One of the favorite stories among economists (especially libertarian economists) is the Simon-Ehrlich wager. Ehrlich was an alarmist who constantly predicted the end of the world as we knew it, while Simon was a cool-headed economist that forced Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. Simon argued that if Ehrlich really believed that the world was doomed then the price of commodities should only go up. He let Ehrlich choose five commodities and if the price didn't go up, then Ehrlich lost.
Now we have this story worrying about running out of obscure metals. Perhaps there are no substitutes for these metals, but I would bet my own money, that our progress isn't in as much danger as these alarmists claim.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Anti-Free Trade?
In the past, I have been sympathetic to the Tea Party. Their priorities aligned with mine. Lately I realized that the Tea Party seems to be identified with conservative social issues, though, and it made me wonder when this became a big part of the Tea Party. As I recall, the whole thing got started as a reaction to high debt levels and increased government control over our lives. While I generally agree with conservatives on social issues, these issues are not my primary concern right now, and I think they scare away a lot of people who would otherwise side with libertarians so I was unhappy with the new themes.
Now, I read that the Tea Party may be against free trade. If that's the case, then I'll have to abandon them altogether. Of course, this article doesn't really give many details, so it may not be true at all. They basically just posit that the Tea Party is skeptical of free trade, but don't name any people or a party platform or issue statement or anything. They then guess at some reasons why this may be the case. Hopefully it's untrue.
Now, I read that the Tea Party may be against free trade. If that's the case, then I'll have to abandon them altogether. Of course, this article doesn't really give many details, so it may not be true at all. They basically just posit that the Tea Party is skeptical of free trade, but don't name any people or a party platform or issue statement or anything. They then guess at some reasons why this may be the case. Hopefully it's untrue.
Prove It, Krugman
Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed about how terrible inequality is, but he forgot to make the case that inequality actually causes anything negative. Most of his argument is that inequality coexists with a bad economy.
Well, no. First of all, even if you look only at the direct impact of rising inequality on middle-class Americans, it is indeed a very big deal. Beyond that, inequality probably played an important role in creating our economic mess, and has played a crucial role in our failure to clean it up.
What a damning indictment of inequality. It's a very big deal. (unadulterated opinion). Inequality probably played an important role... Well, if it probably did, we better get rid of it right away.
Inequality is rising so fast over the past six years it has been as big a drag on ordinary American incomes as poor economic performance.
How can inequality be a drag on incomes? Inequality doesn't cause lower incomes. Lower incomes cause inequality. What is he talking about?
The single argument he makes that inequality is bad, is that rich people make bad laws. So inequality creates more bad laws.
I encourage you to carefully read this column. You might think that when a Nobel prize-winning economist makes a statement about how inequality is harmful, he might have some economic arguments to back him up.
Well, no. First of all, even if you look only at the direct impact of rising inequality on middle-class Americans, it is indeed a very big deal. Beyond that, inequality probably played an important role in creating our economic mess, and has played a crucial role in our failure to clean it up.
What a damning indictment of inequality. It's a very big deal. (unadulterated opinion). Inequality probably played an important role... Well, if it probably did, we better get rid of it right away.
Inequality is rising so fast over the past six years it has been as big a drag on ordinary American incomes as poor economic performance.
How can inequality be a drag on incomes? Inequality doesn't cause lower incomes. Lower incomes cause inequality. What is he talking about?
The single argument he makes that inequality is bad, is that rich people make bad laws. So inequality creates more bad laws.
I encourage you to carefully read this column. You might think that when a Nobel prize-winning economist makes a statement about how inequality is harmful, he might have some economic arguments to back him up.
It's Official. Obama Lied.
Obama and his administration could have tried to make the case that his statement "If you like your plan, you can keep it." wasn't a lie.
Unfortunately, the self-proclaimed neutral watchdog Politifact (in reality, they're probably a little left-leaning) named it the lie of the year.
It's not just that his statement was false, but he deliberately used a false statement to make sure this reform passed. If he hadn't it would have been even more difficult than it was.
Unfortunately, the self-proclaimed neutral watchdog Politifact (in reality, they're probably a little left-leaning) named it the lie of the year.
It's not just that his statement was false, but he deliberately used a false statement to make sure this reform passed. If he hadn't it would have been even more difficult than it was.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Laws should have Expiration Dates
On a tech podcast I was listening to, the hosts (all leftists) were talking about the Obamacare website troubles, and one suggested that we should just try single-payer or socialized healthcare (I forget his actual suggestion), and just see how it works out.
In principle, I'm in favor of experimentation (even to this extent), but the problem is that we as a country can't just experiment. How many times can you remember us really assessing whether a policy was working and then scrapping what we had? Welfare reform, I suppose, is the best example, but Medicare, Social Security, food stamps all work about the same way they did at their implementation. The problem with these programs is that some people receive benefits at others' cost and so when it's time to reassess, there's a vocal group of people unwilling to change the system. Even if on balance it's hurting the whole country.
Trial policies don't work.
In principle, I'm in favor of experimentation (even to this extent), but the problem is that we as a country can't just experiment. How many times can you remember us really assessing whether a policy was working and then scrapping what we had? Welfare reform, I suppose, is the best example, but Medicare, Social Security, food stamps all work about the same way they did at their implementation. The problem with these programs is that some people receive benefits at others' cost and so when it's time to reassess, there's a vocal group of people unwilling to change the system. Even if on balance it's hurting the whole country.
Trial policies don't work.
Liberals Avoid Reason in Favor of Moral Assertions
On last week's Left, Right, and Center, (at about 23:30) left-leaning host Matt Miller asked the question, "What is a decent minimum reward for work?" His assertion is that no matter who you are, if you are employed, meaning you provide a service for money, you deserve a certain amount of money. I was dumbstruck when I heard this. If this is what the Left believes, there's no way we can ever win this argument. This opinion is not based in reason, it is an emotional appeal.
Why should a person, no matter what he does, what he contributes, who he is make a minimum amount of money? A person should earn what someone else is willing to pay and they're willing to accept. They should earn an agreed upon wage, not a wage that some third person declares arbitrarily.
It is an indisputable fact that for any service you're willing to render, an employer would be willing to pay only so much. To assert a wage that everyone should be paid regardless of that price has no basis in science or research only in grandstanding.
If you want to argue that morality and humanity require us to provide more for the indigent, fine, we can have that discussion; I welcome it. But to just assert that everybody deserves a certain minimum wage because they're human beings, regardless of what they're actually contributing, sidesteps that issue with an opinion that can't be challenged and those kinds of assertions should not be part of a reasoned debate.
Why should a person, no matter what he does, what he contributes, who he is make a minimum amount of money? A person should earn what someone else is willing to pay and they're willing to accept. They should earn an agreed upon wage, not a wage that some third person declares arbitrarily.
It is an indisputable fact that for any service you're willing to render, an employer would be willing to pay only so much. To assert a wage that everyone should be paid regardless of that price has no basis in science or research only in grandstanding.
If you want to argue that morality and humanity require us to provide more for the indigent, fine, we can have that discussion; I welcome it. But to just assert that everybody deserves a certain minimum wage because they're human beings, regardless of what they're actually contributing, sidesteps that issue with an opinion that can't be challenged and those kinds of assertions should not be part of a reasoned debate.
Obama's Foreign Policy
Commanding the flags be flown at half staff for Mandela while giving no such honor to Margaret Thatcher is disgraceful. Again, Obama shows that his ideology is the most important thing to him. Now, I don't want to diminish Mandela's legacy. Post-imprisonment Mandela was probably one of the best human beings who lived (yes, better than Thatcher). To adopt a philosophy of forgiveness and love while suffering degrading and dehumanizing treatment shows indescribable character.
If you had to name the US's closest ally over the past century, whom would you name? I'd have to say England. England's longest serving peace-time prime minister, the first female prime minister of the UK, Thatcher helped restore England's economy and usher in the end of communism. She was a great friend to the US and we to her. The flags should have been lowered to honor her.
