Barton was right but is completely tactless

Hizzah - Amspec got a Daily Beast mention - indirectly but still.

Basically Joe Barton (or a Joe Barton staffer) had the audacity to retweet an Amspec blogpost entitled "Joe Barton was right" Luckily, the Post got a screen capture of the tweet before it was taken down.

This further illustrates my point that Barton WAS right but lacks some serious tact. That House hearing was not the time and place to make that point. Or maybe it was and it is Barton's delivery that doesn't sit right with me. Still it wasn't a good political move. And neither was retweeting something that says you're right!

He is fundamentally right though - the government should not coerce private companies into surrendering their property. BP was already processing claims and now we have just bogged the process down with another layer of government bureaucracy.

Tariffs and trade wars

One of the first papers, I wrote in college was on the onerous steel tariffs we used to have back in 2001. Oh the folly of tariffs, subsidies, and trade restrictions. I know it's naive to think that we could ever have truly free trade, but it makes so much sense. Otherwise you get into nasty trade wars like the one we're falling into with China right now. And how arbitrary is this?! Because we decided to levy tariffs on Chinese tires, the chicken farmers of America and our already weak auto industry will suffer China's retribution. All I can do is shake my head.

How much could I pay you to stand in line?

Fascinating story about the economics of line standing to get into Congressional Hearings on the Hill. The reporter does a good job of covering both sides of the story:

Becoming the Party of Freedom

I've recently come out (hardy har har) about how I feel on the issue of gay marriage and was excited to see another conservative touting the same sentiment over at Big Hollywood:

...gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage.

The Republican Party has made a huge mistake in advocating a kind of Cafeteria Constitutionalism. (I’ll take some guns, no helmet laws, please, a free market, and…yuck, hold the gay marriage!). One can’t legitimately invoke the Constitution to oppose federally mandated sex education, and then use the federal government to impose school prayer. Leave that fair-weather-federalism to the Left.

It’s not a state secret that the Democrat Party has become little more than a loose coalition of special interest groups with few or no coherent philosophical underpinnings. It’s also apparent that the Republicans are equally lost philosophically and couldn’t even manage to nominate a presidential candidate with the fiscal good sense to oppose corporate bailouts. Now here we are: face to face with an opportunity to take stock, recalibrate, and decide what we want from our political leaders.

Me, I implore the Republicans to become — once and for all — the party of freedom. The true moral highground is there to seize. Our Constitution was created as a shield against government encroachment on our personal lives. Conservatives should be the last people who would dare turn this document into a weapon.

To me, pressing a social agenda like this is part of the Republican party's undoing. To be consistent and ultimately successful at the ballot box, we need to always be on the side of liberty.

Libertarian joke and food for thought from Fred Smith

"What happens when two libertarians agree? Both know the other has sold out."

Ok, maybe that's only funny if you're libertarian, but it makes a point. We libertarians often compete to see who is more hardcore or principled. I think it's a bunch of righteous bunk. I mean, if we're ever going to enact change we have to work with and possibly in the system we currently have. We can't keep bumping our heads against the statist wall expecting it to move!

One of my favorite free market communicators is Fred Smith over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. I saw him speak this morning and enjoyed him thoroughly. His main point was along these lines. We can't just talk the talk anymore. We need action. Our free market movement is still relatively small "or embryonic, he said" and we will probably always be in the minority. Why? Because logically we should all be statist pigs! Many historians/economists/academics talk about the evolution of capitalism and its effects on society - increased wealth, a larger middle class, and the emergence of an intelligentsia that effectively rules the roost. This intellectual class has a vested interest in maintaining its power over the rest of the world (cue evil laugh). Ok, if you've read Hayek, you get what I'm talking about - if you haven't read Hayek, get on it. Anywho since us free marketers fight centralized power and mandates, we're class traitors. Smith argued that we need to leverage and market ourselves better. Not everyone has to be a libertarian but we need libertarian policies. Smith thinks that this can be achieved with better organization and marketing to people's core values. Here's hoping he's right and we have the means to outshout the left!

I couldn't say it better.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

---Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

This Keynes craze...

A couple weeks ago, I walked out of my first graduate school class. Funny it didn't happen when I was called a nazi (fall of 2007) or a person who affiliated with devil people like Phyllis Schafly or Charles Murray (spring 2008). I just got fed up.

