Cafe Hayek_uacct = "UA-1847841-1";urchinTracker();Cafe Hayekwhere orders emergeEnter your email address to receive new Cafe Hayek posts in your inbox:Delivered by FeedBurnerSubscribe to Cafe Hayek's FeedEmail Don BoudreauxEmail Russ Roberts InvisibleHeart.com George Mason Department of Economics EconTalk EcontalkTo subscribe in iTunes, click this button  or drag this icon  into your iTunes Podcasts playlistFeedburner (One-click audio subscriptions via Yahoo and more.)XML (Full EconTalk text) Agoraphilia Becker-Posner Business & Media Institute Carpe Diem Coyote Blog Culture of Congestion Division of Labour EconLog Greg Mankiw's Blog Kids Prefer Cheese Knowledge Problem Marginal Revolution Market Correction The Agitator The Austrian Economists CategoriesAgricultureAntitrustArchaeological EconomicsBalance of PaymentsBooksCafe ConversationCharityCompetitionComplexity and EmergenceCooperationCrimeCubaCurrent AffairsDataEconomicsEducationEnergyEntertainmentEnvironmentEveryday LifeFamilyFDAFilmFood and DrinkFooled by RandomnessForeign AidGamesHealthHistoryHungerImmigrationInequalityInnovationLawLess Than Meets the EyeMarkets in EverythingMediaMonetary PolicyMoviesMusicMyths and FallaciesNanny StateParentingPodcastPoliticsPricesProperty RightsReality Is Not OptionalRegulationReligionRisk and SafetyScienceSeen and UnseenSocial Responsibility of BusinessSocial SecuritySportsStandard of LivingTaxesTechnologyTerrorismThe EconomyThe FutureThe Hollow MiddleThe Profit MotiveTradeTravelVideoWal-MartWarWeb/TechWeblogsWork  September 04, 2008"Sex Is Pleasurable, Studies Show"Don Boudreaux Yahoo! NewsDear Sir or Madam:Theheadline of one of your reports today (Sept. 4) from the Associated Press reads"Sarah Palin and her fellow RNC speakers weren't completely truthful attimes." Wow.Why not also run a report with the headline "Lawof Gravity Still Working," or one screaming "Julius Caesar RemainsDead!"? Deceitful politicians are as newsworthy as ants at a picnic -although much more avaricious and annoying.Sincerely,Donald J. BoudreauxPosted in Politics, Reality Is Not Optional | Permalink| Comments (9)| TrackBack (0)Who You Gonna Call?Don Boudreaux By sending this letter to the editor of the New York Times, my friend -- and The Austrian Economists' -- Steve Horwitz shows how a serious economist assesses the politically poisoned "analysis" of a newspaper pundit:To the Editor:In his September 1 column (“John, Don’tGo"), Paul Krugman blamesthe failed response of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina on the BushAdministration’santipathy to government. To the contrary, FEMA’s failures resulted fromtwoproblems endemic to bureaucracies no matter the party in power: a lackof local knowledge and weaker incentives than the private sector tosucceed. By contrast, Wal-Mart got supplies and people into theworst-hitareas because its associates and managers had detailed knowledge oftheircommunities and the incentive to help their neighbors that will alwaysbeabsent in bureaucracies. FEMA’s warehouses of unused resourcescontrastedwith Wal-Mart’s trucks on the move suggest that indeed the failures ofKatrinawere ones of bureaucratic ignorance, not administration ideology. Sincerely,Steven HorwitzEconomists understand that incentives matter; too many pundits think that party matters.Posted in Politics, The Profit Motive, Wal-Mart | Permalink| Comments (34)| TrackBack (0)September 03, 2008Blinded by partisanshipRussell Roberts When I first took economics, I learned from my textbook (Samuelson) the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this. Alan Blinder commits this fallacy in this New York Times article (HT: James Gambrell).After noting that Democrats and Republicans have different economic policies, Blinder argues, drawing on work of Larry Bartels in Unequal Democracy, that Democrats run the economy better than Republicans:Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during whichRepublicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26,show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almostanyone can expect from a tax cut.Blinder is aware of the fact that the President doesn't run the economy. He adds:Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the twoparties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverageover the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that FederalReserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are farmore powerful than fiscal policy.Most economists will also tell you that Presidents don't even control fiscal policy. Here in the United States we have three branches of government. The Presidency is one of them. Then there is what is called the Congress. They have a say, too. Then there are external events besides fiscal policy and monetary policy and oil prices that affect the economy and that are beyond the President's control. Demographics. Cultural trends. Technology. None of these are controlled by the President. There's also war. You can argue the President controls whether we go to war, but I'd argue you'd want to factor in war separately