This is just another blemish on Obama's foreign policy. He's had one, potentially two foreign policy success--being commander in chief when Bin Laden was captured, and possibly presiding over the end of chemical weapons in Syria. The latter of course, he didn't organize but rather lent his support to others' ideas.
The most damning fact of Obama's foreign policy, does the US have better relations with any country now than we did when he took office? Especially with our allies (the UK, Eastern Europe, Egypt, Israel), the answer must be no. Even the nations where our relations were awful (Russia, Iran, Syria) are no better now than they were.
If you had to name the US's closest ally over the past century, whom would you name? I'd have to say England. England's longest serving peace-time prime minister, the first female prime minister of the UK, Thatcher helped restore England's economy and usher in the end of communism. She was a great friend to the US and we to her. The flags should have been lowered to honor her.
This is just another blemish on Obama's foreign policy. He's had one, potentially two foreign policy success--being commander in chief when Bin Laden was captured, and possibly presiding over the end of chemical weapons in Syria. The latter of course, he didn't organize but rather lent his support to others' ideas.
The most damning fact of Obama's foreign policy, does the US have better relations with any country now than we did when he took office? Especially with our allies (the UK, Eastern Europe, Egypt, Israel), the answer must be no. Even the nations where our relations were awful (Russia, Iran, Syria) are no better now than they were.
Monday, November 25, 2013
The Left is More Convincing
This is the video of Harry Reid criticizing Republicans about doing away with the filibuster. Here is a series of clips with many Democrats doing the same. Now, I'm not going to talk about the hypocrisy here; that's already been discussed, and as many people have mentioned, it usually goes both ways.
What I want to point out is that the Democrats in these clips made compelling arguments. They sound sincere in their defense of the rules as they stood, the importance of minority rights. They employ several powerful arguments and phrases. This is not the only example of them using powerful rhetoric. What's interesting to me is that the Democrats are so much better at this than Republicans. Clearly, the Democrats didn't really believe what they were saying, but they could fake it.
It's very hard to go up against people who sound sincere when arguing for principles.
What I want to point out is that the Democrats in these clips made compelling arguments. They sound sincere in their defense of the rules as they stood, the importance of minority rights. They employ several powerful arguments and phrases. This is not the only example of them using powerful rhetoric. What's interesting to me is that the Democrats are so much better at this than Republicans. Clearly, the Democrats didn't really believe what they were saying, but they could fake it.
It's very hard to go up against people who sound sincere when arguing for principles.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Hurricane Katrina Analogy
The left is up in arms about the media comparing the health care debacle to Katrina. Ezra Klein Matt Yglesias.
Yes, Katrina was a colossal tragedy and many died while the botched role out hasn't claimed anyone's life. The effects are not comparable. But these two are missing the point. What is analogous are the President's reactions and the possible political ramifications. Bush's reaction to Katrina basically ended his presidency (he should have just ignored federal law and done whatever it took to aid Louisiana; of course, though they give President Obama a pass for flouting the law, I'm confident they would have brought impeachment charges against Bush). Like Bush, Obama's mishandling of the healthcare rollout could effectively end his presidency as well.
Another difference is that Bush did not cause Hurricane Katrina, and I'm not sure how much his administration was at fault compared to the leadership of Louisiana. In the healthcare fiasco, President Obama signed it into law, defended it, misrepresented it, and ran the administration tasked with enacting it.
Though Klein makes an argument that Obamacare is more like Medicare Part D, and he points out articles and offers quotes that back up his story, some of these quotes sound like square quotes from people already opposed to Bush. The "hideous complexity", "tears of bewildered frustration". I have a hard time with this, because honestly, I don't remember reading about the problems at the time. Looking at these quotes now, they're hard to believe because Medicare Part D has been a big success. Maybe the ACA will end up the same (but I doubt it considering the ACA does much, much more than Medicare Part D did).
I especially like this from Paul Krugman "We are ruled by bunglers. Every major venture by the Bush administration, from the occupation of Iraq to the Medicare drug program, has turned into an epic saga of incompetence." I believe President Obama has shown a lot of incompetence himself, but I doubt Paul Krugman would ever admit it.
Yes, Katrina was a colossal tragedy and many died while the botched role out hasn't claimed anyone's life. The effects are not comparable. But these two are missing the point. What is analogous are the President's reactions and the possible political ramifications. Bush's reaction to Katrina basically ended his presidency (he should have just ignored federal law and done whatever it took to aid Louisiana; of course, though they give President Obama a pass for flouting the law, I'm confident they would have brought impeachment charges against Bush). Like Bush, Obama's mishandling of the healthcare rollout could effectively end his presidency as well.
Another difference is that Bush did not cause Hurricane Katrina, and I'm not sure how much his administration was at fault compared to the leadership of Louisiana. In the healthcare fiasco, President Obama signed it into law, defended it, misrepresented it, and ran the administration tasked with enacting it.
Though Klein makes an argument that Obamacare is more like Medicare Part D, and he points out articles and offers quotes that back up his story, some of these quotes sound like square quotes from people already opposed to Bush. The "hideous complexity", "tears of bewildered frustration". I have a hard time with this, because honestly, I don't remember reading about the problems at the time. Looking at these quotes now, they're hard to believe because Medicare Part D has been a big success. Maybe the ACA will end up the same (but I doubt it considering the ACA does much, much more than Medicare Part D did).
I especially like this from Paul Krugman "We are ruled by bunglers. Every major venture by the Bush administration, from the occupation of Iraq to the Medicare drug program, has turned into an epic saga of incompetence." I believe President Obama has shown a lot of incompetence himself, but I doubt Paul Krugman would ever admit it.
Redefinitions
In my last post, I mentioned how the left is always trying to redefine words and concepts. One example is subsidy.
In this post, Bill Gardner argues that Ted Cruz's health insurance is subsidized. In the pre-redefinition world, a subsidy was when the government gave you someone else's money to promote a certain activity. This is the opposite of a tax which is when the government takes money from you. The best way to describe the treatment of the health insurance exemption is that it is a different tax rate on different types of income. Direct wage income is taxed at the normal rate, while income paid out as a benefit is not taxed at all. Note, it is not subsidized. You could only call it subsidized if you believe the government has first claim to that money because it taxes wage income at a higher rate.
Here's a challenge. If the government taxed in-kind benefits at a higher rate than the marginal rate, would anyone say that wage income was subsidized? It's exactly the same situation.
I wish I could find it now, but several years back, there was an article that claimed that by keeping the gasoline tax low, the government subsidized SUVs and other low mileage vehicles. That may have been the first time I realized they were trying to warp definitions.
A few points:
Just because I don't believe it's technically a subsidy, doesn't mean I agree with it. I think we'd probably be better off if health insurance benefits were taxed at the same rate as wage income and there was no mortgage interest deduction.
In this post, Bill Gardner argues that Ted Cruz's health insurance is subsidized. In the pre-redefinition world, a subsidy was when the government gave you someone else's money to promote a certain activity. This is the opposite of a tax which is when the government takes money from you. The best way to describe the treatment of the health insurance exemption is that it is a different tax rate on different types of income. Direct wage income is taxed at the normal rate, while income paid out as a benefit is not taxed at all. Note, it is not subsidized. You could only call it subsidized if you believe the government has first claim to that money because it taxes wage income at a higher rate.
Here's a challenge. If the government taxed in-kind benefits at a higher rate than the marginal rate, would anyone say that wage income was subsidized? It's exactly the same situation.
I wish I could find it now, but several years back, there was an article that claimed that by keeping the gasoline tax low, the government subsidized SUVs and other low mileage vehicles. That may have been the first time I realized they were trying to warp definitions.
A few points:
Just because I don't believe it's technically a subsidy, doesn't mean I agree with it. I think we'd probably be better off if health insurance benefits were taxed at the same rate as wage income and there was no mortgage interest deduction.
