July 3, 2009
GHG/CO2/AGW Hypothesis Fails "Ultimate Scientific Test"
More than one person on these pages has declared that there is a "consensus amongst the majority of serious scientists that man made global warming is a real phenomenon." The obvious implication is that anyone who disputes this is either an un-serious scientist or a crackpot. I now ask any of you who may still hold that belief, which label would you apply to Dr. Alan Carlin, the EPA's own Senior Operations Research Analyst? Previous ThreeSources blog posts here, here and here have referenced the internal dissent by Dr. Carlin against the hasty and apparently premeditated regulation of CO2 as an atmospheric "pollutant." In Carlin's own words, here is what he has to say about the state of the GHG/CO2/AGW "science."
I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
This is profound enough in its own right. But there is more:
It is of great importance that the Agency recognize the difference between an effort that has consumed tens of billions of dollars by the IPCC, the CCSP, and some additional European, particularly British, funding over a period of at least 15 years with what I have been able to pull together in less than a week. (...) What is actually noteworthy about this effort is not the relative apparent scientific shine of the two sides but rather the relative ease with which major holes have been found in the GHG/CO2/AGW argument. In many cases the most important arguments are based not on multi-million dollar research efforts but by simple observation of available data which has surprisingly received so little scrutiny. The best example of this is the MSU satellite data on global temperatures. Simple scrutiny of this data yields what to me are stunning observations. Yet this has received surprisingly little study or at least publicity. In the end it must be emphasized that the issue is not which side has spent the most money or published the most peer-reviewed papers, or been supported by more scientific organizations. The issue is rather whether the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test—conformance with real world data. What these comments show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis fails; this is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding. This will take more than four days but is the most important thing I can do right now and in the coming weeks and months and possibly even years.
Emphasis mine. In Dr. Carlin's 85 page review report, composed in about 4 of the 5 days he was given to review the Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act he made 19 specific recomended revisions to the TSD. In the Executive Summary section he pretty much sums up his opinion with this:
These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case. If their conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the available data.
Like the folks at Americans for Limited Government, I'll label Dr. Carlin an American hero.
Posted by: jk at July 3, 2009 6:45 PMJune 26, 2009
"Balanced" and "sensible" climate change bill passes House
That's the spin thrown on the bill by President Obama yesterday. Surely it was far from either of those qualities at the time, but prior to passage another 300 pages were shoe-horned in ... at 3 am this morning! [What in the hell is the fixation that Washington politicians have with that time of day?] Minority Leader Boehner said the obvious:
And here are a few floor quotes:
Rep. Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, said the cap-and-trade bill represented the "economic colonization of the heartland" by New York and California.Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) called the bill a “scam” that would do nothing but satisfy “the twisted desires of radical environmentalists.”
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) called it a “massive transfer of wealth” from the United States to foreign countries.Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that, without the bill, the United States would remain energy-dependent on people who want to “fly planes into our buildings.”
I'd hoped to insert a bulleted list of ways that this bill is a colonoscopy for America but then I realized, Who the hell knows what it does... it jumped from 1200 pages to 1500 overnight!
But it's far from law yet. Next stop: the Senate.
(Note that as the lions share of H.R. 2454 was written by the environmental lobby this post qualifies for the coveted "dirty hippies" category.)
And kudos to JK for naming the 8 RINOs who voted for this treasonous piece of crap. Just four of them switching sides would have spiked it.
That jagoff Kirk wants to run for Obama's former Senate seat.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: AlexC at June 26, 2009 11:33 PMOf the 44 Democrats voting no, one is from Colorado and four are from PA. I'll tell you what - my respect for John Salazar (CO-3) just grew three sizes larger.
Posted by: johngalt at June 27, 2009 10:06 AMWell done, Mister Leader!
I tend to give up before trying on my representation, but Colorado's two freshman Democrat Senators could well feel a little heat on this issue.
To take up an Instapundit riff, having the next Tea Party outside of Senator Udall's or Bennett's office might be a better blow for freedom than a photo-op outside the Capitol.
Posted by: jk at June 27, 2009 11:50 AMIf Mark Udall might face heat on this issue in 2010 he doesn't seem to feel it at the moment. One of the stories I read yesterday said a few senators were working the halls of congress twisting arms for a yes vote. Mark Udall (D-CO) was the one mentioned by name.
I'm in for a TEA (Taking Energy Away) party at one of Markey's offices. Instead of pitchforks we'll carry empty gas cans. (Shall we try to organize something for next week?)
Posted by: johngalt at June 27, 2009 3:27 PMI'm thinking we'd have better luck with Bennett, but that it would be a good exercise to scare Senator Udall. He is used to catering to CO-2 collectivists and a reminder that Boulder is not the whole state, dude, might be a good lesson.
They're pushing on Twitter for GOP defectors (great Twitter tag #capandtr8tors) to change their vote as you suggest with Markey. Is that realistic? I cannot imagine that the same effort would not be better directed at the Senate, but I am open to discussion.
Posted by: jk at June 27, 2009 6:29 PMBest quote:
“I look forward to spending the next 100 years trying to fix this legislation,” said California Republican Brian Bilbray.
Posted by: HB at June 27, 2009 10:15 PMJune 24, 2009
We're From The Government
-- And we're here to help!
Citi has to raise salaries for retention, because of restrictions on bonuses. AP:
NEW YORK -- Citigroup Inc. is increasing base salaries for many of its employees as it restructures its compensation program amid new restrictions on bonus payments.The increased salaries will offset lower bonuses, according to a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because the plans have not been made public. The higher salaries are not the equivalent of annual raises, the person added.
Citi faces restrictions on bonuses as part of a new government compensation oversight plan because the bank received bailout funds from the Treasury Department.
Of course, salaries are paid irrespective of personal or corporate performance, so this will be a drag on Citi's balance sheet and give the firm less flexibility to manage labor -- but at least there will be no embarrassing (to Congress) bonus stories.
Ahh, let's see, what can we fix next? Chairman Barney Frank has a great idea: lower the standards for Fannie and Freddie to underwrite Condo loans. What a brilliant idea. WSJ Ed Page:
Back when the housing mania was taking off, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank famously said he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "roll the dice" in the name of affordable housing. That didn't turn out so well, but Mr. Frank has since only accumulated more power. And now he is returning to the scene of the calamity -- with your money. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers.You read that right. After two years of telling us how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made, Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development.- this is the kind of thinking we cant get in the provate sectpor. WSJ Ed Page:
Imagine what these people could to health care -- no, wait, you don't have to! They're already running the VA. Take it away, AP:
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is calling for more centralized control of the VA medical system after recent breakdowns in cleaning colonoscopy equipment exposed thousands of veterans to the risk of contracting HIV and other infections.In prepared remarks to be delivered at a Wednesday hearing, Democratic Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii said that disparities in quality control procedures at VA medical centers raise questions about whether local or national leaders are in charge.
Don't thank them -- it's all in a day's work for The Government!
There cannot be a better metaphor for government services to individuals than un-clean colonoscopy equipment.
Posted by: johngalt at June 24, 2009 2:44 PMTouche, JG!
You get the coffee-spluttered-on-the-keyboard award for today.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 24, 2009 4:27 PMI salute you and bow to your wisdom, johngalt - that's a more fitting metaphor for the government than my DC train wreck example. You win.
Skipping lunch now...
Posted by: Keith at June 24, 2009 4:57 PMAhh, close enough for government work...
Remember, GOP, the choice is not between dirty and clean -- the choice is between dirty and virtual.
Posted by: jk at June 24, 2009 5:01 PMMay 15, 2009
For Sale: The Golden State
I really wanted to include a little graphic showing the state of California with a FOR SALE sign planted in it right about at Sacramento. Well, just use your imagination.
California's Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed selling a number of state landmarks (state ownership of which is in some doubt) to raise cash and balance the state budget. One-time proceeds are estimated at $1 billion. The budget shortfall is $15.4 billion, just for the next fiscal year. Obviously state officials need more stuff to put in their garage sale. Hmm, I wonder what California has that someone might be willing to pay cash for (other than federal bailout dollars, that is.) Gee, that's a tough one!
According to this handy interactive graphic the total government lease royalty revenue that would result from lifting current oil and gas production moratoria is $1695 billion and of that amount, $1386 billion of it comes from the outer continental shelf (Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf regions combined.) A summary report here provides numerous tables showing the breakdown by area but none were clear enough for me to cite specifically. Let it suffice to say the California budget shortfall, at $15.4 billion, is a bit over 1 percent of the possible OCS government windfall. If the Governator would simply work toward responsible development of his state's natural resources he could balance its budget overnight, and for decades to come.
As an added bonus, the productive half of America might even throw in legalization of pot!
I'm just happy the Governator is listening to Reason TV as they point out some of the goodies that are available.
Great point on the revenues from energy production. If we could duct tape Senators Boxer and Feinstein in a box* for a couple of days and override the bans, would the Golden State's production be viable at current prices?
*ThreeSources does not recommend or condone violent behavior directed at legitimately elected officials. This was merely a dramatic device to suggest possible passage of legislation that the current Senatorial representation of California has long opposed.
Posted by: jk at May 15, 2009 11:42 AMCalifornia going bankrupt while refusing to pump all that nice, shiny, revenue-producing oil isn't far removed from half a billion people starving in India while porterhouses and top sirloins on four legs walk around unmolested and uneaten on their city streets.
THERE'S a worthy run-on sentence to make a well-deserved point. The picturesque tone of voice is just a fringe benefit.
All that being said, I must once again apologize to the whole nation for my state. Let's just face it: we're heap plenty stupid. We gave you Feinstein, Boxer, Schwarzenegger, Waters, and come next Tuesday, we'll see whether we're still stupid.
I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry.
Posted by: Keith at May 15, 2009 4:32 PMA feller in the 2nd Congressional Colorado district is not going to cast any stones (not without a permit, Kieth).
The Reason video reminded me the hope I had for Ahnold. All humor of the video aside, it underscores just how bankrupt (philosophically) the system is. Watch those union folk -- those teachers "Ain't got none attention of giving nothing up!"
Schwarzenegger was a rare chance: he had the star power to get elected as an individualist in a collectivist-leaning state and he had toughness to stand up to the opposition. The California Public Union Sector trained him like a puppy. Is there another one left, Yoda?
Posted by: jk at May 15, 2009 5:02 PMI see today evidence that the "sell Cahl-ee-fohrn-ya's state landmarks" proposal was little more than a campaign stunt. It was aimed at bolstering support for tomorrow's tax increase ballot measures (which Keith alluded to in his comment.) The half-dozen or so initiatives would raise taxes to collect, as I understand it, an additional $6 billion per year for 3 years from CA taxpayers (read: those "white people" who gathered on Capitol steps nationwide last month). If they fail, as the polls suggest most will, the supposed result will be "deep spending cuts."
Good NED, can we get some of those ballot measures in OUR state too??
Posted by: johngalt at May 18, 2009 1:36 PMjohngalt: for more on tomorrow's wacky ballot measures in California, see here:
I did an update yesterday pointing my readers back here, and we have a lively conversation going among my readers in which you're always welcome to participate. Heaven knows a good lesson in free-market economics and the proper role of government is sorely needed by Californians, especially our elected overlords...
Posted by: Keith at May 18, 2009 1:55 PMMay 12, 2009
We're From the Government...
And these are the people we want to run our health care system?