We had a guest lecturer come talk to us about Keynes in our macroeconomics course. Fine. Ok, I was mentally prepared for a tedious class. What I wasn't prepared for was the ensuing Keynes lovefest coupled with derogatory comments about those crazy and unrealistic free market ideas that have "thankfully been proven wrong" etc. I bit my tongue and concentrated on keeping my cool. Unfortunately my laptop died or I would have vented my frustrations live on my blog. I made it all the way until 9:15pm (the class ends at 9:45) and the professor had obviously finished his prepared lecture and was just grinding his axe. Some snotty faced eager beaver in the front row eagerly raised his hand (why raise your hand when you're 3 feet away from the prof is beyond me), "Don't you think these irresponsible and greedy executives deserve some punitive damage for what they've done?"

As the professor started to calmly respond to this absurd question, I gathered my things and left the room. Unfortunately, my exit was punctuated inadvertently with the slamming of the door behind me. To which the professory commented, "Well, she must be an investment banker!"

No, my good sir, I am not, but I feel their pain.

The primary problem I have with Keynes is the same problem I have with neoclassical economics and all that other mainstream econ you learn in most undergraduate programs - it's assuming too much. Whether is perfect information on behalf of the neoclassical model or better information by the Keynesian planners, it assumes that some central authority is better equipped to make decisions than individual participants in the economy.

Here's a good explanation on the current Keynes craze and what Keynes was really all about.

Hat tip: David

What's your backup country?

If things continue to go south, I've seriously contemplated moving to New Zealand - Ireland is a close second. Perhaps I should visit first before I make this decision. My friends tease me that if I moved to New Zealand, I would be living amongst sheep, but I tell them I'd be living amongst sheep and men. Apparently the guy/girl ratio would be in my favor. The real reasons I picked those two countries are because #1 I can still speak English there, #2 they are in the top 10 of the Heritage Resource Bank's Economic Index of Freedom, and #3 beautiful landscapes.



Perhaps, I need to consider Denmark. Will Wilkinson has an interesting post on the possibility of government being Big and Free. He's not condoning big government, but he's giving us limited government fans hope that big government can still somehow be restrained. Counterintuitive? yes. Unlikely? yes. But here's hoping!

Eating wild turtles...

In their oped railing against the decline in turtle population due to their commercial value, the NYTimes oped board inadvertently says it best, "but as long as the appetite for turtles — and traditional medicines derived from them — persists, we fear it will be hard to curtail such a profitable and disastrous trade."

Exactly, so why not embrace the market forces?! I have an unusual affinity for this topic because I recently wrote a fundraising letter about conservation through commerce. If you can assign property rights and reduce or eliminate the black market for endangered species goods, then you can actually increase the population of the animals in question.

Here's a slightly redacted excerpt of the solicitation letter I wrote:

[Our founder] was excited by the potential of farming sea turtles both for profit as well as for conservation.

It turns out that turtle steak has more protein, less fat, and fewer calories than either beef or chicken. Turtle hides are also a good source of leather and the shells can be used in commercial products like art and furniture. What an entrepreneurial opportunity!

Poaching, coupled with development encroachment on the turtle’s habitat (they nest on sandy beaches), however, threatened future generations of sea turtles. [Our founder] along with several other clever fellows realized they could relieve pressure on turtles in the wild if they find a way to raise them under farm conditions.

They studied the lifecycle of turtles to learn how to create optimal conditions to raise them. They became “turtle experts” in all aspects related to their growth and development. Their efforts led to the creation of Mariculture, Inc., a remarkable blend of conservation through commerce. Before it was even fashionable, [they were] good environmental stewards!

The same property rights and incentives ideas that [our organization] applies to public policy apply as well to turtle farming -- It’s in the best interest of turtle farmers to ensure the long-term existence and thriving of turtles or else they would go out of business.

Unfortunately, this message was lost on the environmental special interest groups who destroyed the market for turtles by banning turtle products from being sold in the U.S. and in so doing they condemned the wild turtle to a tenuous existence being hunted all and sundry in the commons.

[Our founder] was saddened at the many losses that ensued. The turtle farm relieved poaching because it offered a steady source of turtle products. (He required buyers to sign a contract, agreeing to refrain from poaching if they wanted access to his products.) Yet, environmental politics destroyed this opportunity to protect the wild turtle populations.

I'll have a job...