Monday, November 11, 2013
The Battle over the Definition of Insurance
As the left is apt to do, they are trying to redefine insurance. Actually, "trying" is probably the wrong word, as they've mostly done it. As John Goodman has said often on his blog and Mankiw alludes to here, in the past insurance was designed so that each participant paid his expected costs. This means that if I had a 50/50 chance of a $10,000 health condition, I paid $5,000 over the long-run. Presumably, someone else would do the same (or many, many people). On average, the insurance company would just about break even (not quite), and the half of the insured who had the bad coin flip weren't bankrupted by chance.
In this design, the lucky subsidize the unlucky, but everyone pays his expected costs. This is still how most insurance works-automobile, life, travel, shipping, everything but health.
In the past decade (which is about as far back as I can remember for this debate), the left has argued that insurance is meant for the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy, which just isn't true. That's no longer insurance.
John Cohn says men should subsidize women and E.J. Dionne says pro-lifers should be happy to subsidize women's higher insurance.
I strongly recommend reading Mankiw's post. I heartily agree. I still don't know how to handle the genetic issues that are out of anyone's control, but we should all be able to agree that we shouldn't subsidize choices that increase total costs. If someone makes decisions that increase their own personal costs, they should be responsible for them, they shouldn't be spread across society.
We should be very wary of liberals re-defining words. They're very adamant about it--subsidies, insurance, fair are all examples.
In this design, the lucky subsidize the unlucky, but everyone pays his expected costs. This is still how most insurance works-automobile, life, travel, shipping, everything but health.
In the past decade (which is about as far back as I can remember for this debate), the left has argued that insurance is meant for the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy, which just isn't true. That's no longer insurance.
John Cohn says men should subsidize women and E.J. Dionne says pro-lifers should be happy to subsidize women's higher insurance.
I strongly recommend reading Mankiw's post. I heartily agree. I still don't know how to handle the genetic issues that are out of anyone's control, but we should all be able to agree that we shouldn't subsidize choices that increase total costs. If someone makes decisions that increase their own personal costs, they should be responsible for them, they shouldn't be spread across society.
We should be very wary of liberals re-defining words. They're very adamant about it--subsidies, insurance, fair are all examples.
Anti-Science Left
I've posted before about how the left often criticizes the right for being anti-science. There are a few areas where the left consistently ignores scientific research and results. One of them is Genetically modified foods. It's likely because they're against big business, big ag, and think everything that isn't all natural, open range, organic, pesticide free, herbicide free, and grown in your own back yard is bad for you.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Even Liberals Don't get Obamacare
You may have seen this clip where Jon Stewart asks Kathleen Sebelius about the health care law. Jon Stewart earns his bread by pointing out the foolishness of politics (mainly Republicans) and mildly advocates liberal agenda items. Him having issues with Obamacare reveals how poor a job the administration has done selling this law. (You could say it's because Obamacare is a disaster, but Stewart doesn't even understand it, as I'm sure most Democrats do.) Basically, my theory is that most Democrat voters approve of Obamacare because it expands coverage, and that's all they care about. They don't care about the details of how it's done, or all the other rules that have been put in place to regulate the market. More people will be insured, therefore, it's a great law.
Secondly, I don't understand how Kathleen Sebelius could be so bad at answering these questions. If I had Sebelius's job, I would say that, while we could delay the individual mandate, it would dismantle the rest of the health care law. By doing this, X million people wouldn't get coverage in the first year of implementation, insurance companies would decide not to participate after next year (they're already locked in for 2014). It would be a huge disaster (for the healthcare law).
All they have to do is convince people who are already inclined to support Obamacare, and they can't do that!
Secondly, I don't understand how Kathleen Sebelius could be so bad at answering these questions. If I had Sebelius's job, I would say that, while we could delay the individual mandate, it would dismantle the rest of the health care law. By doing this, X million people wouldn't get coverage in the first year of implementation, insurance companies would decide not to participate after next year (they're already locked in for 2014). It would be a huge disaster (for the healthcare law).
All they have to do is convince people who are already inclined to support Obamacare, and they can't do that!
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Global Warming Slowdown
Rush Limbaugh had a great point on his radio show recently. Now that the Global Warmists have admitted the fact that the world hasn't warmed over the past 15 years, they should be celebratory. If global warming is bad, then no global warming should be good, right? They can still be worried over the long run, believing the world will continue to heat up, but now there's a chance things won't be so bad. They don't see any cause for celebration.
This is like the slowdown in health costs. Liberals are very excited, even though it's possible it might be short-term. They're trying to convince themselves, though, that it's permanent (and likely due to Obamacare).
In both cases, there was an unexpected change in the trend, and in both cases, the change was inexplicable. Why the different reactions?
Liberals have a vested interest in global warming. If it doesn't happen, they look like fools, they stop receiving government grants for researching it, and they lose what they crave: control over other people's lives.
One of the many criticisms Republicans have over the global warming debate is that they don't believe the models. This new development supports that criticism. If scientists don't know why the world has not heated over the past 15 years, their model is missing something important. Republicans think that the climate is too complex for current methods to predict--there's too many interactions between the separate components. We don't really know how the world will react to warmer temperatures; it may have some kind of self-regulator. Who knows?
This is like the slowdown in health costs. Liberals are very excited, even though it's possible it might be short-term. They're trying to convince themselves, though, that it's permanent (and likely due to Obamacare).
In both cases, there was an unexpected change in the trend, and in both cases, the change was inexplicable. Why the different reactions?
Liberals have a vested interest in global warming. If it doesn't happen, they look like fools, they stop receiving government grants for researching it, and they lose what they crave: control over other people's lives.
One of the many criticisms Republicans have over the global warming debate is that they don't believe the models. This new development supports that criticism. If scientists don't know why the world has not heated over the past 15 years, their model is missing something important. Republicans think that the climate is too complex for current methods to predict--there's too many interactions between the separate components. We don't really know how the world will react to warmer temperatures; it may have some kind of self-regulator. Who knows?
Democrats Admit Actions Politically-Motivated
The news isn't that their actions are politically motivated. The news is that they admitted it.
Democrats continuously claim that their actions are noble--they're doing the best for the American people. Those evil Republicans, however, always have nefarious political motivations. If you follow the news closely, you would have noticed how frequently they brought up Mitch McConnell saying his main goal was to defeat President Obama.
Well, here's Democrat James Clyburn admitting that they designed the ACA to help them win elections. Now Republicans have the opportunity to take the moral high ground. Why wasn't the sole goal of this legislation to insure the uninsured and bring costs down--to help people? How many people have to go uninsured so that the Democrats can win in 2014? How many people are going to die for their blatant politicking?
I expect to hear next to nothing about this development from Republicans, from the media, and from the Democrats who endlessly criticized McConnell.
Democrats continuously claim that their actions are noble--they're doing the best for the American people. Those evil Republicans, however, always have nefarious political motivations. If you follow the news closely, you would have noticed how frequently they brought up Mitch McConnell saying his main goal was to defeat President Obama.
Well, here's Democrat James Clyburn admitting that they designed the ACA to help them win elections. Now Republicans have the opportunity to take the moral high ground. Why wasn't the sole goal of this legislation to insure the uninsured and bring costs down--to help people? How many people have to go uninsured so that the Democrats can win in 2014? How many people are going to die for their blatant politicking?
I expect to hear next to nothing about this development from Republicans, from the media, and from the Democrats who endlessly criticized McConnell.
Monday, August 5, 2013
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 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.
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 %".
I would've given the paper a pass if it said something like "Rates could fall by as much as X %".
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
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).
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).
Bad Analogy II - Tom Toles
Ezra Klein thinks this Tom Toles cartoon is a perfect representation of what's going on with the Healthcare law. Bad analogies strike again!
Democrats, on their own, passed the Health Care Law. The Republicans have done nothing to harm the operations of what was passed. What the Republicans have done is refused to fix some of the clear mistakes of the bill. Also, they have refused to provide more funding than what was allocated by the bill itself.
A better (more accurate, but still critical of Republicans) cartoon would have a large, complex machine in the background, spilling oil, belching out smoke, with screws falling out of it. Problems that hinder but don't incapacitate. A Donkey is looking at it through a window, banging on the wall with a wrench, while an Elephant is just staring at it saying, "This piece of junk will never work!"
