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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)