Millions of Americans on Social Security are receiving $250 checks as part of the president's stimulus plan -- including an Anne Arundel woman who died more than 40 years ago.The woman's son, 83-year-old James Hagner, said he got the surprise when he checked his mailbox late last week.
"It shocked me and I laughed all at the same time," Hagner said. "I don't even expect to get one my own self, and I get one for my mother for 43 years ago?"
His mother, Rose, died on Memorial Day in 1967.
Social Security representatives said there is a good explanation. Of the about 52 million checks that have been mailed out, about 10,000 of those have been sent to people who are deceased.
"US Department of Wellness and Vitality representatives said there is a good explanation. Of the about 52 million doses of Murthazine provided, only a little over 10,000 of those have been given to people with a fatal reaction."
Posted by: jk at May 13, 2009 11:06 AMI Thought I was kidding about Murthazine. Then again:
The other nephew - Robert C. Murtha, Jr. - a former Marine, runs a company in Glen Burnie, Maryland, called Murtech Inc. According to The Washington Post, “Last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services.”Posted by: jk at May 13, 2009 12:13 PM
May 11, 2009
Fuel Economy Buffoonery
It was bound to happen: The 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid - "The most fuel efficient mid-sized sedan in America." EPA rated 41 mpg city/36 mpg highway.
You read that right, brother. It is supposedly MORE fuel efficient in town than on the open road. ("Smart" drivers will doubtless pull over and stop every mile or so to improve their highway mileage.)
I'm assuming - more efficient in town than on the four-lane because in town, the carbon-based engine shares duty with the electric motor, while freeway speeds on the four-lane require full-time use of the gasoline burner, because battery power can't push you along at a speed needed for freeway driving?
Alternative cynical theory: getting out and pushing can be done on city streets only.
Posted by: Keith at May 11, 2009 4:36 PMYes, more or less. And the salient point is this: What is the battery's state of charge at the beginning and end of the test?
Posted by: johngalt at May 11, 2009 5:17 PMMay 4, 2009
Government Intrustion 101
Today's Denver Post featured this story about a couple of young entrepreneurs in Salida, Colorado. These kids, nine and ten respectilvey, spent their winter building bird houses to sell in the spring. The enterprise was encouraged by their father.
Hunter's dad, Eric Beem, dreamed up the idea for his son's birdhouse business as a way to teach him things like self-reliance and money management."It's hard for parents," he said. "When kids want something, it's easier to shell out money" than to figure out how to teach them how how to leverage their talents for pocket change.
Sounds quintessentially American. Unfortunately, the long arm of government stepped in, which is also becoming quintessentially American.
It all stopped when the code enforcer told them they could get a ticket for peddling products without the proper paperwork.Then she handed them a business card with a number at city hall to call for information about the license and how much it would cost.
For now, the kids are shut down. The Salida City Council is considering and ordinance change. Wow. Responsive government in action.
Of course, that's just the beginning of the lesson. Soon, the kids will learn that they need to register their business with the State of Colorado. As part of that process, they'll need to get an Employer Identification Number from both the IRS and the State. They must also call the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment and get a separate UI number.
As a seasonal business, they'll need to determine their filing status and likely file form 941 on a quarterly basis. Failure to file can result in penalties, interest and criminal charges. At the same time, they need to file form 1000-100 with the State on a quarterly basis for state withholding. In addition, they must file and pay the Quarterly Unemployment Wage Report on the first $10,000 of income per annum based on a rate provided by the state. This must be paid by the business and cannot be withheld from employee's paychecks, and no one is exempt. At year end, send all employees a W2 and all contractors a 1099. Then, send form W3 to the IRS, Social Security Administration, and the State Department of Revenue. Be sure to file on time to avoid penalties and interest.
They also must not forget to obtain worker's compensation insurance as mandated by the State. As business owners, they can exempt themselves from coverage, but must file the appropriate affidavit. Appropriate notifications and posters must be posted in a conspicuous location so that all employees can see their rights regarding unemployment and worker's compensation. Failure to do so can result in fines. They must also select a state-approved healthcare provider for all worker's comp injury examinations and claims.
It's not a bad idea for them to look into a general business liability umbrella policy as well. Should one of the wires holding the bird house break and the house hit someone on the head, there could be signficant business liability.
The bird houses were almost certainly made using saws, so OSHA has oversight regarding workplace safety. The fire marshall is also entitled to inspect the premises annually, without notice. Failure to comply with any related regulation can result in closing the business and fines.
The bird houses probably were painted or varnished to protect against the weather. OSHA can determine whether or not adequate ventilation and personal protective gear is available. If not, see above regarding business closure and fines. EPA and state agencies have oversight regarding the disposal of the empty paint/varnish containers and paint brushes. They must be disposed of in approved locations.
Because bird houses are often handled by kids, the houses must be tested and certified as lead-free. Any inventory that has not been tested must be disposed of as directed by EPA.
There you go, kids - have fun! Learn what America, the Land of Opportunity, is all about. Of course, you might consider a lemonade stand, but then we'd have to get the health department involved...
Awesome post. Many people don't connect with the abstract freedom I talk about. This is what a government managed economy looks like.
Posted by: jk at May 4, 2009 4:25 PMBR-
Thank you for this. I can't help but think this is one of the best posts I have seen on this site.
Well done.
Posted by: T. Greer at May 4, 2009 5:24 PMI blush...
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 4, 2009 5:55 PMApril 19, 2009
Fly Murtha Airways!
I don't think this is quite what Mister Madison had in mind. At the John Murtha Airport, the screeners outnumber the passengers -- but Federal Jack keeps it in operation.
Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International Airport.The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway.
The facility, newly renamed the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, is a testament to Murtha's ability to tap streams of federal money for pricey, state-of-the-art projects that are rare among regional airports of comparable size.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
April 8, 2009
Whom Have We Empowered?
The WSJ (news pages) today carry a chilling story of the man Sec Paulson brought in to oversee TARP funds.
As the government continues to pour cash into the economy, Mr. Lambright, 38 years old, has become one of the most powerful men in American finance. Unknown to most outside the Treasury building, he's an embodiment of how power in the economy has shifted -- for good or ill -- to Washington.The chief investment officer of the Troubled Asset Relief Program has engineered $350 billion in deals for the U.S. government since October, more than many investment banks would do in a good year. His team interviews candidates for company board seats. Top executives regularly call him and his team for advice.
Neither gub'mint nor Wall Street is beanbag, but the story of Lambright's "toughness" is disturbing. Don Luskin highlights his intransigence on New Year's Eve as companies desperately tried to get funds deposited before the new year. No, we don't want a cream puff shoveling out taxpayer dollars, but Lambright was appointed by a guy who was appointed. He was neither elected nor explicitly under oversight. He is a free range actor with billions of our dollars to prop up the financial system -- or his own, non-diminutive ego.
March 28, 2009
What is the Constitutional Term Limit on Dictator of the United States?
Hot on the tail of my blog showing Twice as many now believe U.S. evolving into socialist state comes former Speaker of the House of the United States, Newt Gingrich, saying the country is heading to a dictatorship.
"My specific reference was to dictatorial powers, that I thought that Secretary of the Treasury Geithner was asking for, where he would decide what companies to take over, he would decide under what circumstances, and let me tell ya, the American system was not built for one bureaucrat to decide whether or not they're gonna take your property. (...) And then look at what they're trying to do on the budget, where they're trying to ram through a resolution, to break the rules of the Senate, to be able to get through both an energy tax increase and a massive change in our health system on 51 votes, which is clearly a power grab of unprecedented proportions. I think dictatorial is a strong word, but it may frighteningly be the right word."
Is anyone else beginning to wonder why Obama doesn't seem concerned about re-election?
The inference that Obama may not intend to step down was mine, based solely on the similarities between the Obama regime and the Hugo Chavez regime.
I'm not a big "drug war" guy but the laws should be enforced or changed - I generally lean toward the latter.
Let's talk about his current punditry in a more objective manner. Consider his latest incarnation of a contract proposal:
http://www.americansolutions.com/directupload/pdf/12SolutionsPrintoutFinal.pdf
I find little to disagree with here. Probably some elements of item 12 are first on that list.
Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2009 1:25 PMOh, and on "dictatorial" I say it's time to call a spade a spade. Only in a politically correct forum can that be disparaged as "alarmist."
Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2009 1:27 PMBut JG- hes not a dictator. Not yet anyway.
The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary gives three definitions for dictator:
a: a person granted absolute emergency power
b: one holding complete autocratic control
c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
Which of these labels does Obama fit into? Option A can be scratched off the list pretty quick, as Obama does not have emergency powers of any sort (yet). Option C can likewise be knocked down, as Obama does not have absolute control over the lives of the citizens of the Unites States. This leaves us with Option B- but here to we have problems. Obama is not the only autocrat in Washington; like most Presidents he must wrangle with Congress. Indeed, from what I have seen he had to pull all stops in order to do so.
Excuse me if it seems like I'm parsing words but I was careful to say "dictatorial" and not "dictator."
dictatorial –adjective
1. of or pertaining to a dictator or dictatorship.
2. appropriate to, or characteristic of, a dictator; absolute; unlimited: dictatorial powers in wartime.
3. inclined to dictate or command; imperious; overbearing: a dictatorial attitude.
Both 2 and 3 fit administration policies.
Posted by: johngalt at April 1, 2009 1:11 PMHey, if I pull a dictionary out on you, feel free to parse words all you want!
BTW: I will cede the point.
Posted by: T. Greer at April 1, 2009 4:32 PMNot at all - as long as Republicans keep pulling boners in public like this, one after another, he's a virtual shoe-in in 2012.
The total collapse of the crooked financial system has completely revealed the falsity of the so-called "social conservative" position that once made Republicans so popular. Whats left - it was the last Republican administration that increased spending and government regulation (albeit, perhaps not where regulation was *actually needed*) more than any other in history, so you can't exactly blame that on democrats any more.
Remember, kids, the net ROI on war and weapons is always either zero, or negative!
Posted by: Jason Kennerly at April 3, 2009 3:14 PMMarch 9, 2009
Why politicized economic development is dangerous
I recently wrote on the danger of politics driving scientific research. The obvious case of this now is all of the government "investments" being proposed in the name of "saving the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change."
But even if man-made climate change was real (sorry tg, is real) and even if "renewable" energy sources were beneficial to counter it, the least effective entity to make them a reality is - wait for it - government.
Consider the following essay on "One Reason Governments Spend So Much" from the 'Uncle Eric' book: Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?
Industries generally develop in three stages. First is scientific feasibility, second is engineering feasibility, and third is economic feasibility.Using the airline industry as an example, the question in the 1800s was: "Is long-distance air travel possible?"
In the 1800s, balloons were already in use but were not practical. The problem to solve was the heavier-than-air machine.
The Wright Brothers in 1903 proved scientific feasibility. They risked their time, money and lives to show that a heavier-than-air machine could fly.
Lindbergh, in 1927, proved engineering feasibility. He risked time, money and his life to show that long-distance air travel was possible.
This gave investors enough confidence to risk their money in the aircraft industry. In 1935 the Douglas Company came out with the DC-3, which was the beginning of economic feasibility.
The modern airline industry resulted from all this risk-taking. Today, a middle-class American can go anywhere in the world much faster, and in much greater comfort, than a Roman emperor could. Travelers fly because the benefits are greater than the costs. This is economic feasibility.
