "good."  A good economist might say what effect something has on democracy without mentioning whether that's good or bad. That determination is for others to make.

Buchanan's right, though, that economists focus on the more immediate effects and ignore the deeper. That's only because the complexity of the world is infinite, and the deeper you go, the harder is the analysis. Maybe economists need to do a better job describing the limits of their research, but all economists know that there could be more to the story. Indeed, economists are much better at looking at the unseen effects than most other people because that's what they're trained to do (see the Broken Window Fallacy).