Democrats, on their own, passed the Health Care Law. The Republicans have done nothing to harm the operations of what was passed. What the Republicans have done is refused to fix some of the clear mistakes of the bill. Also, they have refused to provide more funding than what was allocated by the bill itself.
A better (more accurate, but still critical of Republicans) cartoon would have a large, complex machine in the background, spilling oil, belching out smoke, with screws falling out of it. Problems that hinder but don't incapacitate. A Donkey is looking at it through a window, banging on the wall with a wrench, while an Elephant is just staring at it saying, "This piece of junk will never work!"
Bad Analogy
Liberals have been very good at creating analogies that seemingly make their opinions look reasonable while criticizing their opponents. But often, their analogies don't reflect the actual situation.
Norman Ornstein has painted a picture to help him make the case that the Supreme Court's Voting Rights decision was wrong-headed. But it doesn't hold water.
The court has basically said, you can't more carefully scrutinize this one intersection because of its traffic patterns 40 years ago, you must treat every intersection based on today's data.
The Left has a tendency to oversimplify.
Norman Ornstein has painted a picture to help him make the case that the Supreme Court's Voting Rights decision was wrong-headed. But it doesn't hold water.
Imagine an intersection with a long history of high-speed car crashes, injuries and fatalities. Authorities put up a traffic light and a speed camera — and the accidents and injuries plummet. A few years later, authorities declare “mission accomplished” and remove the light and speed camera. No surprise, the high-speed crashes and fatalities resume almost immediately.A better analogy, one that captures the argument from the Justices, would be an intersection that 40 years ago, was extremely dangerous, so traffic control was added. This development helped the situation. Now, 40 years later, lots of things have changed--cars are safer, people may drive differently, pedestrians may be more careful, but we don't know because those traffic controls are still in place. Now, they want to add a left-turn signal, or take away a crosswalk that isn't used anymore. The neighboring intersections have extremely similar traffic patterns, actually, they're moderately more dangerous than this one, but the city government requires a year-waiting period to consider any changes for this intersection, while that intersection can be repainted over night.
The court has basically said, you can't more carefully scrutinize this one intersection because of its traffic patterns 40 years ago, you must treat every intersection based on today's data.
The Left has a tendency to oversimplify.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
United States v. Windsor - A Summary
I read through the full opinion, and here are my takeaways
Kennedy's Opinion
The best word to describe the writing is incoherent. It seems like he has two main reasons to strike down Section 3 of the DoMA: federalism and Due Process. For neither reason did he provide a logical, organized, detailed argument. He instead seemed to switch back and forth between the two reasons. He talked about how the federal government shouldn't have the power to put asunder what states have decided, and he often used emotionally charged words like humiliate and demean to describe the purpose of the legislation.
This was not a good judicial opinion. It was both poorly written and constructed. It would not convince anyone. After reading it, it seems like Kennedy wanted to strike down Section 3, and just had to offer up some defense, any defense of doing so. Kennedy also went on at length about how the only reason the legislation was passed was to consign gays into a sub-class. His not acknowledging that any other reason could exist or unwillingness to give the legislators and the President the benefit of the doubt is extremely disheartening for someone who is supposed to be learned and able to look from multiple points of view.
Roberts's Dissent
Roberts only defends the legislators and President by arguing that there were reasons other than the nefarious ones Kennedy discusses to pass the DoMA. The remainder of his dissent is an attempt to limit the scope of the majority opinion.
Scalia's Dissent
Basically, Scalia argued only that the Supreme Court should never have considered the case because the Executive branch wasn't defending it.
Scalia's opinion was extremely well-written. It was persuasive (even though I don't agree), unlike Kennedy's. He was also upset with the quality of the majority's opinion, several times making tongue-in-cheek remarks.
Here are some excellent quotes.
It should be noted that Scalia's opinion would have the same effect on the plaintiff as the majority, that she would win the case, and effectively Section 3 would be struck down.
Alito's Dissent
Alito argued that Section 3 of the DoMA had a purpose other than to "demean" and "humiliate" and that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause only applies to rights that are long-lived and traditional, which gay marriage is not. They agreed with Kennedy, that the case should be heard.
My View
I don't see how giving people the state and federal benefits of marriage only if they sign a contract with someone of the opposite sex doesn't violate the fifth amendment. You're giving some people benefits that you're not giving others. I also think that the federal government does not have the right to overrule the laws of the states as to marriage.
However, I also believe that this has the same effect on multiple marriages or incestual marriages. Constitutionally, I don't see how those can continue to be outlawed.
As to Scalia's opinion, I think the Supreme Court had to get involved because Congress wanted to defend it. Congress should have as much right to defend a law they passed as the President. The Constitution gives the power to the Executive only, but I believe this was just to assign responsibility. If there was a dispute as to who should defend, then the Executive would win, but if the Executive decided it didn't want to defend it, then as Kennedy said, it would give the Executive an extra veto power.
Kennedy's Opinion
The best word to describe the writing is incoherent. It seems like he has two main reasons to strike down Section 3 of the DoMA: federalism and Due Process. For neither reason did he provide a logical, organized, detailed argument. He instead seemed to switch back and forth between the two reasons. He talked about how the federal government shouldn't have the power to put asunder what states have decided, and he often used emotionally charged words like humiliate and demean to describe the purpose of the legislation.
This was not a good judicial opinion. It was both poorly written and constructed. It would not convince anyone. After reading it, it seems like Kennedy wanted to strike down Section 3, and just had to offer up some defense, any defense of doing so. Kennedy also went on at length about how the only reason the legislation was passed was to consign gays into a sub-class. His not acknowledging that any other reason could exist or unwillingness to give the legislators and the President the benefit of the doubt is extremely disheartening for someone who is supposed to be learned and able to look from multiple points of view.
Roberts's Dissent
Roberts only defends the legislators and President by arguing that there were reasons other than the nefarious ones Kennedy discusses to pass the DoMA. The remainder of his dissent is an attempt to limit the scope of the majority opinion.
Scalia's Dissent
Basically, Scalia argued only that the Supreme Court should never have considered the case because the Executive branch wasn't defending it.
Scalia's opinion was extremely well-written. It was persuasive (even though I don't agree), unlike Kennedy's. He was also upset with the quality of the majority's opinion, several times making tongue-in-cheek remarks.
Here are some excellent quotes.
It should be noted that Scalia's opinion would have the same effect on the plaintiff as the majority, that she would win the case, and effectively Section 3 would be struck down.
Alito's Dissent
Alito argued that Section 3 of the DoMA had a purpose other than to "demean" and "humiliate" and that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause only applies to rights that are long-lived and traditional, which gay marriage is not. They agreed with Kennedy, that the case should be heard.
My View
I don't see how giving people the state and federal benefits of marriage only if they sign a contract with someone of the opposite sex doesn't violate the fifth amendment. You're giving some people benefits that you're not giving others. I also think that the federal government does not have the right to overrule the laws of the states as to marriage.
However, I also believe that this has the same effect on multiple marriages or incestual marriages. Constitutionally, I don't see how those can continue to be outlawed.
As to Scalia's opinion, I think the Supreme Court had to get involved because Congress wanted to defend it. Congress should have as much right to defend a law they passed as the President. The Constitution gives the power to the Executive only, but I believe this was just to assign responsibility. If there was a dispute as to who should defend, then the Executive would win, but if the Executive decided it didn't want to defend it, then as Kennedy said, it would give the Executive an extra veto power.
United States vs. Windsor - Scalia Quotes
As I discussed, Scalia's opinion was extremely well-written. Here are some memorable lines.
"the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive's determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court's desire to blurt out its view of the law." Basically saying that the Court wanted a reason to throw out part of the DoMA and describe why.
"the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law's opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited." The key word is can. It seems to not matter what the original intent was or if it has positives along with possible negatives.
"I promise you this: the only thing that will 'confine' the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
"the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by 'bare...desire to harm' couples in same-sex marriages."