This three-step model explains why governments are terrible at economic development. The "experts" who comprise the government gamble with other people's money, so they tend to confuse scientific and engineering feasibility with economic feasibility.
Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it - even if the costs are greater than the benefits. [emphasis mine]
This economic development of the economically unfeasible is precisely the modern story of:
Wind power
Solar photovoltaic power
Ethanol (both glucosic AND celluosic)
Biodiesel
Hydrogen fuel cells
Dual-mode hybrid cars
The list goes on...
Just to add to the entertainment value: "But even if man-made climate change were real..." is the grammatically accurate construction. Heh.
JohnGalt: great post, and the model of three-stage development makes plain, even to a poor, dumb country boy like me, why government-run economic development doesn't work. And to boot, it's much more elegant than me just saying "a government that can't even balance its own checkbook has no business fiddling with the economy."
I'd only propose one small change to the quote rfrom the essay. Where the author wrote "Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it - even if the costs are greater than the benefits" in the last paragraph, it seems to me that the last phrase should omit the word "even" and the hyphen, thusly: "... those who comprise the government will do it if the costs are greater than the benefits." If the benefits are greater than the costs, entrepreneurs and private industry will do it, without the necessity of government meddling. Profit motive being what it is, and all that.
Ergo, government will ONLY do it if its benefits do not justify its costs, and that applies to every item in your list. QED, yes?
Posted by: Keith at March 9, 2009 3:18 PMAhh, the punchline from a great old gag can be trotted out:
I congratulate Keith on his use of the subjunctive.Posted by: jk at March 9, 2009 4:32 PM
Thanks, jk...
Say, on the subject of government and the economy, I've been reading in the news today that Warren Buffett has been quoted as saying the U.S. economy "fell off a cliff." I've read that three times today, and every time, all that comes to mind is...
"It was pushed."
Posted by: Keith at March 9, 2009 5:11 PMWellll, I was trying to have some fun with TG, saying "was" as in "past tense" ... before it was largely discredited, then replacing it with "is" as a sop to him since he's not yet comfortable with the "denier" badge of courage.
I admit - sometimes my jokes trip over their shoelaces.
Oh, and yes, I do fully agree with your improvement of the closing paragraph. Well done!
Posted by: johngalt at March 10, 2009 12:25 AMTough room, jg, you know that as well as anyone.
Posted by: jk at March 10, 2009 1:34 PMEh, I though the post was funny. I also think you have highlighted one of the biggest problems with the Eco-stimulus crowd. What they call progress is in actuality a retardation (word?) of Western civilization.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 11, 2009 12:19 PMMarch 6, 2009
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
Yesterday I commented that there's "another important dragon to be slain before" the next elections for congress and for president. That dragon is the myth of man-made global warming caused by our use of economical, safe and abundant energy sources. Many of us have long contended that the idea is founded upon pseudo-science. The late Michael Crighton agreed and in an appendix to his wonderfully entertaining and thought provoking novel 'State of Fear' he wrote "Why politicized science is dangerous."
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high-school classrooms.
I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Read on below-
Careful, jg, TR has some strong followers around here. Sure he wanted to control capitalism from Washington, lock up his enemies and kill the enfeebled, but he displayed prodigious intellectual powers, looked good in casual clothes, and said "bully!" a lot.
Posted by: jk at March 6, 2009 2:36 PMOne of Crighton's points is how, after the horrors perpetrated in the name of the theory became widely known, "nobody was a eugenicist and nobody had ever been a eugenicist."
You'll recall I suggested not long ago that we start a permanent record of Global Warmists today, for the historical record.
My favorite thing about TR was "speak softly, and carry a big stick."
Posted by: johngalt at March 6, 2009 3:47 PM@Jg: I read that book and thought it sucked. (Tidal waves=result of climate change?) On the other hand, I thought the appendix you link to was quite insightful. It is rather sad to me that one's views on AGW are determined by your political affiliation. These days it seems that if you believe in "protecting the environment" then AGW is a self-evident fact not worth examining, while if you are of the free-market crowd, there is no way the climate could ever be linked to man's activities on the Earth.
This is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly acceptable to hold that warming may be influenced bu man and that free markets should not be interfered with for the environment's sake. Indeed, this is the exact position I hold.
@Jk: Hahahha. Enough already! I think we have covered this before- Roosevelt's views on eugenics never led to anything more than a desire to make immigration laws stricter. Vilifying him for politicizing science makes no sense. Everything else you have listed is irrelevant to the subject of this post and has been discussed already.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 6, 2009 5:32 PMOkay, I'll leave TR alone.
I enjoyed the Lomborg clip. He inspired the D in DAWG and I think his position is reasonable and defensible.
I hold that the debate was politicized by the left: those who Popper said would have us go back to the caves. Suddenly, the inefficacy of their ideas was meaningless: we had to take on the whole Nader-Kucinich platform or all of our children will die!
The DAWG advocates then claimed that "the science was settled" because a poll was taken. Popper, again, pointed out that science is not really done that way.
Yes, it is too bad that something important has devolved into childish bickering -- but, Mommy, they started it!!
Posted by: jk at March 6, 2009 7:04 PMBut it isn't called global warming anymore tg, it's "climate change." That way the charade can be continued whether the trend is warmer or cooler. Which is fortunate for them since now, it's cooling.
The market interference you allude to is the setting of arbitrary limits on emission of mammal breath. "First they came for the dioxins, then the beneficial pesticides, then the fluorocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur compounds, and when they came for carbon dioxide there were no pollutants left to say - you can't regulate non-pollutants!"
Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2009 8:11 PMMarch 3, 2009
On Tea Parties - Where's Your Sacred Honor?
... In which I infuriate my fellow travelers on the right.
The next big "tea party" is going to take place on April 15th.
Building upon the success of the February 27th "Chicago Tea Party" Rallies, many of the organizers are now working to develop an even larger day of protests set to happen on April 15th, 2009.These protests are known as the Tax Day Tea Party rallies.
It's really the perfect day.
Likely a beautiful spring Wednesday spent standing around with fellow conservatives and libertarians with signs and chants.
Completely not like the original Boston Tea Party.
In fact, looking at the Wikipedia article, these protests are exactly NOT like the Boston Tea Party.
There's no inspired action.
Samuel Adams said to the assembly "This meeting can do nothing more to save the country". As though on cue, the Sons of Liberty thinly disguised as either Mohawk or Narragansett Indians and armed with small hatchets and clubs, headed toward Griffin's Wharf (in Boston Harbor), where lay Dartmouth and the newly-arrived Beaver and Eleanor.
The Sons of Liberty was a revolutionary secret society... and they were likely Longshoreman on this night.
The casks were opened and the tea dumped overboard; the work, lasting well into the night, was quick, thorough, and efficient. By dawn, over 342 casks or 90,000 lbs (45 tons) of tea worth an estimated Ł10,000 or $1.87 million USD in 2007 currency) had been consigned to waters of Boston harbor. Nothing else had been damaged or stolen, except a single padlock accidentally broken and anonymously replaced not long thereafter.
I think it's a disservice to our earliest patriots to call a tax protest a Tea Party. Standing around like a bunch of dopey lib-tards swinging signs and chanting is no way to run a protest.
You say you want a revolution? Don't wear a seatbelt.
You say you want a revolution? Buy your cigarettes or prescription drugs duty-free or in Mexico.
You say you want a revolution? Idle your car in the driveway all day long, polluting the earth, making Gaia cry. I'd settle for burning leaves in a barrel.
You say you want a revolution? Dig around your drawers and find old stamps and mail envelopes around!
You say you want a revolution? If you're on a 1099 don't file quarterly estimated payments. W2ers are hosed. *
You say you want a revolution? Make a bon-fire / marshmallow roast with stacks of tax forms and tax guides. Invite your neighbors.
You say you want a revolution? On April 15th, don't file your 1040... or send it back empty.
That, my friends, would be a real tea party. How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tax payers (out of the 150 million) would it take to put a wrench in the works? (I guess you would have to mail it back though)
It is tax fraud, however... and you're guilty until proven innocent in the IRS's eyes. That's where you need to focus, if you want a "tax" revolution.
Standing around with your friends and future friends? Really inspirational... for the history books.
* It's a sign of how f'd up our system is that your government forces you to pay your taxes! You can't withhold your withholding!
Your words hit home, ac. I have asked the same question a thousand time of my niece who marched to stop the Iraq War. I have suggested as many times that her efforts were better spent supporting candidates; earning money for a candidate, PAC or 527; or even writing letters to the editor. I can't hold my rightist friends to a different standard, though they are finally answering P.J. O'Rourke's question of "why don't we all march when they raise capital gains rates?"
To directly address your points, I do not want a revolution. I want the losers who inhabit incumbencies in our present Constitutional system to see that there is a breaking point and that they have found it. It is a signal that their cushy seats are in danger if they continue to overtax the productive.
A big crowd on the evening news seems like a good way to send a message. Better than burning tax forms. As far as not filing and not paying -- I take your point that it is far braver than "marching" but how does that result in a less collectivist government? Even if it is wildly successful -- Congress says "okay, we'll ignore the results of the last elections and capitulate to the demands of the non-payers."
Is that the next tool for war opponents or gay marriage activists or those who oppose the infield fly rule? Elections matter and unless you want to move off the US Constitution, I don't think you really want a revolution.
Interesting idea, AC. Imagine if every taxpayer filed two returns: one actual return (its compulsory) and one fake return (fake name, fake SSN, fake employer ID). Of course, you'd need a fake W2, but those forms are available on the web. You also would not want to file a form with a refund due, lest the IRS cut a check in good faith and it be deemed fraud. It would be better to have a balance due with no attached payment and let the IRS try to track it down. Now there's a civil disobedience protest.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 3, 2009 2:30 PMjk: if you want to take up arms against Astroturf or the designated hitter (I've boycotted the entire American League), I'm with you, but the infield fly rule is sacred.
Okay, that was jollity and frivolity. More on a serious note, this post really cuts to the real issue. The Tea Party Protests - do they actually accomplish anything more than wearing whatever color ribbon we're supposed to be wearing this week? Do they "raise awareness?" Fine. Mission accomplished: awareness is raised. Do they "show solidarity?" Check. But I imagine our overlords in Washington glancing out from behind their venetian blinds saying "okay, they've got that out of their system. Back to destroying capitalism."
All the sign-waving, ribbon-wearing, or bumper-sticker-sporting in the world accomplishes nothing, other than perhaps persuading some of the people in the "Indifferent" or "Don't Know" columns to change their stances, and I don't think there are many people in that subset.
I too hope it doesn't come to violent revolution, but having watched the percentage of America voting over the years for the candidate of the left - Gore, Kerry, and now Obama - progressively increase, there's a part of me that wonders if the nation has gone irreversibly around the corner. Besides, with Obama's current strategy of making increasing numbers of people clients of the nannystate, and waging war on the investor class and the productive class in order to sap those resources, I wonder whether the voting public can be turned back.
Plus, with the Republican Party's identity crisis (read: Schwarzenegger, Snowe, Specter, etc.), electing Republicans doesn't necessarily equate to electing conservatives and constitutionalists.
For the record, I also am not in favor of a Constitutional Convention. Without a mechanism to limit it to specific issues, there is far too much opportunity for mischief.
WWJGD?
Besides, we all know that the FBI and the BATFE read these blogs, so our secret plans to overthrow the nation and rule for ourselves in the aftermath show NEVER be posted here.