if you want to assess the quality of a President's economic policies.Blinder does admit that the future may not be like the past:Furthermore, as those mutual fundprospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee offuture performance.But then he reassures the reader with this jaw-dropping sentence:But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.What? Statistical regularities are stubborn things? No they're not. They are dominated by randomness almost by definition. That's why they're called regularities. They reveal a pattern in the data. Nothing more. Nothing less. Without a theory (and saying Democratic presidents are better at running the economy than Republican presidents is not a theory) it's just a regularity.And what does that last sentence mean? Bet against the statistical regularities of the past at your peril? So he's saying that if McCain is elected, you can be pretty sure that he'll do a worse job than Obama would have. You can bet on it. It's a result you can rely on. That is going to be a difficult bet to enforce. I know it's an idiomatic express to mean it's practically a sure thing. But thinking about the impossibility of determining the winner of such a bet makes it clear that the whole argument is meaningless.Posted in Data, Politics | Permalink| Comments (30)| TrackBack (0)Samuelson on standard of livingRussell Roberts Robert Samuelson does a nice job explaining why living standards are rising even though we sometimes hear otherwise:Just last week, the Census Bureau released its annual study ofhousehold incomes, poverty and health insurance -- often called thenation's "economic report card." Its hard numbers seemed to confirm howmany Americans feel. Sure, we're prosperous, but prosperity is fraying.Except for the rich, living standards are stagnant. Poverty is up;health insurance coverage is down. Naturally, both Barack Obama and John McCain seized upon the report to claim that their policies would restore progress.Hold it.Though echoed by policy wonks, pundits and politicians -- last week, Bill Clinton -- the conventional wisdom is wrong or, at least, misleading.A couple of high points from the rest of the article. FIrst, he argues (as Don and I have frequently argued here) that low-skilled immigrants distort the measurement of our standard of living:Low-skilled immigrants, concentrated among Hispanics, outnumber thehigh-skilled. They drag down median incomes and raise poverty and thenumber of uninsured. One way to filter out the effect on income is toexamine groups with few immigrants or their American-born children.Consider non-Hispanic white families. From 1997 to 2007, their medianincomes rose about $6,000, to $69,937, a gain of about 9 percent. Forblack families, the increase was also about 9 percent, though only to$40,222. Again, not stagnation.Census counts only money income -- wages, salaries, dividends, interestpayments. But compensation growth is increasingly channeled intofringes. From 2000 to 2007, only 53 percent of the increase in averagecompensation came from wages and salaries, says economist Gary Burtlessof the Brookings Institution.The rest went to health insurance (21 percent), pension contributions(19 percent) and payroll taxes (6 percent). On the negative side, Samuelson says:Americans understandablyfeel they're on a treadmill. They don't see fringe benefits in theirpaychecks, and small year-to-year cash gains barely register.A nit-pick: take home pay is deflated by the CPI which includes health care. Because health care is a big part of the rising CPI in recent years, deflating take home pay with the CPI (which is what everyone does) distorts the purchasing power of take-home pay for people with generous health care plan. Suppose all of your health care costs are insured by your employer. Health care costs double but all other prices fall so that the overall CPI is unchanged. Suppose your total compensation is unchanged—your take home pay declines exactly offsetting the increase in the value of your fringe benefits. The drop in take home pay makes it look like your standard of living has fallen. But because the price of non-health care items has fallen, your actual command over goods and services is unchanged.In recent years, take home pay for some has not kept up with inflation or maybe has just kept up with it, suggesting the standard of living is stagnant. But if take home pay grows slower than inflation, you can actually be getting ahead as long as your fringes are covering the part (health care) that's growing rapidly.Posted in Standard of Living | Permalink| Comments (9)| TrackBack (0)September 02, 2008No PlanningDon Boudreaux Here's a letter that I sent today to the Wall Street Journal:Crusading for a national"energy plan" and upset that WSJ columnist Holman Jenkins isn't on board, T. BoonePickens asks rhetorically: "My father used to tell me that a fool witha plan is better than a genius with no plan. So I ask, what's Mr.Jenkins's plan?" (Letters, Sept. 2).Contrary to Mr. Pickens'sassumption, an economy is not simply a gigantic business firm. Aneconomy