I'll have a job as long as Americans can grow up in this country and still spew the following nonsense:

If a politician announced he was running on a platform of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" he would be laughed off the stage. That is also the correct response to anyone who continues to make the case that markets do best when left alone.
It's time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is. If not, the Dr. Frankensteins of the right will surely try to revive the monster and send it marauding through our economy once again.

First of all, Miss Huffington - what was the source of our nation's wealth if not capitalism? What enabled this country to succeed so quickly?

Secondly, laissez-faire capitalism died long ago. It died with the income tax of 1913 and the expansion of government spending which crowds out private innovation and charity. It died with the New Deal. It died when the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were founded. It died with the increasing regulations placed on the market and the individual over the last century.

We live and work in a mixed market economy - not a laissez-faire one.

Finally, the government sets the rules. The rules that created the series of perverse incentives that created this debacle. And it will only get worse as the government bails out failing companies to the detriment of the few that are actually keeping their noses above water.

We cannot cede the free market ground. It hasn't had a fair chance to prove itself in our lifetimes.

EHarmony rejected me too - should I sue?

Ok, so EHarmony didn't reject me technically, but I did fill out their profile once (back when I tried match.com) and I had ZERO matches. This is really sad in a city that is ranked fifth in the nation for online dating. Just because I felt slighted by EHarmony doesn't mean I'm going to sue though!

Wall Street Journal article here. More on the story from a conservative perspective at Dr Melissa's blog.

I was entertained by Match.com's ad campaign against EHarmony - "Rejected by EHarmony." It was an effective campaign that helped differentiate their product from their competitor. It was a great way of the market regulating itself through competition.

If EHarmony wants to limit their target market - that's their prerogative! They are limiting their own profit potential by doing so - who does that hurt? Only them! There are plenty of online dating sites open to gay couples. Straight people who are upset by EHarmony's discrimination can choose another dating site as well. What is the legal justification for interferring in a business model like this?! Should men sue Playtex because only women can use feminine products? Dr. Melissa uses the analogy that it's like suing a vegetarian restaruant for not serving steak. So true! Whether or not you agree with gay marriage and gay lifestyles, this is a scary government intervention.

Slightly more coherent cogitation than last night

I should be studying for my statistics midterm, but I will take a respite to try and make up for my admitedly shoddy post that Sherman enjoyed shooting bazooka size holes in this morning.

Most of the world and most Americans still admire the United States because it is a proven environment for creating wealth and prosperity. I would argue - as many have before me - that this is because of strong property rights, rule of law, generally free markets, and somewhat of a libertine air of rugged independence amongst its citizens.

Tonight, I would like to address the last two points.

"The market that failed was not exactly free" (subtitle of the editorial in today's Post). Increasingly, the U.S. government has intervened in what can best be described as a mixed economy. But we do live in a fundamentally capitalist society or a "market society" - even this liberal Lindblom I read in grad school admits it.

Markets beat government coordination both logistically and philosophically. No planner, politician, or bureaucrat can be all places at once, the market can. Markets are also much more vast in scope than any government could hope to be. They are self-adjusting and customizeable down to individual transactions and adapt instantaneously. Compare this with the unilateral, one-size-fits-all approach of government coordination which also takes ample time to adjust. Which approach honors individuality and most efficiently rewards hard work and innovation? We live in a market society because Americans have always held these values.

We are a country of individualists. We value innovation, hard work, and opportunity. Opportunity has been abused as of late. Opportunity in the traditional American sense does not convey a sense of entitlement or governmental obligation. Opportunity meant/means FREEDOM. But as our country has gotten wealthier, we have called for more and more to be given to us instead of earned. We've lost faith in our ability to make our own way in the world yet most would defiantly defend their right to do so (even with their hand outstretched for government money).

Americans are also optimists. My Bubblicious Optimism post was trying to address this. We are more positive about the private sector and the future than other developed countries and this shows in our acceptance of risk. And it turns out that tolerance for risk pays! Maybe it's hard to see now, but in the long-haul risk has paid America dividends. While some in society may gain more directly from growth than others, compare the lot of the bottom 10% of Americans others. Or maybe compare the basket of goods the bottom 10% can afford in the U.S. versus elsewhere. But that bottom 10% issue is a whole 'nother blogpost. American optimism puts stock in the individual over the government and in the long run over the short run.

Optimism is fundamental to the American psyche and I'd have it no other way.