Posted by: Keith at March 3, 2009 2:55 PMTo be clear, i'm not calling for revolution.
I'm saying "tangible" protests... calling these protests "tea parties" is besmirching the original tea party.
A response/disagreement on the 'cooler.... http://pawatercooler.com/?p=11502
Posted by: AlexC at March 3, 2009 2:56 PMHey brother, don't knock it [taxpayer "Tea Parties"] if you haven't tried it! ;) Here are a few observations:
1) Rome wasn't built in a day.
2) One hard-working, tax paying adult conservative "protester" equals at least 10 tatooed punk hippies on the impact scale. (Since everyone knows the latter do this kind of stuff as foreplay.)
3) Any opportunity to foster discussion of GOOD ideas is worthwhile. Everyone who hears is one more person than would have if it wasn't said.
4) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke - 1770
5) If we shun any effort that seems too trivial or uninspired or impotent, where do we find our courage to do something "consequential?"
I sense your frustration, and I feel it too. But I also feel the groundswell of what Keith calls "rugged individualism" which inspires me to the continued belief that most Americans have a breaking point when it comes to this collectivist bull-crap.
I think unbridled Democrat control of government may be the foul medicine our mixed economy needed to inspire popular support for evolutionary change - where our elected officials take their oath to uphold the Constitution SERIOUSLY. As Obama and the powerlusting Pelosi take us out of the warm pot and throw us into a hot one it only serves us better that the pot is as hot as they can make it.
Posted by: johngalt at March 3, 2009 4:20 PMjg: I dearly hope you're right about the breaking point. Four (or worse, eight) years of where this economy and the republic are headed presently represent an abyss into which I do not enjoy staring.
That being said, I have friends who didn't like McCain, and actually considered voting for Obama solely because they knew the damage caused would scare people into voting conservative in '12. I argued against burning the nation down to rebuild it, but your last paragraph does show the only silver lining I can see in this dark cloud.
Finally, the Refugee has already counseled me today about giving fair warning before the turn of a friendly snark. That thing about tattooed hippies and foreplay? Not only did I choke on my coffee, I'm now in need of brain bleach to get that image off my cerebral cortex.
Posted by: Keith at March 3, 2009 4:32 PMFebruary 10, 2009
Daschle's Revenge
Tom Daschle's sudden withdrawal as HHS Secretary nominee was a banner moment for American individual liberty. But perhaps we breathed too easily too soon.
Eight days ago JK wrote,
"As far as getting somebody worse, I've no doubt that there are worse ideologues than Senator Daschle. Yet his book about Health Care calls for an American equivalent to the NHS's NICE panel which would provide approval of all treatments and procedures based on government-decided efficacy and cost efficiency. Senator Daschle is radical enough to scare me and is a sophisticated enough player that he seems likely to be able to achieve many of his goals."
If only JK had known how prescient those words might be. The Hudson Institute's Betsy McCaughey quotes the former senator thusly:
A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
So we shouldn't be surprised to find (McCaughey link) a Daschle-like health care trojan horse in the "we can't afford to delay it" economic stimulus bill, H.R. 1:
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. [Emphasis mine.]
The good news is that this was discovered, and is seeing the light of day on Fox News. The bad news? What the hell ELSE is in there??
Thanks for the kind words, jg, and thanks for beating me to this post. I've had two people email it to me today.
I told my brother-in-law this weekend that "we can waste a trillion dollars and survive, but once we nationalize medicine, rewind welfare reform to LBJ levels, and prop up unions, it's game over."
Okay it's a rhetorical device to be flip about $1T -- and I was chastised for it. But I am serious, while we and Senator Collins look at the difference between $750B and $900B, we are missing -- as you say -- huge hunks of vanishing liberty.
Posted by: jk at February 10, 2009 4:07 PMFebruary 9, 2009
Specter for Spendulus
I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late.
Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.
In related news, the Washington Post graphs how immediate the stimulus really is.
Answer: 10% gets spent this year... in the year we cannot afford to delay (tm).
(Click to enbiggen)
"The" economic stimulus package, Senator Specter? Do you also purchase the first car you test drive, or the first house you look at? How about love - did you marry the first woman you dated?
Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2009 12:48 PMGWB's misguided decision to back Specter over Toomey in the primaries continues to haunt the party and the nation.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 10, 2009 6:01 PMJanuary 16, 2009
I'm Going Back to Bed
I've whined a little about a dear relative who is devoted to creating a Kucinich-style "Department of Peace." A few days after the election, I realized that the electoral stars had probably aligned and that it's likely this nightmare dream might come true.
Today a good friend emails:
Dear Friends,When I heard that Quincy Jones had a petition to call for a Secretary of
the Arts in our new administration, my answer was a resounding YES! I
am sending this because I know you understand the importance of art in
our lives.Art is the core of what makes us human beings. Art is the language of
our soul. Art is our true unique gift and legacy.Art brings out the best in us, makes us stronger and lifts our
spirits. Art has been known to help heal those who have severe
physical ailments as well as those who have spiritual wounds.Art programs make a difference in our lives; bringing hope, self esteem,
emotional well being and a renewed connection to our spirit and to each
other. "Art can't hurt you."here is a link to sign the petition.
I recently was proud to learn that I am related to Q. Maybe I should call "cuz" up and speak to him. Why why why do these folks think that because something is "important" government should be involved? The folks at Samizdata have a great riff that "The Ministry of X is established to ruin X." If you think of US Departments, the law seems universal. Education? Energy? I've muttered, sotto voce, that when the US D. of Peace is fully staffed that the Amish and Quakers will be engineering drive-bys.
We already have a "Department of Peace." We usually just call them the Marines. Just sayin'.
Seriously a Secretary of the Arts? How much will that wind up costing, and would I be out of line to expect more (or less) than taxpayer-subsidized, metalshop-welded modern art sculptures in front of every elementary school across the fruited plains, Christoff-style displays cranked out by the truckload, and American Idol broadcasted five nights a week, all produced by the WPA? This sounds like the National Endowment for the Arts with a turbocharger and no brakes.
And of course, there will be a "prevailing union wage" clause for all the performers and support staff.
Posted by: Keith at January 16, 2009 2:31 PMI've made the Marines comment -- also sotto voce -- many times, Keith. We're in complete agreement.
--Except don't be knockin' scale, my friend, nothin' wrong with paying scale...
Posted by: jk at January 16, 2009 4:09 PMJanuary 14, 2009
Not With a Bang But a Whimper II
For 23 days a year in July, I become a Frenchman. I enjoy the picturesque countryside and struggle to pronounce "le coeur de croix de furre" (Which is not, as I suspected, the mountain of the fur cross, rather the mountain of the cross of iron).
But when the tour ends, I want to go back to freedom. Grand, philosophical John Locke and Thomas Jefferson freedom to be sure. But also, to live in a land where you might get a good idea for a child's toy and sell it on eBay, or at a local independent store. No more.
It seems there were children to protect, and Speaker Pelosi leaped into action:
After last year's scare over contaminated toys made in China, Congress leapt in to require all products aimed at children under 12 years old to be certified as safe and virtually lead-free by independent testing. The burden may be manageable for big manufacturers and retailers that can absorb the costs of discarded inventory and afford to hire more lawyers. Less likely to survive are hundreds of small businesses and craftspeople getting hit with new costs in a down economy.
Starting in February, you'll have to have a gub'mint certificate proving that those little wooden cars you make in you garage are safe for kids. And, you gotta read the whole thing, even bikes and books are subject. Reps. Pelosi and Waxman boasted that they will pulling toys off the shelves.
Maybe I'm not fair to France. I seem to be overly fair to the USA of late. But the mixed-economies of Western Europe embrace guilds and regulation (would the lollipop guild make the toys?) and the idea of being licensed to make toys does not fit with Locke, Jefferson, or the United States.
With apologies to T S Eliot (who would likely have agreed with me) This is the way freedom ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
There goes the used the clothing story business also. There is no better way to clothe fast growing children - or recycle old clothes she says in full whimper.
Posted by: Terri at January 14, 2009 1:59 PMJanuary 11, 2009
A Schooner Full of Hope & Change
I think we can look forward to the next administration for some clarification regarding proper green product labeling:
The January 8th issue InsideEPA.com's Daily News briefing highlight the many hurdles involved in establishing a national eco-labeling regime.EPA and some key lawmakers are attempting to address the rising demand from consumers and retailers for eco-labeling as the popularity and awareness of “green” building materials and organic certified foods grows. EPA is poised to respond to recommendations to set up a voluntary program for pesticide labeling, as well as for its in-house Design for the Environment program to expand its labeling initiative to new chemical-intensive products. Additionally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is crafting legislation to establish an eco-labeling oversight panel.
Some of the potential hurdles for the EPA and the lawmakers highlighted by InsideEPA.com include:
Limited development of methodologies for measuring lifecycle impacts of products
Potential conflicts with current legal requirements
Whether there would be incentives to develop even “safer” products
If EPA and Congress will be able to stay ahead of the developments made by the private sector.
With so many interests in the mix, these challenges may seem insurmountable, but at least the dialogue has begun and action will (hopefully) follow soon.
Bad enough we have to live through terrorism, recession, and athletes using steroids -- how much longer can the government let us wonder if the green products we buy are really green?
Hat-tip: Instapundit
January 10, 2009
Economic Stimulus Plan
I have a dream - that America's political economy will return to something akin to the late 19th century. Referring to the causes of the latest economic crisis, Yaron Brook and Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand Institute write in their editorial 'Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures:'
None of this is consistent with capitalism. As the economic system that fully recognizes and protects individual rights, including the right to private property, capitalism means, in Ayn Rand’s words, “the abolition of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State.” Laissez-faire means laissez-faire: no welfare state entitlements, no Federal Reserve monetary manipulation, no regulatory bullying, no controls, no government interference in the economy. The government’s job under capitalism is single but crucial: to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud.America came closest to this system in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The result was an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation and consequent rise in the standard of living.
JK, like the respected Denver radio host Mike Rosen, constantly reminds us to practice the "politics of the possible." But why should it be impossible for a majority of voters to recognize that the big government policies Obama and company may enact just made the problem worse - and they will - and abandon him in droves for the 2012 GOP candidate? This is the "new Reagan" scenario that many have written about. But for this to happen there needs to be a GOP candidate who understands the capitalist ideal before he jumps into the hog wallow to compromise with collectivists. John McCain and George Bush (both of them) despite all their admirable traits, were not that candidate.
Wow, this Rosen fellow sounds very intelligent...
I share your enthusiasm for the economic policies between the Civil War and the Progressive Era. It was certainly tainted by Jim Crow but I find it easy to call them unrelated. Hayes was the right pick in 1876 and if Tilden had not forced the Compromise of '77 we could have had economic liberty and continued the Reconstruction.
Gene Healy points out that while we had the string of non-descript, "non-heroic" presidencies between Grant & McKinley, we surpassed Great Britain as an economic power.
On the Pragmatism side, jg, put me in with Rosen (I have not heard his show but I've read some of his newspaper columns and heard great reviews from my brother-in-law). I challenge you to look at a group with minimal selection bias and tell me that a majority would agree that welfare and social security should be terminated. I think you'll find it more matches Pew's famous nine-percent. (Again, no fair polling at the Objectivists of Weld County quarterly bake sale and skeet tourney.)