is both incomprehensibly more complex than is even the largestmultinational corporation, and it has no specific, overriding purposecomparable to a firm's goal of maximizing profits - a purpose by whichthe performance of each employee and each investment decision isrelatively easy to evaluate. So while plans and some measure ofcentral direction make sense for firms, comparable plans and directionfor an economy are poison. They prevent the on-going decentralized, competitiveexperimentation from which spring not only progress that is unplanned,but progress whose details could not have been foreseen before theyactually materialize.The Soviet Union famously had plans for its economy; the United States did not. Which country was the fool?Sincerely, Donald J. BoudreauxPosted in Complexity and Emergence, Current Affairs, Economics, Energy, Myths and Fallacies | Permalink| Comments (14)| TrackBack (0)My Mellifluous VoiceDon Boudreaux Here's Norm Leahy's 30-minute-long radio interview with me, taped earlier today.Posted in Complexity and Emergence, Myths and Fallacies, Podcast, Politics, Property Rights, Reality Is Not Optional | Permalink| Comments (8)| TrackBack (0)Monetary geniusRussell Roberts Usually totalitarian regimes lop off heads, but Iran is considering lopping off zeros (HT: Ewin Barnett):Iranis considering lopping three to four zeros off its currency, a topofficial said Monday, in an apparent effort to fight out-of-controlinflation that many critics blame on the country's hardline president.The governor of the Central Bank of Iran,Tahmasb Mazaheri, told state-run radio that monetary experts arestudying three options: Cutting three zeros off the rial, cutting fourzeros, or boosting each rial's value to one-hundredth of a gram ofgold, or about 2,500 rials at current rates."We are studying all these three options," Mazaheri said on state-run radio.The Iranian rialis now traded at 9,600 rials to one U.S. dollar. That compares with 70rials against the dollar in 1979, the year an Islamic revolutiontoppled the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.What I like about Mazaheri is his flexibility. Maybe three zeros. Or four. As if the two numbers, three and four, being close together, convey a precision that isn't quite there.The AP article continues:In June, Iran's government put the inflation rate at a whopping 26percent. Independent economic experts say the actual inflation rate iseven higher, at more than 30 percent. Prices for vegetables havetripled and housing prices have doubled since last summer.The sharp rise in inflation has provoked fierce criticism of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad— not only from his reformist opponents, but also from seniorconservatives who helped bring him to power but now accuse him ofmismanaging the economy.The currency proposals are seen as an effort by the central bank toreassert control over the country's monetary supply from Ahmadinejadand supporters. Critics blame the president for unwisely investingIran's oil windfall and pressuring banks to lower interest rates,leading to the inflation.Could be. It happens to the best of countries—politicians like low interest rates, they pressue the head of the Central Bank, and the next thing you know, you have a little inflation on your hands. But 26% a month is a bit more than a little. That kind of achievement usually takes more than just lowering interest rates, though it depends on where they start. The article continues:But private economists say lopping zeros off the currency won'tresolve the underlying economic woes, unless the government also adoptsmeasures to boost production and move toward liberalization and a market economy."The solution to contain inflation is economic liberalization, absorbing foreign investment and boosting production," said economist Morteza Allahdad in Tehran.All good ideas. But if the money supply is growing by leaps and bounds, you want to start there first. Actually, I'd like to know what's really going on in that Central Bank.The article then takes an unintentionally comic turn:The central bank's vice president, HosseinGhazavi, had told several newspapers earlier this week that a specialcommittee had already been set up to study the proposed currencyreforms. In those interviews, Ghazavi acknowledged a 10,000 rial notenow has the same purchasing power as 25 rials did three decades ago.Hmmm. A special committee. Committees usually are not the most effective way to get things done. When will the committee finish its report?Mazaheri set no date for the currency reform but said the study wouldtake at least a year before the bank could come up with a clearproposal. Any currency reform plan would need parliament's approval.No hurry. Your currency has become monopoly money, but take your time. Take a year or two to think it through.In recent weeks, Iran has issued higher-denomination notes to try toease transactions, which can be complicated and time-consuming withsmaller-denominated bills. The central bank issued 500,000 rial and onemillion rial notes that carry the figures 