"the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive's determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court's desire to blurt out its view of the law." Basically saying that the Court wanted a reason to throw out part of the DoMA and describe why.
"the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law's opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited." The key word is can. It seems to not matter what the original intent was or if it has positives along with possible negatives.
"I promise you this: the only thing that will 'confine' the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
"the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by 'bare...desire to harm' couples in same-sex marriages."
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
This is not Democracy
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos (June 30, 2013), they featured temporary liberal hero Wendy Davis. Of course, these encomia shy away from the details of the issue she was filibustering.
Anyway, listening to her interview, I was struck when she said (at about 2:20 in this video) "I believe in the power of democracy." That's just a bald-faced lie. Her actions had nothing to do with democracy. You only filibuster when your side is going to lose a vote. Democrats in recent years have used several methods to curtail democracy (Republicans have specialized in the filibuster). Legislators have skipped town to keep the legislature from having quorum to act, and in this case using a mob to keep anything from getting done. These are not examples of democracy.
Anyway, listening to her interview, I was struck when she said (at about 2:20 in this video) "I believe in the power of democracy." That's just a bald-faced lie. Her actions had nothing to do with democracy. You only filibuster when your side is going to lose a vote. Democrats in recent years have used several methods to curtail democracy (Republicans have specialized in the filibuster). Legislators have skipped town to keep the legislature from having quorum to act, and in this case using a mob to keep anything from getting done. These are not examples of democracy.
Uncharacteristic Comment from Putin
This is a little old, now, but does anyone else find it odd that Putin called us friends and asked Snowden to stop revealing information that could harm us? I can't remember any time that he's taken the United States' side on any issue or in any way acted like our friend, but here he says this. I wonder what Obama said to him to make him side with us.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
For Our Own Good
Everyday we are confronted with new ways the Left wants to make our lives better by restricting our freedoms. Always it's for our own good. Many conservatives call this the nanny state. Outlawing large sodas, forcing healthy young people to buy insurance, forcing healthy young people to buy insurance that covers things they'll never require, forcing us to participate in a government-run retirement plan.
I could go on and on. It's nice, though, that their benevolence is still restrained by their own self-interest. None other than freshman Senator Elizabeth Warren, the progressive caucus's biggest coup in the 2012 election is now foregoing the "We're doing this for your own good" mantra with regards to direct depositing Social Security checks. The argument for direct deposit is that many checks get lost in the mail leaving seniors without their deserved funds.
Elizabeth Warren, however, believes that people should have the right to choose how they receive their money. I imagine her new found respect for people's liberty has nothing to do with the paper lobby, who reside mostly in Warren's constituency, and donate extensively to her campaigns (she was the largest recipient in 2012 other than the Presidential candidates), who would stand to lose more of their already depleted customer base.
I guess in this case, what's best for most of America is not as desirable as what's good for Warren and her constituents.
I could go on and on. It's nice, though, that their benevolence is still restrained by their own self-interest. None other than freshman Senator Elizabeth Warren, the progressive caucus's biggest coup in the 2012 election is now foregoing the "We're doing this for your own good" mantra with regards to direct depositing Social Security checks. The argument for direct deposit is that many checks get lost in the mail leaving seniors without their deserved funds.
Elizabeth Warren, however, believes that people should have the right to choose how they receive their money. I imagine her new found respect for people's liberty has nothing to do with the paper lobby, who reside mostly in Warren's constituency, and donate extensively to her campaigns (she was the largest recipient in 2012 other than the Presidential candidates), who would stand to lose more of their already depleted customer base.
I guess in this case, what's best for most of America is not as desirable as what's good for Warren and her constituents.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Hollingsworth v. Perry - A Summary
I am dissatisfied with reporting on courte cases. What I'd like to know is more detailed than is usually provided. I'd like the arguments for each opinion. Here I provide my own summary of the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision.
Full Decision
Wonkblog Post
Brief synopsis - The people of California (not the legislature) passed an amendment to their Consitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Gay marriage advocates argued that this violated their rights so sued to have the amendment declared unconstitutional. The elected officials of California chose not to defend the amendment, and so advocates of the amendment (regular citizens) defended it. The Supreme Court ruled that the advocates didn't have standing.
Decision (Roberts, Ginsberg, Kagan, Scalia, Breyer) - Without injury, one has no standing to defend an issue in court.
Dissent (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor) - California law provides that one can defend an issue if elected officials choose not to do so.
My thoughts
Implications - Any law that is passed, if elected officials choose not to defend it in court should it be disputed, and no one can claim a direct harm, then these types of laws will become unenforcable. This kind of defeats the purpose of popular referenda. Popular referenda will only be used when the elected officials don't want to pursue or enact them. Therefore, if they're passed, they'll be indefensible in court.
Full Decision
Wonkblog Post
Brief synopsis - The people of California (not the legislature) passed an amendment to their Consitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Gay marriage advocates argued that this violated their rights so sued to have the amendment declared unconstitutional. The elected officials of California chose not to defend the amendment, and so advocates of the amendment (regular citizens) defended it. The Supreme Court ruled that the advocates didn't have standing.
Decision (Roberts, Ginsberg, Kagan, Scalia, Breyer) - Without injury, one has no standing to defend an issue in court.
Dissent (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor) - California law provides that one can defend an issue if elected officials choose not to do so.
My thoughts
Implications - Any law that is passed, if elected officials choose not to defend it in court should it be disputed, and no one can claim a direct harm, then these types of laws will become unenforcable. This kind of defeats the purpose of popular referenda. Popular referenda will only be used when the elected officials don't want to pursue or enact them. Therefore, if they're passed, they'll be indefensible in court.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
5-4 Decisions
The degree of polarization in the Supreme Court really scares me. I feel (without any data analysis) that there are too many five-four decisions. I also feel that many of the justices aren't deciding based on law but on their own moral judgments. If they are deciding based on morality, then I guess 5-4 decisions make sense, but I think that's bad for the country. Those who are doing so, should also freely admit that that is how they're basing their decisions.
This reminds me of a debate between Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia in which Scalia claimed that it was better to have nine historians on the Supreme Court than nine ethicists. This, I believe, gets to the real difference between how conservatives and liberal approach the court. Liberals want to rule based on their morality while conservatives want to rule based on the law. This is probably the best way to describe "Legislating from the bench" - defying or rewriting law based on your own preferences. Note that this does not mean striking down a law is necessarily legislating from the bench. It is only so when the law is struck down based on personal beliefs.
Today the court released a decision on the Voting Rights Act in which it struck down a portion of it. Liberals are extremely unhappy, but it seems as if their unhappy from the superficial idea that the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, without really looking at the details (this is a characteristic I've noticed before from the Left).
Look at these "Best Lines from Ginsburg's Dissent." None of them really talk about whether the law is constitutional or not, they just talk about whether there is or is not discrimination. The majority doesn't deny the fact that there's discrimination, they say only that concentrating on certain areas because they were more prone to discrimination 50 years ago but not necessarily today is unconstitutitional.
Corrected: Civil Rights Act should have been Voting Rights Act
This reminds me of a debate between Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia in which Scalia claimed that it was better to have nine historians on the Supreme Court than nine ethicists. This, I believe, gets to the real difference between how conservatives and liberal approach the court. Liberals want to rule based on their morality while conservatives want to rule based on the law. This is probably the best way to describe "Legislating from the bench" - defying or rewriting law based on your own preferences. Note that this does not mean striking down a law is necessarily legislating from the bench. It is only so when the law is struck down based on personal beliefs.
Today the court released a decision on the Voting Rights Act in which it struck down a portion of it. Liberals are extremely unhappy, but it seems as if their unhappy from the superficial idea that the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, without really looking at the details (this is a characteristic I've noticed before from the Left).
Look at these "Best Lines from Ginsburg's Dissent." None of them really talk about whether the law is constitutional or not, they just talk about whether there is or is not discrimination. The majority doesn't deny the fact that there's discrimination, they say only that concentrating on certain areas because they were more prone to discrimination 50 years ago but not necessarily today is unconstitutitional.