I could not disabuse a right-leaning relative yesterday of the belief that the USDA is only reason the big grocery stores don't sell rancid meat. I can't think of a group of workmates, family, musicians, or friends in which a majority prefers less government "safety-net" security.
I enjoyed the Brook-Watkins piece very much, and I'd be inclined to support a candidate who voiced such beliefs. But I'd be among the few. Rep Ron Paul was able to augment his libertarian followers with a good number of the rabid anti-war left. And he still lost. By a lot.
It's hard for you and me to believe and accept that our zeal for liberty does not enjoy an electoral majority, but it does not. You can write editorials for the Ayn Rand Institute and link and discuss them on ThreeSources. But you'll be a spectator at the next contest between the next McCain and the next Obama.
... welfare and Social Security TERMINATED? JK, you are such a tease. Even I don't dream such things are possible in a single bound.
The idea I tried to explain, perhaps too obliquely, is that the 'ideal' of pure capitalism leads to unprecedented prosperity. Any baby steps in the direction toward more capitalism will make things better for all Americans.
As for the popularity of such market oriented changes to welfare and Social Security, even President Clinton had to sign the GOP bill that reformed the former ... and reforming the latter could be equally popular with the right plan. Perhaps as government operated private accounts with gains earned in private equity markets yet federally guaranteed never to decline in value?
If we're going to talk about bailouts anyway then lets consider one that actually provides some real personal financial security. (Tomorrow I'll deny I ever wrote this.)
Posted by: johngalt at January 13, 2009 3:11 PMBut-but-but-but-but-but-but-- you are making the pragmatists' case. I want to fight at the margins and get "as close as we can" to capitalism. For this I seem to be frequently derided as lesser-of-two-evilsism.
I was pulling my absolutism from your excerpt "Laissez-faire means laissez-faire: no welfare state entitlements, no Federal Reserve monetary manipulation, no regulatory bullying, no controls, no government interference in the economy" and from your reference to 19th Century pre-progressive, pre-New Deal policies.
A government risk subsidy is not a bad idea if you could make the right kind of trade. Who is this guy and what has he done to Brother Johngalt?
Posted by: jk at January 13, 2009 4:32 PMDecember 24, 2008
Bees on Blow
Terri @ I Think ^ (Link) Therefore I Err seems to imply that the government is not getting its money's worth studying the effects of cocaine on bees:
Normally, foraging honey bees alert their comrades to potential food sources only when they've found high quality nectar or pollen, and only when the hive is in need. They do this by performing a dance, called a "round" or "waggle" dance, on a specialized "dance floor" in the hive. The dance gives specific instructions that help the other bees find the food.Foraging honey bees on cocaine are more likely to dance, regardless of the quality of the food they've found or the status of the hive, the authors of the study report.
I agree with Terri. Really, we learned all about that just watching John Belushi...
December 3, 2008
Bureaucracy at its best
The New York Daily News reports:
In one of the biggest heists in American history, the Daily News "stole" the $2 billion Empire State Building.And it wasn't that hard.
The News swiped the 102-story Art Deco skyscraper by drawing up a batch of bogus documents, making a fake notary stamp and filing paperwork with the city to transfer the deed to the property.
Some of the information was laughable: Original "King Kong" star Fay Wray is listed as a witness and the notary shared a name with bank robber Willie Sutton.
The massive ripoff illustrates a gaping loophole in the city's system for recording deeds, mortgages and other transactions.
The loophole: The system - run by the office of the city register - doesn't require clerks to verify the information.
Less than 90 minutes after the bogus documents were submitted on Monday, the agency rubber-stamped the transfer from Empire State Land Associates to Nelots Properties LLC. Nelots is "stolen" spelled backward. (The News returned the property Tuesday.)...
...Of course, stealing the Empire State Building wouldn't go unnoticed for long, but it shows how easy it is for con artists to swipe more modest buildings right out from under their owners. Armed with a fraudulent deed, they can take out big mortgages and disappear, leaving a mess for property owners, banks and bureaucrats.
I think I will just let that speak for itself.
But they will excel at providing health care and choosing our country's best energy sources.
Posted by: jk at December 3, 2008 11:27 AMNovember 5, 2008
Perfect for Gub'mint work!
Don Luskin highlights the resume of the new bank regulator for the NY Fed, Michael Alix:
Most recently, Mr. Alix worked for the Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., where he served as chief risk officer from 2006-2008 and global head of credit risk management from 1996-2006.
October 6, 2008
Having "Fixed" Mortgages, Congress Moves On
By conceding the true causes of the Panic of '08 -- thanks to our populist Presidential candidate -- Republicans block the road to repairing the real problems, while paving the road to repetition. The same, damn, week.
A WSJ editorial points out that they will now do for credit cards what they did for home mortgages:
The freedom to manage risk has resulted in an unprecedented expansion of the credit card market. According to a Government Accountability Office study, 75% of the population possessed a credit card in 2005, up from only 30% in the 1980s. "The movement towards risk-based pricing for cards," said the report, "has allowed issuers to offer better terms to some cardholders and more credit cards to others."Under the Maloney bill, such risk-sensitive pricing would be severely curbed. With few exceptions, companies would be prevented from raising interest rates on existing balances, even if the cardholder has become less creditworthy. This is anathema to responsible lending, which is about making sound assessments about the ability to repay a loan. It's also a major reason mortgage lenders are in their current predicament -- think subprime and "liar loans." So it's ironic that Democrats want to punish credit card companies for taking into account the changing risk of the borrower.
The Maloney bill would also dictate how creditors allocate payments against balances. Where credit balances are subject to different interest rates -- e.g., zero-percent interest for a balance transfer, but 12% for new purchases -- the legislation would ban the current common practice of directing payments toward the lower interest rate balance first.
I think of Dr. Zhivago: "Yes, Comrade that is much more...fair." It's fair to make me pay the same interest rate as an unemployed jazz guitarist who's just come home from bankruptcy court (guitar players, sheesh!) It's not fair to allow a credit card company to entice me with a 0% balance transfer, because some idiot doesn't understand it.
Actually, it's not Dr. Zhivago, it's Santayana: those who cannot learn form history are doomed to repeat it. But in the same week?
September 20, 2008
For A Bailout, Press One
You've had a tough week of politics and Wall Street. Have a little fun:
"Hello! You've reached the United States Treasury's automated bailout hotline. Please listen carefully, because our options have recently changed. If you're too big to fail, press or say 'one.' If not, hang up and dial 1-800-FOR-FEMA.' "
Hat-tip: Professor Mankiw
August 13, 2008
Energy Freedom Day
Sign the petition created by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) calling on Congress to let the drilling bans expire on October 1, 2008.
The related blog page can be accessed here.
Hat Tip: Human Events via Wayne at jeremiahfilms.com
July 12, 2008
Nanny State, Government Power
Blog sister Dagny hits one of my favorite topics in a comment below: all government power is enforced at the point of the gun. I almost posted this video last week because Drew Carey does such a good job with that. If you sell fries with trans-fats, you get a fine; don't pay the fine, you get a summons; don't show up for the summons, they'll come get you. No matter how small the infraction, it is always enforced at gunpoint. Take it away, big man:
Indeed. And it's not just at the barrel of a gun, but ultimately with the threat of government *killing* you. Walter Williams wrote in 1999, in the foreword to "Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax" by my friend Sheldon Richman:
"Some might consider Richman's title to be hyperbole, but it accurately describes what is at stake. We can readily see this by asking, What is the endgame of the following scenario? Suppose an American told the U.S. Congress, 'I am an emancipated adult. I wish to be left alone to tend to my own retirement needs. If I fail to do so adequately, let me either depend on charity or suffer the consequences; however, I refuse to pay into the government's Social Security retirement program.' If that person refused to fork over part of his earnings as Social Security 'contributions,' the IRS would fine him. If that person rightfully concluded that he has not harmed or initiated violence against another and therefore refused to pay an unjust fine, he would be threatened with property confiscation or imprisonment. Suppose he then decided to use his natural or God-given rights to defend both his physical property against confiscation and his person against aggression? More than likely, he would suffer death at the hands of the U.S. government. The moral question Americans ought to ask is whether they can produce a moral argument that justifies a citizen's being subject to death by his government when that citizen has initiated violence against no one and simply wants to privately care for his own retirement needs? I know of no standard of morality that yields an affirmative answer."
I mentioned that on my own blog (A tale of two thieves), but I incorrectly attributed Williams' writing to Richard Ebeling. I was blogging on vacation and didn't have the book with me, and Richard is one of those remarkable people whose writings on freedom could easily be confused with Williams'.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 12, 2008 11:53 AMjohngalt knows of "a standard of morality that yields an affirmative answer" to Williams' question: Marxist-Leninist morality.
Williams surely knows this too. I think he meant to write, "I know of no standard of morality consistent with 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' that yields an affirmative answer."
Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2008 12:47 PMYou're splitting hairs again. Perhaps WW's wording can be more precise, but the intimation is that we're talking about *true* standards of morality. Sure, collectivism has standards of "morality," however incorrect. It's "right" to serve the state, "wrong" to live for yourself. But we know what WW is talking about.
"Moral" is a word that cannot be used in a relative sense. It has deep implications that something "moral" is correct and just, and there's no room for opinion. So a Marxist-Leninist may argue his own "moral" perspective, but it will never be true "morality" no matter how much force he applies.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 14, 2008 3:29 PMJuly 8, 2008
Protecting Borrowers From -- Loans!
Great bit from the esteemed political philosopher, Emily Dickenson:
The surgeon must be very careful,
When to use the knife.
For underneath his fine incision,
Lays the culprit, life.
(From memory, so don't complain if I missed a comma or something)
Fed plans new rules to protect future homebuyers When I read the headline, a shiver went down to my feet in sort of a reverse Obama-Matthews. Reading the story did not make it go away. Broad new powers for the Fed (expanding our services because we rock so much at our other tasks) to regulate home loans.
Under the proposal unveiled last December, the rules would restrict lenders from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early, require lenders to make sure these borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance and bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income. It also would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value.
Government comes up with some hare-brained ideas now and then but I think this one will indeed work. If you make it too expensive or perhaps impossible to get a loan, that should inhibit defaults.
Mortgage crisis solved! I knew getting a Princeton Man in would be a good idea!
June 23, 2008
jk Was Wrong!
I suggested, on January 5, 2007 that a Sirius -XM Merger was a good idea, but that "I cannot imagine getting approval for such a merger in the 110th. Democratic committee chairs and TR Republicans are not going to allow a monopoly in Satellite Radio. Even though, as usual, the FTC is not capable of seeing whom a firm or technology actually competes against."
Six weeks later, I said that I was not backing off but that "Against prescience points, however, I am hoping for the deal to succeed. I don't think either firm is strong enough to compete and innovate by itself. A strong satellite provider could bring new offerings to the market. (Maybe I'll even get my beloved Luna back.)"
Well, I was wrong. The 110th will approve the merger. But Don Luskin enumerates the costs of having the government "allow" something it has no moral or Constitutional right to preclude:
...* set aside 4 percent of their spectrum capacity (what now amounts to 12 channels) for non-commercial educational programming;
*lease another 4 percent to groups like minorities and women who are underrepresented in broadcasting...
Luskin says:
It’s a free country so we can’t complain that activist groups such as Public Knowledge agitate for the special interests of the left, but we ought to bitch and moan that they succeed at their game of policy piracy. Not many know that groups like this get funded by corporations who want to use them as a weapon, or, worse yet, as a form of protection money.