50 and 100 on their backs,prompting speculation that the rial might lose four zeros.Yes, that's a hint. The government will simply announce at some point that from now on, only the B side of the currency is the "real" side. Yessirree, that is really going to help.Both conservatives and reformists have blamed high inflation on Ahmadinejad's mismanagement of the economy.Top conservative cleric Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, a confidante of Iran's supreme leader, warned Saturday that Ahmadinejad's economic policies threaten to keep Iran from its goal of becoming a regional superpower by 2025.Yes, it will. Nouri is definitely on to something. Hyperinflation is rarely associated with economic progress.The end of the article makes an attempt to go beyond the interest theory of monetary expansion:The high inflation is blamed mostly on a huge increase in liquidity,caused by oil revenues' impact and Ahmadinejad's insistence on loweringbank interest rates, say independent economists. The central bank privately opposed his efforts to lower rates.Iran earned around $80 billion from crude oil exports last year. Ahmadinejad's government converted most of that into Iranian rials and injected it into the country as loans, often to political favorites, some critics say.Many economists had warned that such policies would lead to inflation,but they view fixes such as removing zeros as little help.Mohammad Tabibian, an Iranian economist, said bringing discipline to monetary policies is the only true solution.The troubled African nation of Zimbabwe drew attention to its chaotic economy this summer when it slashed 10 zeros from its currency. Private financial institutions say Zimbabwe's inflation rate was an astonishing 12.5 million percent in May and estimate it has climbed higher since.Although Iran is less troubled, many people there, like inZimabwe, have attempted to hedge by putting money into outside accountsin dollars or euros.I bet they have.CORRECTION: The inflation rate of 26% is an annual rate. When the article I'm discussing above said "In June" and "whopping" I assumed it was a monthly rate. But according to this article, that is in the ballpark for the annual rate, at least the measured one. At 26%, the average price level doubles (thanks rekniht) every three years, so that if you do sustain that for a while, you do get some very high nominal prices pretty quickly. Thanks to CuriousReader for pointing out the ambiguity.Posted in Monetary Policy | Permalink| Comments (9)| TrackBack (0)No End of OilDon Boudreaux We'll never run out of oil. Never. I explain why (inspired by an insight that I learned from Russ years ago) in today's edition of Canada's National Post.Posted in Complexity and Emergence, Energy, Myths and Fallacies, Property Rights, The Profit Motive | Permalink| Comments (40)| TrackBack (0)Freaky!Don Boudreaux One of my and Russ's brilliant young GMU Econcolleagues, Pete Leeson, is now guest-blogging at Freakonomics. Here's Pete's first blog entry; in it, he discussesreported sightings of bigfoot and UFOs.Posted in Myths and Fallacies, Weblogs | Permalink| Comments (1)| TrackBack (0)September 01, 2008Rauch on the VoltRussell Roberts The latest EconTalk is Jonathan Rauch talking about the Chevy Volt and GM's attempts to transform its corporate culture and maybe the car market.Posted in Energy, Podcast | Permalink| Comments (2)| TrackBack (0)Chapter Two of The Price of EverythingRussell Roberts Chapter Two of The Price of Everything is now available: HTML and PDF.(Chapter One is here in HTML and PDF.)Still waiting for the Kindle version. I'll let you know.Posted in Books | Permalink| Comments (6)| TrackBack (0)Social CreationismDon Boudreaux The recent discussion here at the Cafe about the necessity or sufficiency of the state prompted a long-time patron to ask me to re-run this post from December 2004.December 07, 2004More on Blue-State CreationismDon BoudreauxA few days ago I was inspired by Tom Palmer’s incisive review of Cass Sunstein’s latest bookto point out that many “blue-staters” – Americans who think ofthemselves as “progressive,” rational, and “reality-based” – are alsocreationists. Not biological creationists, but creationistsnevertheless – “social constructivists,” as Hayek called them.At the blog The Panda’s Thumbseveral commenters misunderstand my point. Whenever an author ismisunderstood, it’s the author’s fault. I try below to clarify.