Corrected: Civil Rights Act should have been Voting Rights Act
Just Deserts
Greg Mankiw, the Harvard economist recently published an essay in which he defends the 1%.
Many on the left side of the aisle can be pretty anti-1%.
Harold Pollack did not like Mankiw's defense of the richest among us. Reading through his entry, though, I'm struck by the arguments he makes. They seem to lack substance or are beside the point. Let's look at each paragraph individually.
The first paragraph sets up how Pollack admires Mankiw, and he sets up how this isn't a partisan attack. Of course, after reading the first sentence, I'm bracing for criticism.
His second paragraph attempts to associate Mankiw with someone Pollack believes was actively detrimental to helping lower income people. Notice, he doesn't say anything about what Mankiw officially believes, only that Mankiw worked for someone that believes those things. This is weak evidence against him. You have no idea what part Mankiw played in those policy proposals. Of course, it's not totally negligible, it's just weak.
The third paragraph also contains no substantive argument. He talks about some economists who share the view and ends it with a quotation without discussing it at all. Does Pollack disagree with what Mankiw writes? Why? Admittedly, not having read Mankiw's original article, I can't say I see the logic, but I trust that Mankiw has provided the correct context for understanding the idea. Pollack says nothing.
Finally, we get to something useful. Pollack includes a paragraph from Mankiw. The paragraph basically says Mankiw doesn't believe his children have better opportunities than he had even though his children are much better off than he was.
Pollack counters that there's income inequality. This, of course, is entirely missing Mankiw's point. Mankiw acknowledges there's income inequality, but he argues that it doesn't cause opportunity inequality.
Then Pollack talks about the lack of wealth mobility. Next he talks about how the top schools enroll the highest income students. Here, Pollack makes a strong argument that wealthy people have more opportunities/easier access than the poor. He should have stopped here.
He goes on to ask "Why should people's market wages so strongly determine what they deserve to have in life? [Pollack's brother's] just deserts reside in his claim to equal, dignified citizenship, not his meager ability to produce goods and services."
I don't think Mankiw or most Republicans would dispute that all citizens deserve basic services such as healthcare and education. But most of the country believes that when people earn more money they should be allowed to spend it. Pollack seems to be arguing that commanding higher salaries shouldn't lead to consumption disparities, which is just socialism. Is that what he's advocating?
Many on the left side of the aisle can be pretty anti-1%.
Harold Pollack did not like Mankiw's defense of the richest among us. Reading through his entry, though, I'm struck by the arguments he makes. They seem to lack substance or are beside the point. Let's look at each paragraph individually.
The first paragraph sets up how Pollack admires Mankiw, and he sets up how this isn't a partisan attack. Of course, after reading the first sentence, I'm bracing for criticism.
His second paragraph attempts to associate Mankiw with someone Pollack believes was actively detrimental to helping lower income people. Notice, he doesn't say anything about what Mankiw officially believes, only that Mankiw worked for someone that believes those things. This is weak evidence against him. You have no idea what part Mankiw played in those policy proposals. Of course, it's not totally negligible, it's just weak.
The third paragraph also contains no substantive argument. He talks about some economists who share the view and ends it with a quotation without discussing it at all. Does Pollack disagree with what Mankiw writes? Why? Admittedly, not having read Mankiw's original article, I can't say I see the logic, but I trust that Mankiw has provided the correct context for understanding the idea. Pollack says nothing.
Finally, we get to something useful. Pollack includes a paragraph from Mankiw. The paragraph basically says Mankiw doesn't believe his children have better opportunities than he had even though his children are much better off than he was.
Pollack counters that there's income inequality. This, of course, is entirely missing Mankiw's point. Mankiw acknowledges there's income inequality, but he argues that it doesn't cause opportunity inequality.
Then Pollack talks about the lack of wealth mobility. Next he talks about how the top schools enroll the highest income students. Here, Pollack makes a strong argument that wealthy people have more opportunities/easier access than the poor. He should have stopped here.
He goes on to ask "Why should people's market wages so strongly determine what they deserve to have in life? [Pollack's brother's] just deserts reside in his claim to equal, dignified citizenship, not his meager ability to produce goods and services."
I don't think Mankiw or most Republicans would dispute that all citizens deserve basic services such as healthcare and education. But most of the country believes that when people earn more money they should be allowed to spend it. Pollack seems to be arguing that commanding higher salaries shouldn't lead to consumption disparities, which is just socialism. Is that what he's advocating?
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
The Objectives of Obamacare
Ezra Klein follows up on his post from yesterday with this one. In it he argues that no one to the right of Obama has suggested an alternative. But what he means to say, is that no one on the right has suggested an alternative that meets his objectives.
He describes Obamacare as "a policy to make sure most every legal resident of the United States has access to comprehensive, affordable health care. In order to achieve that goal, it helps poorer Americans pay for insurance and regulates the products offered by insurers to make sure they’re worth paying for." I imagine that's what he (and liberals) want any alternative to do.
The problem is that this is not how non-liberals would describe Obamacare, and though that may be the goal, Obamacare does so much more than that. I think people of all philosophies can agree on a policy to make sure most every legal resident of the United States can afford basic healthcare. The only difference with my wording and Ezra's is that I've reduced comprehensive to basic. Of course, this goal had already been achieved before Obamacare since anyone can get treatment in an emergency room. That's why the Republicans haven't really proposed much in the way of alternatives, because they believed this is the important objective, and it has already been achieved.
The difference, I suppose, is that Democrats wanted to exchange basic for comprehensive. Admittedly, I'm not really sure what comprehensive means. This was something lost in the debate, as happens. It's hard for people like me to argue when we don't know exactly what we're arguing about. I would welcome a debate as to what level of care everyone should have but they're not getting.
What I gather this means for liberals is that everyone should have access to an affordable insurance plan that covers preventative medicine and any reason you may want to go to the doctor. Now, if this is really the goal, then all that has to be done is give people the subsidy to afford it. That accomplishes the access goal. But, of course, that's not where the Democrats stopped. In addition, they had to mandate a whole slew of benefits that insurance had to cover and mandated how much insurance companies could charge. If the objective was just granting access, why are regulations necessary?
Because the objective is not "granting access," the objective is remaking the health insurance industry into an industry that liberals approve of. That industry can't charge seniors more even though they're more costly, can't charge other groups more if they're more costly, can't spend too much on administrative costs. These are all bad practices.
So the goal wasn't only to provide access, but to root out distasteful practices. To achieve the goal stated above should be relatively simple. All Republicans would need to propose would be to keep the subsidies and cut everything else. (Guaranteed Issue would also need to be addressed, and I think state pools or national pools expressly for the uninsurable is the way to go).
He describes Obamacare as "a policy to make sure most every legal resident of the United States has access to comprehensive, affordable health care. In order to achieve that goal, it helps poorer Americans pay for insurance and regulates the products offered by insurers to make sure they’re worth paying for." I imagine that's what he (and liberals) want any alternative to do.
The problem is that this is not how non-liberals would describe Obamacare, and though that may be the goal, Obamacare does so much more than that. I think people of all philosophies can agree on a policy to make sure most every legal resident of the United States can afford basic healthcare. The only difference with my wording and Ezra's is that I've reduced comprehensive to basic. Of course, this goal had already been achieved before Obamacare since anyone can get treatment in an emergency room. That's why the Republicans haven't really proposed much in the way of alternatives, because they believed this is the important objective, and it has already been achieved.
The difference, I suppose, is that Democrats wanted to exchange basic for comprehensive. Admittedly, I'm not really sure what comprehensive means. This was something lost in the debate, as happens. It's hard for people like me to argue when we don't know exactly what we're arguing about. I would welcome a debate as to what level of care everyone should have but they're not getting.
What I gather this means for liberals is that everyone should have access to an affordable insurance plan that covers preventative medicine and any reason you may want to go to the doctor. Now, if this is really the goal, then all that has to be done is give people the subsidy to afford it. That accomplishes the access goal. But, of course, that's not where the Democrats stopped. In addition, they had to mandate a whole slew of benefits that insurance had to cover and mandated how much insurance companies could charge. If the objective was just granting access, why are regulations necessary?