This is the Bush FCC. While it has some well documented intransigents on it, hands up those who believe that President Obama or McCain will staff it more liberty-friendly or business-friendly members.
May 27, 2008
Raw Milk
On May 1, Pennsylvania state troopers arrived at the home of Mennonite farmer Mark Nolt, seizing a reported $20,000 to 25,000 worth of farm equipment and placing Nolt under arrest. His crime? The illegal sale of unpasteurized milk and other dairy products. And Nolt isn't alone. In February, federal investigators subpoenaed two employees of Mark McAfee's Organic Pastures Dairy in California. Though the subpoenas do not indicate the purpose of the investigation, McAfee told me the feds were seeking evidence that his dairy was selling unpasteurized milk for human consumption across state lines.
I could go for a couple pieces of sashimi right about now.
But raw milk? A crime? C'mon.
When Milk is outlawed, only outlaws will drink Milk.
Posted by: jk at May 27, 2008 10:32 AMIt's for your own good. Them Amish farmers are like crack dealers, with the guns and the violence and the ruined families. The humanity!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at May 27, 2008 1:34 PMMay 5, 2008
Tale of Woe
Convinced that private lenders were making too much profit on federally insured loans, Democrats enacted changes last fall that rendered most new student loans unprofitable. As numerous firms abandoned the market amid the credit crunch and just before the peak of college financing season, the anxious pols realized their blunder and are now seeking a bailout of the same lenders they had just finished punishing.I suggested Ethanol subsidies were a perfect, archetypal microcosm of government intrusion into free markets. I blogged that our grandchildren would study the folly and tease us about it. But why wait? The WSJ lead editorial (quoted above) captures it perfectly well today.
No need to worry about the risk for taxpayers in direct lending, however. Congressman Miller is so confident that the bureaucrats can manage everything this time that he is now trying to amend the law to eliminate some regular audits of the program. This auditing refinement, which has passed the House but not yet the Senate, specifically eliminates the requirement to report how much the program contributes to the national debt. If no one is counting, then no one can say it costs the taxpayers any money, right?From start to finish, it is hard to imagine a more thorough example of Congressional blundering while covering its tracks by blaming everyone else and getting the Fed and taxpayers to clean up the mess. Enjoy the free lunch while you can.
I'd encourage a thoughtful reader to read the whole thing.
profit motive
–noun
The desire for profit that motivates one to engage in business ventures.
[Origin: 1930–35]
-adjective
A modifier to the proper noun "evil."
[Origin: environmentalist economics circa 1968]
Posted by: johngalt at May 5, 2008 3:33 PMApril 29, 2008
We've Got The Public to Protect!
The good people of Pennsylvania (I am not piling on, it just happens to be the location) will be protected from the ravages of cheap medication:
A 67-year-old law is preventing Pennsylvania residents from obtaining the full list of $4 prescription drugs sold at Wal-Mart.Will it take that many years to decide if the 1941 law is doing more harm than good?
A bill that would allow the $4 prescriptions has lingered in the state Legislature for 13 months, with no debate and no action scheduled.
In late 2006, Wal-Mart began selling 331 medications for $4 for a 30-day supply.
The drugs are generics -- cheaper equivalents of brand name drugs.
The $4 offerings include medications for many common illnesses, including infections, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and depression.
Because of the 1941 law, 56 of the drugs have to sell for $9 in Pennsylvania.
Club for Growth links to the story and wonders "So...if you're a liberal, what side of the argument do you support? Do you defend Wal-Mart (God forbid) and repeal the law so that people can get their much-needed drugs at "an everyday" low price? Or do you side with the mom-and-pop pharmacies that supposedly can't compete against the big, bad Wal-Mart?"
Nothing happens in the Square State (not to be confused with Wyoming)?
Hey... did you see South Park? ;)
Posted by: AlexC at April 29, 2008 7:15 PMColorado and Wyoming are good places to find a nice, calm dentist and get $4 perscriptions. Pennsylvania seems to be having better luck in the Stanley Cup playoffs. I'd be tempted to trade.
Posted by: jk at April 29, 2008 7:36 PMGlobal Food Crisis
Not content with helping Senator Obama to a victory in Pennsylvania, Senator Casey turns to solving the global food crisis.
How?
Government.
President Bush had previously requested $350 million for the year. Durbin and Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) held a press conference Monday calling for an additional $200 million in food aid to be added to the upcoming war supplemental bill.“This global food crisis now risks creating a series of failed states, as anger at inadequate food stocks spur riots and political instability,” said Casey. The Democrats said the additional $200 million would go primarily to the U.N.’s World Food Program, which provides emergency food aid for up to 78 million people annually.
Earlier in the day, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration is monitoring the situation closely; the administration recently announced it was releasing an additional $200 million in wheat reserves to be sent to developing countries.
Oh, and let's give it to the UN, of all people. A model of efficiency.
The President doesn't escape blame, but is anyone in government willing to look at the real cause of the global food crises?
Government.
... specifically the US and EU mandates for Ethanol production and consumption.
When it pays better to burn food for fuel than it does to sell it for food, is anyone, outside of Democrats and liberal do-gooders, really surprised?
April 16, 2008
Life Would Suck Without Regulators
Prof. Reynolds links to a cool car on the Amazon Car Lust blog, the Toyota Sera.
It's worth a click if you like cars, but what caught my eye was this little government intrusion gem:
The United States allows non-U.S.-certified automobiles to be imported once they are 25 years past production date. This has allowed a few enterprising souls to import older cars like the Chrysler Valiant Charger, but it will be some time before the exotic Kei cars will be eligible for import. The situation is somewhat different in Canada, however; our northern neighbors require only a 15-year wait, meaning some of the interesting Japanese-market cars from the early 1990s are now fair game. There are quite a few dealerships in Vancouver, B.C., that do a strong business in such formerly forbidden fruit.
I'm thinking of brave Americans who dare to make Canadian bootlegging runs to import high- volume, non-Senator Albert A Gore approved, toilet tanks.
How much richer our lives and our bank accounts would be if we didn't have a Federal government protecting us from small 16 year old Japanese automobiles and four gallon toilets.
February 11, 2008
All The World's A Stage
Group Gets Around Smoking Ban By 'Acting' The Part
Barnacle's Resort in Lake Mille Lacs turned its normal Saturday night business into a play, testing a loophole in Minnesota's smoking ban. The production included programs and buttons that said "Act Now!""You are looking at a stage. You are looking at a playhouse," said Mark Benjamin, a nonsmoking lawyer who worked the bar dressed in Shakespearian garb. "Those are not cigarettes -- those are props."
The law allows actors and actresses to light up in theatrical performances -- but it doesn't define what that means. The idea of stretching the definition came to Benjamin at the Renaissance Festival, an annual event where people dress up in costumes.
Hat-tip: Rick Sincere
UPDATE: Thanks, Brett, here's video
See www.millelacsmessenger.com for video of the event.
Posted by: Brett at February 11, 2008 9:44 PMDecember 6, 2007
Spirit of 1776
The CATO Institute reports another, grim milestone:
It turns out that the federal government currently operates 1,776 subsidy programs. These include subsidies for states, cities, individuals, non-profit groups, and businesses.
They end with a swipe at President Bush: "He's no Thomas Jefferson." While I can't make an impassioned defense, it seemed odd to single him out. We've had 220 years and a lot of not-Jeffersons to get where we are.
Hat-tip: Josh at Everyday Economist
November 26, 2007
With Republican's Like These...
That should probably be a category -- or a whole new blog: with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
I wrote about Michael Powell in May of 2003:
Chairman Powell is Colin Powell’s son. As much as I respect Dad, Michael’s policy and beliefs comport better with mine, and he clearly is the better for spending fewer years with the striped-pants crowd at the State Department. He is pushing to bring FCC Regulations into the 21st Century. Regulations on ownership that were crafted when America got its news from Eric Sevareid can be relaxed now that many get news from Andrew Sullivan. Chairman Powell understands the effect of cable TV and Internet information sources and he believes in the free market enough to fight for a more modern approach.
Come home, Michael, we need you. Today, the WSJ Ed Page takes a few whacks at his successor, Kevin Martin (paid link until Rupert gets the keys...):
At a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, Chairman Martin plans to push a slew of new regulations on cable operators. Among other things, he wants to force cable companies to reduce, by as much as 75%, the already regulated rates they charge to lease channels to programmers. He also wants to require cable operators to settle carriage disputes, like the current one involving the NFL Network, through an arbitration system set up by the FCC. Apparently Mr. Martin, a Republican appointee to the agency no less, has lost faith in the free market's ability to handle commercial disputes. Either that, or he has some personal animus against cable.
Mr. Martin says more regulation is needed because monopolistic players are dominating the cable industry. But his premise doesn't remotely square with reality. Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, recently reported a drop in subscriptions. Cable share prices generally are getting hammered, trading near 52-week lows. According to a report last week in Broadcasting & Cable, since Comcast's last earnings report its stock is down 17%; Time Warner is down 21%; Cablevision is down 16.5%; and Charter Communication is off 47%.
[...]
To justify his meddling, Mr. Martin describes a marketplace that doesn't exist. He pretends there's no DirecTV and EchoStar option. He pretends that Verizon and AT&T's video offerings pose no threat to Comcast and Time Warner. But if the FCC chairman is most concerned about costs, the goal should be more competition via different platforms. In other words, he should want current trends to continue. His odd and untimely proposals are more likely to retard them.
Some people still wonder why so many businesses donate to Democrats. Some of it is explained by rent-seeking and staying close to power -- but how can you ask business to donate to the GOP when their Cabinet Chairs think like Mr. Martin?
UPDATE: Never give up hope. The vote may be in trouble:
WSJ
WASHINGTON -- A vote Tuesday on a proposal that could lead to stricter regulation of the cable industry was in jeopardy Monday, as internal squabbling at the Federal Communications Commission and outside pressure from Congress and the White House threatened to delay, if not completely derail, the plan.
Should the federal government have prevented Apple from releasing the iPod until there were enough competitors to make a "market"?
Actually, only one seller is required to make a market. It's unadulterated bullshit that, as the interventionists claim, "markets require competition." Even if there is only one seller of a good or service, consumers always have a choice: they can choose not to buy.
The only reason cable companies are "monopolistic" is because local governments give them the monopolies. Cablevision is the only cable company that Westchester County permits to operate, even though RCN would be more than happy to get my business (and I'd be more than happy to give it to them). Cablevision's service is atrocious enough, but I can't imagine how much worse it would be without satellite competitors.
I stick with Cablevision for its cable modem service, but even then it's recently given me so many problems that I'm about to get Verizon's FIOS. And there would be many, many more people offering high-speed connections of all types, if only government would stop sodomizing the market.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 27, 2007 2:44 PMThat's the best thing about government intervention: when you ruin the market with regulation, you can claim the market doesn't work and regulate further.
It's one thing when Rep Barney Franks tries to over regulate the mortgage industry at the start of a housing slump, his constituents expect that. Seeing a Bush appointee go this far is disheartening.
After I wrote that essay that lauded Michael Powell, he showed a regulatory streak on language and "wardrobe malfunctions" that I didn't cheer, but it was at least in character.
September 29, 2007
Whose Fire Is It?