…………..Oneview of the origin of order is the design view – the creationist view. For example, fundamentalist Christians believe that all life on Earthis the result of conscious creation by a deity. Human beings’ opposingthumbs resulted from a (higher) mind’s plan and action, and the absenceof hen’s teeth and horse’s toes likewise is the result of consciousdesign. Without such design, chaos and disorder would reign.Thenon-creationist view – represented most compellingly by the theory ofnatural selection – explains how wonderfully intricate, useful, andorderly biological structures can and do emerge unplanned.Creationistviews (there are several variations) differ from non-creationist viewsby insisting that all order ultimately is the result of some designacting upon the whole.Justas there is a compelling non-creationist view of biological beings,there is a compelling non-creationist view of social order. And whileobviously different in detail, at a general level these twonon-creationist theories share much with each other, not least of whichis the scientific insistence that order is best explained, not bypositing a creator, but by understanding the logic of an order’semergence from small, individual acts, no one of which is “intended to”(or “intends” itself) to become part of a larger order. (And remember,Adam Smith offered his “invisible hand” theory a century before Darwin offered his.)The“social” creationists are well and ably represented by Cass Sunsteinwho argues that peace and security and (hence) property rights andmarket exchange are impossible without an effective system of law. Because, in Sunstein’s view, the state is the producer of law, thestate is ultimately responsible for our property and prosperity.I’mprepared to argue that law can, and has been, ably produced andenforced without the state. (See, for example, Bruce Benson's superbbook The Enterprise of Law.) But let’s put that issue aside and grant Sunstein his claim that onlythe state can produce and enforce law. Because no reasonable persondoubts that law is indeed necessary for a prosperous society, Sunsteinconcludes that each of us owes our prosperity to the state. It’s a fair interpretation of Sunstein’s argument that the state creates society.Peoplesuch as Sunstein who believe that sovereign power is responsible foreverything remind me of other people who thank God for their goodfortune – for the roofs over their heads, for the food on their tables,for the good grades they got on the exam.... as if the roof oversomeone’s head had everything to do with the good graces of a deity andnothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the owner of the house orwith the actions of thousands of other people, each of whom contributedin some little way to making that roof a reality.So the stateprotects me from thieves and built the highway that I use to transportmy goods to market. I’m grateful. But what about the farmer who grewthe food to feed the trucker who drives the truck carrying my goods tomarket – and grew the food to feed the politicians who keep the stategoing? What about the oil-rig worker who helped to extract oil fromthe ground to be turned into gasoline to power the truck – and to powerthe limos in DC and the police cars in Denver? What about the engineer who helped design the engine that powers thetruck and the limos and the police cars? What about the clerk at theconvenience store who sells the trucker the coffee that helps to keephim awake on his drive?In a market economy, even the most mundane goodor service requires for its production and distribution the efforts ofmillions of people. Many of these individual tasks are utterlynecessary for that good’s existence, but none of these individual tasks – including that of the state – is sufficient. There’s nothing special about the state.Civility,high wages, economic growth, ingenious engineers, clean neighborhoods,excellent education, health care, baseball stadiums – you name it, itprobably can be (and probably has been) produced by private efforts. Government can certainly affect the production and distribution ofthings – and reasonable people can argue about whether that effect islikely to be beneficial or not. But even if government’s services are necessary for our prosperity, it does not follow that government creates that prosperity.….Stated baldly, this proposition will attract few detractors – except the likes of Sunstein. But “blue-state creationism” is nevertheless rampant. Consider this letter to the editor in today’s NY Times:Like Thomas L. Friedman, I was shocked to read that Congress cut financing for the National Science Foundation. The United States is at a crucialturning point now in regard to scientific leadership in the world. Wecan either invest as much money as possible in supportinggroundbreaking research benefiting nearly every aspect of our lives -training new scientists and engineers, improving science education andensuring that the United States remains the best place in the world topursue a career in science - or we can dedicate that money to frivolouspork, losing our place as the world leader in science and engineering. Asa graduate of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology,I was instilled with the belief that science is vitally important toour society. It'sunfortunate that Congress hasn't learned the same lesson; the securityof our nation, as well as our economic health, depends on it.In other words, without taxpayer-financed scientific research, we’ll enjoy neither national security nor economic well-being.NSF funding might or might not be justified. (I personally don’t think it’s justified, but that’s not my point.) Theclaim that this reader (and columnist Thomas Friedman) make