Because the objective is not "granting access," the objective is remaking the health insurance industry into an industry that liberals approve of. That industry can't charge seniors more even though they're more costly, can't charge other groups more if they're more costly, can't spend too much on administrative costs. These are all bad practices.
So the goal wasn't only to provide access, but to root out distasteful practices. To achieve the goal stated above should be relatively simple. All Republicans would need to propose would be to keep the subsidies and cut everything else. (Guaranteed Issue would also need to be addressed, and I think state pools or national pools expressly for the uninsurable is the way to go).
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Libertarians versus Liberals
Ezra Klein is a knowledgeable and convincing liberal. Most of the time I have a hard time refuting his arguments as they are consistent opinions that are based in fact.
Sometimes, though, I find a gap in his reasoning. In this piece, I found a couple, and they illustrate the same gaps that many liberals have when talking about issues, gaps that portray their inability to understand the libertarian point of view.
He's talking about how the premiums are very likely to go up once Obamacare hits (for many reasons but adverse selection and mandated benefits are the primary drivers). He argues that this misses the point because people will be purchasing superior insurance. Plus, they'll receive subsidies, so their actual expenses will decline.
There are two gaps in his argument. Let's start with the smaller one. He acts as if these subsidies come from nowhere, when, in fact, the subsidies are of course provided by tax-payers. So, yes, the newly insured might be paying less out of pocket than they were before, but society's payments have increased. But this misses the point, the point is that premiums would have been lower without those mandated benefits. It would be far less costly to insure everyone if the benefits weren't so extensive (no copay birth control, no copay for several benefits, for example).
The larger gap is how he ignores people's choices. He takes for granted that everyone wants the more expensive insurance plan (which I grant is probably the case when someone else is paying for it). He proposes a hypothetical choice between high deductible, low premium, very stingy insurance versus high premium, cover everything insurance. He argues that everyone would choose the latter, and that's what Obamacare is striving for.
If the latter option is so great, why does Obamacare have to mandate these benefits? If everyone who ccould afford it would choose it, why doesn't it already exist? It has to be mandated because no one is choosing it, and Ezra Klein and Barack Obama and all the other liberals think everyone should have that type of insurance no matter the cost.
This is just more evidence that Progressives don't believe that people are capable enough to make decisions for themselves. They've decided that high premium, cover everything insurance is the preferred type of insurance, so you should be forced to have it no matter the cost to you or to taxpayers.
He sums up with this. "The intent of Obamacare is to ensure that almost all Americans are covered by high-quality insurance that they can afford." That's exactly right, the intent of Obamacare was not to ensure that all Americans could afford high-quality insurance, it was that they "are covered." This is the difference between libertarians and liberals, the former wants to make sure you have a choice and do what you deem best, the latter wants to make sure you adhere to what they believe is best for you.
Sometimes, though, I find a gap in his reasoning. In this piece, I found a couple, and they illustrate the same gaps that many liberals have when talking about issues, gaps that portray their inability to understand the libertarian point of view.
He's talking about how the premiums are very likely to go up once Obamacare hits (for many reasons but adverse selection and mandated benefits are the primary drivers). He argues that this misses the point because people will be purchasing superior insurance. Plus, they'll receive subsidies, so their actual expenses will decline.
There are two gaps in his argument. Let's start with the smaller one. He acts as if these subsidies come from nowhere, when, in fact, the subsidies are of course provided by tax-payers. So, yes, the newly insured might be paying less out of pocket than they were before, but society's payments have increased. But this misses the point, the point is that premiums would have been lower without those mandated benefits. It would be far less costly to insure everyone if the benefits weren't so extensive (no copay birth control, no copay for several benefits, for example).
The larger gap is how he ignores people's choices. He takes for granted that everyone wants the more expensive insurance plan (which I grant is probably the case when someone else is paying for it). He proposes a hypothetical choice between high deductible, low premium, very stingy insurance versus high premium, cover everything insurance. He argues that everyone would choose the latter, and that's what Obamacare is striving for.
If the latter option is so great, why does Obamacare have to mandate these benefits? If everyone who ccould afford it would choose it, why doesn't it already exist? It has to be mandated because no one is choosing it, and Ezra Klein and Barack Obama and all the other liberals think everyone should have that type of insurance no matter the cost.
This is just more evidence that Progressives don't believe that people are capable enough to make decisions for themselves. They've decided that high premium, cover everything insurance is the preferred type of insurance, so you should be forced to have it no matter the cost to you or to taxpayers.
He sums up with this. "The intent of Obamacare is to ensure that almost all Americans are covered by high-quality insurance that they can afford." That's exactly right, the intent of Obamacare was not to ensure that all Americans could afford high-quality insurance, it was that they "are covered." This is the difference between libertarians and liberals, the former wants to make sure you have a choice and do what you deem best, the latter wants to make sure you adhere to what they believe is best for you.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Liberal Debate Strategy: Redefining Baselines
I'm becoming very tired of liberals redefining baselines. The most recent example comes from the IMF. According to them, we can reduce carbon emissions by decreasing subsidies to fossil fuels. So far, so sensible. However, when you learn what they're classifying as subsidies, you see that they're warping traditional definitions, as liberals like to do.
Burning fossil fuels clearly has a negative externality--it harms people who don't directly use it because of pollution. One way to offset the cost to the public is to tax the burning of fossil fuels. This way, those harmed can be compensated and those who use the fuels have a disincentive to do so.
What the IMF does is says, any tax on fossil fuels below this level of optimal taxation, we're going to call a subsidy. This is another strategy from liberals--to skew traditional definitions in new directions. Usually we think of a tax as any price increase caused by the government and a subsidy is a reduction in cost or a payment to users from the government. The baseline has always been government non-intervention.
Now, the IMF wants to argue that the baseline should be the optimal tax on it. I wonder if that works the other way around. Can we say that something with a positive externality should be subsidized, so any failure to subsidize should be considered a tax? Should we go around from now own decrying the fact that the government taxes landscaping?
The level of optimal taxation/subsidy is impossible to determine; we should stick with the baseline of zero government intervention.
Burning fossil fuels clearly has a negative externality--it harms people who don't directly use it because of pollution. One way to offset the cost to the public is to tax the burning of fossil fuels. This way, those harmed can be compensated and those who use the fuels have a disincentive to do so.
What the IMF does is says, any tax on fossil fuels below this level of optimal taxation, we're going to call a subsidy. This is another strategy from liberals--to skew traditional definitions in new directions. Usually we think of a tax as any price increase caused by the government and a subsidy is a reduction in cost or a payment to users from the government. The baseline has always been government non-intervention.
Now, the IMF wants to argue that the baseline should be the optimal tax on it. I wonder if that works the other way around. Can we say that something with a positive externality should be subsidized, so any failure to subsidize should be considered a tax? Should we go around from now own decrying the fact that the government taxes landscaping?
The level of optimal taxation/subsidy is impossible to determine; we should stick with the baseline of zero government intervention.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Spend More on Infrastructure - Now Now Now
Liberals have continued to beat the drum about infrastructure spending. Basically the argument is that our roads and bridges are in extreme cases of disrepair and interest rates are bargain-basement level, so we should do it now.
There's a great edition of EconTalk with a debate between libertarian Russ Roberts and Keynesian Robert Frank. There's one major point that Russ kind of hinted at, but didn't develop enough. The point is that the government (all levels) spends $350 Billion/yr on infrastructure and to make the case that Orszag and Frank want to make, they have to argue that what we currently spend isn't enough. Instead, they just say that infrastructure needs funding.
A reasoned argument would be we need to spend $X on infrastructure, and we're currently spending $Y so we need to increase spending by $(X-Y). Their argument is "We need to spend $X on infrastructure and it doesn't cost very much to borrow $X right now, so let's do it."