A private fire crew dispatched by a national insurance company that caters to wealthy clients is guarding 22 high-end homes threatened by the Castle Rock Fire, a blaze that has forced the evacuation of hundreds of million-dollar homes west of Ketchum.The crew will protect only homes insured by AIG Private Client Group, an insurance company that offers "loss-prevention services" to its wealthiest customers. A truck and two-man crew sent by AIG from Montana arrived in Ketchum about 2 p.m. Wednesday to start dousing properties with Phos-Chek, the same fire retardant dropped from U.S. Forest Service aircraft.
"We're not going out there to fight the fire," said Dorothy Sarna, vice president and national director of risk-management services and loss prevention for the New York-based company. "We're out there to protect our clients."
Veteran fire managers now working the Castle Rock fire say they've never heard of a private fire crew protecting individual homes in the midst of a wildfire, said Dave Olson, a spokesman for the Forest Service.
The private crew has been granted access to areas closed to residents, but not all officials with public fire agencies were thrilled by the sight of the truck scooting through a smoky web of government fire crews.
"That sounds ridiculous to me," said Kim Rogers, a Ketchum Police Department spokesman, "especially since we haven't lost any structures. I mean, this is a Forest Service fire, not a private fire."
Would she rather they let them burn? Here is the whole story.
My only concern is that the indigent people who own million dollar vacation homes in the Wood River Valley will lose their homes.
There really are two Americas.
September 19, 2007
Competing with Coke & Pepsi
Sometimes you have to wonder.
Ray Murphy @ YoungPhillyPolitics is incensed, incensed, that Coke and Pepsi are taking (well paying for) regular ol' Philly tap water, putting it in a bottle, slapping a label on it, and marking up the piss out out it.
Half a cents worth of tap water is now worth a dollar and a half.
According to the Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Company website, our local plant is the fourth largest nationwide with over half a billion dollars in annual sales. Both Pepsi and Coke have reported that bottled water sales are among the fastest growing in their companies and may soon catch up or even overtake the sale of carbonated beverages. That means there are a lot of potential water consumers in Philadelphia.The simpler way to profit off of water is to tax Pepsi and Coke at a higher rate for their water usage. I had some trouble figuring out the PWD’s business tax rate (hello Philadelphia, can we get some good city websites up or what?), but for consumers, it costs about $17 in taxes for 600 gallons of water. Philly Coke’s website says it serves about 5 million consumers a year. If one-third of these people buy one 20 oz. bottle of water a year, we’re talking at least 278,437 gallons of water sold annually.
I don’t really care how we make money off of water, but the point here is that in these cash strapped times, we are stupid if we don’t.
Our water supply is currently being exploited by Coke and Pepsi. As the largest municipality collecting and cleaning water for drinking in the region, Coke and Pepsi can’t really get the tap water they need for Dasani and Aquafina anywhere else but Philly (and shipping tap water from other places would likely cut too deeply into their bottom line). That means that whether we tax them more, or bottle our own water, Philadelphia is in a good place to be able to better take advantage of a natural resource.
Admittedly, I am not a degreed economist, but I'm sure this is a catastrophically bad liberal idea, but I repeat myself.
I'll say it slowly. (Please read along slowly for full effect)
1) If the city of Philadelphia can not control crime within it's own boundaries, how in the hell is it supposed to compete with two massively global companies that have had their horns locked for years?
2) If the city of Philadelphia charges big soda more for water, they can go bottle tap water somewhere else. There is nothing special about what Trenton flushes into the Delaware River. Really. Nothing.
Bonus part of that is when they close their bottling plants in the city and move them outside of the city limits, the city loses wage tax collection, property taxes, etc... a win-win!
Never mind that whole issue of a government specifically targetting two industrial consumers of water to the exclusion of the other industrial consumers. How many gallons of water go into a box of Oreos from the Nabisco bakery? ... what about my precious Tasty-Klair Pie? or a case from the Yards Brewery? *
Ideas like this are nicely nucleated examples of liberal progressive thinking.
... and it goes without saying that if you buy bottled water that's municipal sourced, you're a dope, no matter who puts a screw top on it.
Get a Nalgene bottle and fill it before you leave the house... and use the bottle again, and again, and again. It takes two liters of water to make a one liter plastic bottle, btw.
See? You can be conservative and environmentally conscious!
* Note: I'd list more water consuming businesses within city-limits, but great business friendly ideas like this have chased most out into the suburbs, or the south or Mexico.
I read somewhere that the City of Pittsburgh almost saved the world from bad beer when they tried to close Iron City because the brewer wasn't paying their water bill. (Water being the source and closest taste to IC).
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 19, 2007 11:19 PMI love it. He goes to the Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Company website and finds everything he needs, goes to the city website and can't find anything -- then says that government should tell private business how to operate.
Posted by: jk at September 20, 2007 10:32 AMSecond-best-case scenario: the companies stay put despite the taxes, but they must pass the additional taxes on to consumers. Instead of paying $1.50 for bottled water, consumers must now pay $1.65 or whatever, so sales will decrease. Thing is, the Laffer Curve can also work in reverse, so those sales could very well drop and take the tax revenues along with them.
Best-case scenario: the companies stay put, they pass the additional taxes on to consumers, and sales remain the same. But because a consumer now spends $1.65 on a 20-oz. bottle water when he spent $1.50 before, that's 15 cents taken away from other purchases. By definition it must come from *somewhere*, and it adds up to anything from a supersize option on fast food to a notepad to a restaurant meal. Now *those* companies will experience an equivalent sales decline, which means they must cut back on man-hours. Of secondary importance is the lost tax revenue. Now, this is the absolute best possible scenario, and it's also the most improbable. It won't happen for a simple reason: economies never, ever shift toward industries or sectors that are taxed higher.
A lot of people subscribe to the economic fallacy that charging more can be good, because it means the sellers (and in this case, government as a tax receiver) has more money to spend, and this supposedly spurs economic growth. On the surface it looks good, but it cannot avoid the fact that buyers have finite incomes. If I spend $1.65 on bottled water instead of $1.50, or when Henry Ford paid workers enough to afford the cars they made (an economic urban legend), that money must come from somewhere else. I'll spend less on other purchases if I'm to buy bottled water in the same quantity and frequency, and because Henry Ford's customers must spend more on the cars, they'll spend less on other things. True economic output does not increase -- unless the central bank prints more dollars so we can spend more, which is, of course, inflationary.
The lesson, as always, is to remember what Bastiat taught us. Look for the unseen.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2007 11:22 AMI should add that I stick to bottled water, even if it's ultimately tap water, as a matter of taste and sanitation. I prefer spring water, but I'll still buy Dasani. To me, there's no choice between "free" water from a Grand Central Terminal fountain and paying $1.65 at any of the vendors. When government says it purifies, filters and UVs tap water, I wonder how well. When Coca-Cola says it does those, I actually trust it more, not because it's interested in protecting me, but because it wants to keep my business.
Oh, and by the way, liberal idiots like Murphy and Gavin Newsom can give themselves edemas with plain old tap water.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2007 11:33 AMWho drinks brand label water? Progressive elitists ... I'm with W.C. Fields on this one. My hydration comes from a bottle of scotch, thnx.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 20, 2007 12:47 PMI think it's a mistake to compare bottled water to tap water. The substitution is bottled water vs. Coke. The price comparison is a lot less extreme and it represents substitution better: convenient, disposable, &c.
"Freakonomist" Steven Levitt has an interesting piece discussing that Coca Cola now advertises that Diet Coke is 99% water -- after trying to hide that fact for years.
August 8, 2007
Populism and Transportation
In the wake of the bridge collapse in Minnesota, The New York Times recently published a piece on the bizarre spending habits of the government when it comes to transportation:
Despite historic highs in transportation spending, the political muscle of lawmakers, rather than dire need, has typically driven where much of the money goes. That has often meant construction of new, politically popular roads and transit projects rather than the mundane work of maintaining the worn-out ones.Further, transportation and engineering experts said, lawmakers have financed a boom in rail construction that, while politically popular, has resulted in expensive transit systems that are not used by a vast majority of American commuters.
Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, sent out a news release last month boasting about Minnesota’s share of a recent transportation and housing appropriations bill.
Of the $12 million secured for the state, $10 million is slated for a new 40-mile commuter rail line to Minneapolis, called the Northstar. The remaining $2 million is divided among a new bike and walking path and a few other projects, including highway work and interchange reconstruction.
Reading the article, I could not help but to be reminded of this:
The light rail system was a major boondoggle that will be mentioned over and over again in the coming election cycles.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 9, 2007 10:02 AM"Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken." Awesome!
Sadly, the I35 bridge will be used to demagogue a huge increase in Federal spending and control. Even Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard said last week that "small government conservatives are going to have to support increased taxes for infrastructure needs." Et tu, Fred?
July 25, 2007
Why Government Can't Succeed.
I read hb's charming post on the success of private efforts to help Katrina victims, complete with his admonition that "the inability to provide ample support is not confined to the administration, but rather to government itself."
Shortly after that, I read this editorial, Union Doozy, in the Wall Street Journal. The contrast is explicit. The State of Indiana contracts with private companies to deliver state welfare services, using the efficiency of the private sector. Unfortunately for AFSCME, the program is a mad success and they have to get their Democratic lapdogs in the 110th Congress to overrule the State law (so much for laboratories of democracy, Justice Brandeis!)
Indiana's goal is to deliver welfare benefits more efficiently to those who qualify for them. Its reform aims to save $500 million over 10 years by moving some 1,400 government jobs to the private sector -- which AFSCME likes to call "domestic outsourcing." But while this could mean fewer dues-paying union members, the state contract with IBM specifically requires that all current employees be offered work on the new system. And what do you know? More than 99% chose the private sector. Adding call centers and online resources will also help reduce welfare fraud: In December, a federal-state investigation found more than 1,000 ineligible drug felons collecting welfare in Marion County alone.But no effort to make government more accountable goes unpunished. Under the House provision, the Hoosier state would be forced to cancel the $1.16 billion 10-year deal with IBM, while taxpayers would have to shoulder the more than $100 million in additional costs to bring the operation back into the bureaucracy. Worse, the money to make up the shortfall would likely come out of the same purse that's been funding an increasing number of child-welfare caseworkers -- which was another goal of reform.
There are a hundred good arguments against government running things, but the best to me is the Hayekian preference for distributed control and knowledge. Allowing a few Senators to have veto privileges over innovation will guarantee inefficiency every time.
The program is likely safe for now, but won't be under a Democratic administration. And why would the next IBM bother to get involved with such a program?
July 24, 2007
Summer Jobs in New Orleans
The Times-Picayune reports:
They could just as easily do what young people typically do during their precious summer free time: work various odd or part-time jobs, lounge around a beach or do nothing at all.But for thousands of young people from across the country - in a few cases, other countries - this summer has been different.
Despite tales of thick, suffocating summer heat and entire neighborhoods still scarred with floodlines and wrecked seemingly beyond repair, young people continue to flock to New Orleans. They come not to revel in the neon glow of Bourbon Street, but to continue the cleanup nearly two years after Hurricane Katrina.
Many of the young volunteers have never been to the city and team up with local organizations, such as the well-established Catholic Charities or the newer Beacon of Hope Resource Center, to fill the voids in neighborhoods where the need for help remains great.
On a recent afternoon, a group of high school students from Westlake, a town just outside Lake Charles, spent part of their day in Mid-City, hand scraping old paint from the porch of a white shotgun double and applying a fresh coat to the inside walls. Even though the house is raised about 3 feet, a waterline remains about 2 feet high on the screen door.