is thatgenuine scientific advance can be created only by government. It's acreationist myth.Posted in Complexity and Emergence, Law, Myths and Fallacies | Permalink| Comments (58)| TrackBack (0)August 31, 2008Another Romantic and Ridiculous Assault on ModernityDon Boudreaux Here's a letter that I sent yesterday to the Washington Post:From across the countryactivists have converged on San Francisco for the 'Slow Food Nation"rally ("As Food Becomes a Cause, Meeting Puts Issues on the Table,"August 30). These activists insist that consuming non-local foodsharms the environment, exploits workers, severs community ties, andnumbs our taste buds.Overlook the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical research or sound thinking,* and let's get into the rally'sspirit, which refuses to be dampened by facts or reason. Start byasking: why reject only non-local foods? Why not also reject non-localnews - such as this very report from San Francisco? And why not alsoreject non-local culture? Surely we Washingtonians would be happierand more in touch with ourselves if we read only novels written bylocals such as Christopher Buckley and not those written by the likesof Milan Kundera, Margaret Atwood, or Larry McMurtry. And what's withthe Kennedy Center bringing in performers from outside the Beltway? How much CO2 is unnecessarily emitted into the atmosphere whenever theKirov Ballet flies in from St. Petersburg or when James Levine comesdown from Boston? And how many local artists do we overlook in ourthoughtless insistence on seeing non-local acts performed on our localstages?Sincerely,Donald J. Boudreaux* See, for example, Andrew Lilico, "Buying local is not necessarily green," Economic Affairs, Vol. 28, June 2008.Posted in Environment, Food and Drink, Myths and Fallacies | Permalink| Comments (17)| TrackBack (0)Time for Some Campaignin'Don Boudreaux Time for some campaignin'Posted in Politics | Permalink| Comments (5)| TrackBack (0)August 30, 2008A Cacophony of ClaptrapDon Boudreaux EconLog's -- and one of the world's finest Masonomists - Arnold Kling nicely explains that political campaigns are "brutal assaults on reason."Posted in Politics | Permalink| Comments (5)| TrackBack (0)August 29, 2008An Open Letter to SaraDon Boudreaux Dr. Boudreaux,Why are you so bitter about politics? Why so cynical? Why don't you give candidates and office holders the benefit of the doubt when they say they want to help others?SaraThis e-mail just appeared in my e-mailbox. I have no idea who Sara is, but rather than answer her privately, I'll answer her here.Dear Sara:Thanks for writing. I often say, quite sincerely, that I'm not cynical about politics; I'm realistic about politics.If a stranger knocks on your door and tells you that he or she is here for the express purpose of helping you, of serving you, of making your life better -- not because of anything that he or she will gain by doing so, but because he or she believes in your goodness and knows that you deserve more than you have -- what would you think? Would you give this person the benefit of the doubt, and trust that he or she really and truly is motivated chiefly and overwhelmingly by a desire to serve you?Would you continue to give this person the benefit of the doubt on this score when he or she informs you that, to help you, he or she must have the power to tax you and to take away some of your liberties? When he or she assures you that, by some mysterious process, he or she "feels your pain"? When he or she modestly exclaims that those other persons standing on your porch ready to make pretty much the same offer cannot possibly care about you as much as he or she cares about you -- cannot possibly have sufficient skill, determination, and wisdom to improve your life; that only he or she possesses these qualities?Would that benefit of the doubt continue to be given when you learn that, should you decide to trust this stranger with some of your wealth and your liberties, he or she will get lots of prestige and acclaim and applause simply because he or she holds power over you?And would you persist in giving this person the benefit of the doubt when, should you ask probing questions about his or her motives or about inconsistencies you believe to have spotted in the plans he or she laid out for helping you, he or she suddenly begins dissembling or speaking in platitudes or vague generalities, or launches into stories of his or her past glory in some endeavor or other that has little to do with the power that he or she now seeks from you?I suspect, Sara, that should such a person arrive at your door and deliver such a spiel to you that you'd quickly slam the door in his or her face, convinced (and correctly so) that that person is either an utter goofball or a supremely arrogant busybody. You'd want nothing at all to do with him or her, and if he or she persisted in knocking on your door you'd call the police or your bouncer-friend Bubba to escort this obnoxious person as far away from your home as possible.So, if you'd not give such a person the benefit of the doubt, why