On top of that, as Russ alludes to, at all levels of government we spend $5-6T, the pro-infrastructure argument has to include the point that we can't afford to reduce spending on anything else--infrastructure spending is the least important item we spend money on. Otherwise, we should reduce spending elsewhere and reassign it to infrastructure.
This is another trick Democrats use when talking about spending. They never, ever compare spending on different programs; everything's urgent and critical--healthcare, social security, infrastructure, research, education--and all equally so. Libertarians have to change the terms of these debates to include prioritizing budget items.
Liberal Debate Strategy: Appeal to Humanity
I challenge anyone to read this and not feel awful. Basically it's the story of how someone became sick, and his insurance wouldn't cover treatment without his challenging the CEO publicly.
I think anyone's first reaction is to feel miserable that anyone has to go through this. This is the emotional response.
Liberals are always, however, saying that they only look at facts/data. This clearly is not true. Sometimes they use examples like these to evoke a sympathetic response for their point of view. We must be cognizant of this strategy.
As far as data, one question I would have is whether this student had the option of another health insurance plan, and did he choose the cheaper plan. This is critical. If he chose the cheaper plan knowing of the limits and risks, then as tragic as this is, he made a choice.
I believe many liberals want to argue that this is not a choice people should be able to make (and they actually can't make it anymore under the ACA), but they must acknowledge that by restricting that choice, they're raising the costs of healthcare for everyone. If they announce that, and most people still desire this policy, great. But instead, they present this regulation as something that benefits everyone and has no costs.
Market-oriented people, if they want to argue for the ability to choose options that could possibly have tragic consequences, have to be ready to defend their stance against these emotional appeals, which is very challenging.
I think anyone's first reaction is to feel miserable that anyone has to go through this. This is the emotional response.
Liberals are always, however, saying that they only look at facts/data. This clearly is not true. Sometimes they use examples like these to evoke a sympathetic response for their point of view. We must be cognizant of this strategy.
As far as data, one question I would have is whether this student had the option of another health insurance plan, and did he choose the cheaper plan. This is critical. If he chose the cheaper plan knowing of the limits and risks, then as tragic as this is, he made a choice.
I believe many liberals want to argue that this is not a choice people should be able to make (and they actually can't make it anymore under the ACA), but they must acknowledge that by restricting that choice, they're raising the costs of healthcare for everyone. If they announce that, and most people still desire this policy, great. But instead, they present this regulation as something that benefits everyone and has no costs.
Market-oriented people, if they want to argue for the ability to choose options that could possibly have tragic consequences, have to be ready to defend their stance against these emotional appeals, which is very challenging.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Privatizing Social Security
It's no secret that liberals recoil at the idea of privatizing Social Security. Their primary argument is that it's too desert your retirement funds to the whims of the stock market. In this opinion piece, Clive Crook makes the argument that liberals should embrace privatization as a means to address the growing inequality in the economy.
Although I'm confident that this will have no truck with liberals, he raises an interesting point. The rich are getting richer largely because of their exposure to capital while the rest of the population relies largely on Social Security for their retirement and has much less capital in their portfolio. One remedy for this would be to re-orient Social Security towards market-based assets instead of government debt.
Again, I doubt any liberal will be moved by this argument. They have an inexplicable attachment to Social Security. Yes, they say it's because of the risk, but their reactions to modifying Social Security are disproportionate to their criticisms of any modifications.
For example, if Republicans gave people the option of putting part of their Social Security taxes into private accounts, it would be a non-starter. They wouldn't calmly discuss why that's a bad idea, but would quickly dismiss it (see the Ryan-Biden VP debate). Why? Exposure to risk is limited, and on top of that, people have a choice to participate or not. No one has to lose. If anyone has an idea as to what accounts for this mismatch, I'd love to hear it.
My tentative proposal which I'm confident will have no impact on the debate would be to re-engineer Social Security as more of an insurance program. Instead of paying into an account, your payments to Social Security would be based on how much you save. There could be a list of options (Life Stage funds, for example, and US bonds), but the more you save, the less you pay to Social Security. Then, when retirement comes, Social Security would guarantee a certain level of income (including proceeds from investments). That way, everyone's covered for the risk, but it's likely that it won't cost the government much at all.
Although I'm confident that this will have no truck with liberals, he raises an interesting point. The rich are getting richer largely because of their exposure to capital while the rest of the population relies largely on Social Security for their retirement and has much less capital in their portfolio. One remedy for this would be to re-orient Social Security towards market-based assets instead of government debt.
Again, I doubt any liberal will be moved by this argument. They have an inexplicable attachment to Social Security. Yes, they say it's because of the risk, but their reactions to modifying Social Security are disproportionate to their criticisms of any modifications.
For example, if Republicans gave people the option of putting part of their Social Security taxes into private accounts, it would be a non-starter. They wouldn't calmly discuss why that's a bad idea, but would quickly dismiss it (see the Ryan-Biden VP debate). Why? Exposure to risk is limited, and on top of that, people have a choice to participate or not. No one has to lose. If anyone has an idea as to what accounts for this mismatch, I'd love to hear it.
My tentative proposal which I'm confident will have no impact on the debate would be to re-engineer Social Security as more of an insurance program. Instead of paying into an account, your payments to Social Security would be based on how much you save. There could be a list of options (Life Stage funds, for example, and US bonds), but the more you save, the less you pay to Social Security. Then, when retirement comes, Social Security would guarantee a certain level of income (including proceeds from investments). That way, everyone's covered for the risk, but it's likely that it won't cost the government much at all.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Deficit Target
Republicans want a balanced budget; Democrats don't. Democrats argue that as long as the deficit is below GDP growth, it's sustainable. I'm ambivalent about this debate; I'm drawn to the idea that the government spends less than it brings in, but I can also see that we may be better off by running a consistent deficit.
What the Democrats don't account for, though, is the cyclical nature of the economy. Basically, their target is to overspend by GDP growth in the best years and then spend even more during recessions. If they want to stick with the deficit being less than or equal to GDP growth, that should be the target over long periods of time including ups and downs of the business cycle.
The Democrats' approach would mean our debt stays the same during boom times but explodes during busts (much like the last four years), and the national debt would inexorably march upwards. President Obama has said his goal is to make sure the debt is stabilized over the next ten years, but that's not good enough. It has to go down, because when the next recession hits, which budget projections don't expect, the debt will increase.
What the Democrats don't account for, though, is the cyclical nature of the economy. Basically, their target is to overspend by GDP growth in the best years and then spend even more during recessions. If they want to stick with the deficit being less than or equal to GDP growth, that should be the target over long periods of time including ups and downs of the business cycle.
The Democrats' approach would mean our debt stays the same during boom times but explodes during busts (much like the last four years), and the national debt would inexorably march upwards. President Obama has said his goal is to make sure the debt is stabilized over the next ten years, but that's not good enough. It has to go down, because when the next recession hits, which budget projections don't expect, the debt will increase.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Here's a Surprise
Democrats are urging the President to ignore the law and do as he pleases.
Here's a list of laws he's already broken.
Here's another.
Granted, many of the examples are up for interpretation, (for example voter fraud or the Rezko deal are merely allegations). Others, however are more clear:
The "Recess" Appointment may or may not have been illegal, but it was unprecedented and clearly not the traditional use of the power.
The inability to present a budget according to the law. (This goes for the Senate, too)
The decision to not enforce laws enacted by Congress. Immigration. Defense of Marriage Act.
Clearly, President Obama has no problem dancing on the edge of some laws (and completely ignoring others) to accomplish his goals, which I still haven't discerned.
Here's a list of laws he's already broken.
Here's another.
Granted, many of the examples are up for interpretation, (for example voter fraud or the Rezko deal are merely allegations). Others, however are more clear:
The "Recess" Appointment may or may not have been illegal, but it was unprecedented and clearly not the traditional use of the power.
The inability to present a budget according to the law. (This goes for the Senate, too)
The decision to not enforce laws enacted by Congress. Immigration. Defense of Marriage Act.
Clearly, President Obama has no problem dancing on the edge of some laws (and completely ignoring others) to accomplish his goals, which I still haven't discerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)