in the world are you surprised that I don't give Barack Obama, John McCain, or any other successful politician you care to name the benefit of the doubt?Sincerely,Don BoudreauxPosted in Politics | Permalink| Comments (35)| TrackBack (0)Deconstructing Political SpeechDon Boudreaux What Joe Biden said about Barack Obama in his acceptance speech:He'll invest in the next generation ofteachers.What Joe Biden really meant; what he would have said were he honest and forthright:He'll force taxpayers to rain money down on the next generation of a special-interest group that is very important to our Party's prospects of remaining in power.Posted in Politics | Permalink| Comments (1)| TrackBack (0)Yes, by all means, choose the teachersRussell Roberts I'm sure Joe Biden's acceptance speech was worded carefully:Barack Obama knows that any country that out teaches us today willout-compete us tomorrow. He'll invest in the next generation ofteachers.Yes, if he has the chance, Obama will invest in the next generation of teachers. I'd rather invest in students. Novel idea, isn't it?Posted in Education | Permalink| Comments (6)| TrackBack (0)The Divorce RateRussell Roberts Charlie, in the comments to this post, refers to a post by Justin Wolfers (who was guest blogging at MR) on the supposed divorce myth. Wolfers argues that the divorce rate is falling, not rising. That may be (though it is hard to measure correctly). But even if it is falling, it may still be higher than it was in 1975. When I last looked at the data, I saw a surge in divorce in the beginning of the 1970s. It probably peaked at some point rather than continuing to rise steadily.But the more important point is not divorce per se, but the increase in households headed by single moms. They could be single moms because they're divorced. Could be they never married. But the increase in that category since the 1970s makes it hard to make comparisons across time about inequality.Posted in Family | Permalink| Comments (17)| TrackBack (0)I So Wish that H. L. Mencken Were Still AliveDon Boudreaux Political types say the darndest things. Earlier today I heard, on NPR, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake interviewed about John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Ms. Lake said something like "Gov. Palin will have to convince voters that she and Mr. McCain are in touch with women's issues. For example, how will she deal with the fact that, as Senator, Mr. McCain voted many times against raising the minimum wage? The minimum-wage is absolutely a women's issue."What?? Let's assume -- contrary to economic logic -- that the minimum-wage achieves the very goals that it's advocates publicly assert that it will achieve with no downsides. Why would the minimum-wage be a "woman's issue"? What is it about higher wages that is of unique concern to women? Are low-skilled men indifferent to what they earn? Are men indifferent to what their low-skilled wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters earn? To what their low-skilled fathers, sons, and brothers earn? Do men care less about these things than women do? (If so, does that mean that men are less materialistic or less greedy than women?)I don't mean to pick on Ms. Lake (whom I never heard of until a few hours ago); she's simply one among a horde of political activists. I cite here her ridiculous statement about the minimum-wage being a "woman's issue" only to give further evidence that the vast majority of political talk is childish -- ridiculous -- fueled more by thoughtless presumptions than by considered thought.Politics is absurd. Looking to it as a source of earthly salvation, or even as a good means of getting potholes filled, is mystifying.(The above quotation from Celinda Lake is from my memory. I can't now find any on-line version of this statement by Ms. Lake. If you can find one, please do send it to me.)Posted in Politics | Permalink| Comments (22)| TrackBack (0) Lijit SearchRecent Posts"Sex Is Pleasurable, Studies Show"Who You Gonna Call?Blinded by partisanshipSamuelson on standard of livingNo PlanningMy Mellifluous VoiceMonetary geniusNo End of OilFreaky!Rauch on the Volt ArchivesSeptember 2008August 2008July 2008June 2008May 2008April 2008March 2008February 2008January 2008December 2007  Tyler Cowen: Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist  David Weinberger: Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder  Bryan Caplan: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies  Nassim Nicholas Taleb: The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable  J.C. Bradbury: The Baseball Economist: The Real Game Exposed  F.A. Hayek: The Fatal Conceit  Nassim Taleb: Fooled by Randomness  Ben Schott: Schott's Almanac 2007  Russell Roberts: The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity  Donald J. Boudreaux: Globalization (Greenwood Guides to Business and Economics)  Russell Roberts: The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection (3rd Edition)  Russell Roberts: The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance |
|