"Something as simple as a fresh coat of paint can do so much," said Sam Turner, 16, who was in town to work with other young members of his church, First Baptist Church of Westlake.
The homeowner, Chareen Black, 41, said the volunteers have made a major contribution.
"Imagine without the volunteers - the house would still be in disarray, and I can't do it myself," said Black, who was welcoming a second group of volunteers to her home. "It's been a big help, a huge blessing."
Those who criticized FEMA and Bush in the same breath fail to realize that the inability to provide ample support is not confined to the administration, but rather to government itself. This story is free of the rhetoric and is a great example of human compassion and the free market.
May 24, 2007
Bush as John Galt
It's no secret that United States President George W. Bush Continues to Support Bipartisan Immigration Proposal. There is a mystery, however. Why?
Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh has struggled with this question, arriving speculatively at the conclusion that the religious president considers it one of his "good works." I've pondered the root cause myself over the past many months since the original Senate proposal last year, with no defensible theory having come forth - until today.
I've defended the concept of unfettered immigration on these pages many times, including once with a checklist of prerequisites. Unfortunately, the single most important prerequisite is also universally understood to be nigh on impossible: Entitlement reform to eliminate the welfare state and end government enforced transfer payments amongst individuals. But now, I think the president has figured out how to actually make this happen.
By adding millions upon millions of new dependents to the American welfare state the system will collapse under its own weight, with massive shortfalls of capital. Future congresses will have only two options: Increase the money supply, creating hyperinflation and economic collapse or, cancel most entitlement programs outright. Brilliant! Life imitates art as Ayn Rand's epic 'Atlas Shrugged' provides the template for productive Americans to demand the second option, leaving the government with no choice but to comply.
Having chosen 'johngalt' as my blog pen name it would be hypocritical of me to continue opposing such a strategy. I just hope Dubya and JK will forgive me for taking so long to come around.
So .. .you're saying he wants the system to collapse, so he's trying to make it happen?
In the long term, with the divisiveness of the party system, if the collapse did happen, the Left would blame Pres. Bush and the Right for letting it happen. Anything short of Socialism would be called 'radical Right Wing'; this would help the nation?
I can't explain Mr. Bush's idea, either; but this doesn't wash with me.
Posted by: Charlie on the PA Tpk at May 25, 2007 8:48 AMCharlie,
This was a joke. JG's bizarre sarcasm. He doesn't really think that Bush wishes the end of the welfare state. It is only wishful thinking.
Posted by: dagny at May 28, 2007 11:02 AMI concede to being guilty of a high degree of "tongue-in-cheekness." My point was that the welfare state is currently in a delicate balance between how much government theft of individual wealth can be perpetrated (through the prevailing moral code of altruism) before enough individuals stop "participating" (effectively going on strike as producers) that the system collapses.
I personally consider Dubya to be far more intelligent than he's credited for (except in the area of altruism) so it logically followed that his steadfast position on legalizing an enormous additional demand on the welfare state is founded in an intentional plan to destabilize it. (Except for the president's unintelligent obedience to the code of altruism.)
I contend that such a crisis would lead to massive reductions in entitlements. Charlie seems to believe the Democrats and their ideas could escape culpability for the crisis. He may well be right, but such a strategy holds more actual promise for my predicted outcome than any other I've yet contemplated.
Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 12:57 PMApril 15, 2007
Tax Day Coffee Smelling
Officially, tax day isn't until Tuesday (due to the 15th being on a Sunday and the 16th being an official holiday in D.C.) but the well known and lamented date of April 15th mustn't go by without some discussion of the state of taxation in America.
"Work hard. Be faithful. You'll get your just reward."
Those words appear on a statuette my father was given on the occasion of the closing of the College of Engineering at the University of Denver, where he had tenure. (The statuette was of a conscientious gentleman with a giant blue screw through his torso.) They can just as well be applied to American taxpayers who have earned a high school diploma or better in their educational career.
The preceeding chart comes from a fascinating April 4, 2007 study report by Robert Rector et. al. of The Heritage Foundation entitled, 'The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer.' The report summarizes the chart this way:
Chart 7 compares households headed by persons without a high school diploma to households headed by persons with a high school diploma or better. Whereas the dropout-headed household paid only $9,689 in taxes in FY 2004, the higher-skill households paid $34,629— more than three times as much. While dropout-headed households received from $32,138 to $43,084 in benefits, high-skill households received less: $21,520 to $30,819. The difference in government benefits was due largely to the greater amount of means-tested aid received by low-skill households.Households headed by dropouts received $22,449 more in immediate benefits (i.e., direct and means-tested aid, education, and population-based services) than they paid in taxes. Higher-skill households paid $13,109 more in taxes than they received in immediate benefits.
OK, so you're probably wondering, what's new? What's new is the trend in dropout households in the U.S. According to the World Net Daily article that cites the study:
About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.
I have advocated on these pages (and stand by it today) that immigration should be free and unlimited to non-criminal aliens, provided that citizenship (and voting rights) must still be earned and that entitlement programs that make immigrants a burden on the taxpayer are first reduced or eliminated.
The Rector report explains the realities we face.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future.
Hat tip: The Canadian Sentinel
Click continue reading to see the report's conclusion in its entirety.
Conclusion
Households headed by persons without a high school diploma are roughly 15 percent of all U.S. households. Overall, these households impose a significant fiscal burden on other taxpayers: The cost of the government benefits they consume greatly exceeds the taxes they pay to government. Before government undertakes to transfer even more economic resources to these households, it should have a very clear account of the magnitude of the economic transfers that already occur.
The substantial net tax burden imposed by low-skill U.S. households also suggests lessons for immigration policy. Recently proposed immigration legislation would greatly increase the number of poorly educated immigrants entering and living in the United States.[12] Before this policy is adopted, Congress should examine carefully the potential negative fiscal effects of low-skill immigrant households receiving services.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future. Policies that reduce the future number of high school dropouts and other policies affecting future generations could reduce long-term costs.
Future government policies that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid would increase future deficits at the margin. Policies that reduced the out-of-wedlock childbearing rate or which increased the real educational attainments and wages of future low-skill workers could reduce deficits somewhat in the long run.
Changes to immigration policy could have a much larger effect on the fiscal deficits generated by low-skill families. Policies which would substantially increase the inflow of low-skill immigrant workers receiving services would dramatically increase the fiscal deficits described in this paper and impose substantial costs on U.S. taxpayers.
Mmmm coffee.
Bastiat talks about "the seen and the unseen." With all due respect, you -- and my brother in law -- and a lot of other people whom I highly respect -- love to point to a datum in the "seen" category and say "See?"
Lower income households provide less revenue and use more government services. Who is surprised? Those without a diploma will earn less than those with; illegal immigrants tend to be less educated than native born citizens, yup.
I contend, still, that the "unseen" value that these workers and consumers bring to the economy more than compensates for the increased use of public services. The educated in your table are able to earn what they do, in large part, because there is a less educated work force (stop him before he says "comparative advantage" -- too late!).
To allow the educated (or ambitious dropouts like me and AlexC) to get ahead and innovate frequently requires allowing them to leverage less-educated labor. As Ricardo showed, both will be wealthier.
April 4, 2007
Minimum Waging
Supporters of having the government, instead of the private market, determine wage rates have said that there has been no solid evidence supporting claims that increasing the minimum wage leads to lost jobs. But just tell that to the roughly 70 Kennywood Park employees who were laid off as a result of the recent increase in the state’s minimum wage. The southwestern Pennsylvania amusement park was forced to lay off these workers – largely high school and college students – and raise ticket prices to make up for increased labor costs. Another 20 workers were laid off at nearby Idlewild Park.Other examples:
- The fitness chain store operator in the Lehigh Valley who laid off 100 part-time workers
- The central Pennsylvania business that reduced its work force by three “marginal” workers; will attempt to automate additional work and will consider a reduction in health-care benefits
- The central Pennsylvania business that runs an apprenticeship program for engine repair had to reduce available opportunities to just one
- The large multi-state food retailer that will raise prices to consumers to cover additional costs
- The eastern Pennsylvania-based retailer that cut hours back in its stores and still surrendered profits
- The western Pennsylvania manufacturer that laid off two employees
- The business owner with a young family who must now work 15 more hours a week at his pizza shop because he cannot afford the financial hit of the increased minimum wage
None of this is a surprise, naturally.
(tip to Chris)
March 25, 2007
The Yoke
In case you were wondering...
[The Tax Foundation] find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.
It still ain't fair... the poor hardly pay any taxes!
March 2, 2007
And they say government cannot innovate
Postal Service fixes long waits by removing clocks | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Hat-tip: Andrew Roth at Club for Growth
February 21, 2007
The Tax Bite
This is an interesting calculation.
Taxes take a bigger bite out of the Big Apple than any other urban area in the nation, according to an analysis released Wednesday.The Independent Budget Office report said local government taxes absorb $9.02 of every $100 of taxable resources here. The rate is 47 percent more than the $6.16 average for the most populous U.S. cities.
"No other large city comes close," the report said.
After New York, Philadelphia rated next highest, with $7.16 per $100, and Los Angeles followed with $6.88. Of the nine cities, Dallas had the lowest rate, with $5.20 per $100.
To reach those numbers, analysts estimated each city's gross taxable resources, made up of city household incomes and business surpluses , in other words, the main spending power used to pay taxes. For New York, that number is $502.1 billion. The portion of tax capacity being used by government was calculated using direct municipal taxes, estimated state collections within a city, and any overlapping local governments like counties.
The deductibility of local taxes and the AMT conspire to make this an opportunity for tax reform. Democrats in those blue areas seek AMT reform for their constituents, there might be a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Posted by: jk at February 22, 2007 11:59 AMFebruary 9, 2007
Geno's Still on Meat Hook
The highly charged dispute over the speak-English sign at Geno's Steaks is about to heat up.The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations notified Geno's owner Joey Vento this week that it had found probable cause that his sign urging patrons to order in English is discriminatory. The next step is to schedule a hearing to settle the dispute or to escalate the charges against the owner of the South Philadelphia sandwich stand.
Vento, who argues that the sign expresses opinions protected by the First Amendment, has enlisted the support of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm in Atlanta that last year won a settlement for an Ohio bar owner who faced similar charges.
"I'm shocked the city is pursuing this," said Albert G. Weiss, Vento's attorney in Philadelphia. "You'd think they have more important things to deal with."
Heaven forbid Joey Vento cater to his choice of customers.
I suppose that soon the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs will be coming down. They're discriminatory to leg amputees.
Shoe stores, you've officially been warned.
Heaven forbid Joey Vento cater to his choice of customers.
I suppose that soon the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs will be coming down. They're discriminatory to leg amputees.
Shoe stores, you've officially been warned.
LOL,..Yup Alex. Vento is violating people's rights, but Mayor John and his "Department of Street" are killing what little life still exists in this town!
Has anybody checked if this request has driven business over to Pat's Steaks?
John F. Kerry (did you know he was in Vietnam?) put the Swiss Cheesesteak on the map at Pat's.
Posted by: Guy Montag at February 10, 2007 3:34 PMFebruary 7, 2007
Banning iPods
First they came for your cigarettes... then they came for your trans-fat.
Now they're coming for your iPod.
From my cold, dead hands city fathers!
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2007 4:05 PMWhat about bluetooth ear pieces ... or Secret Service Ear pieces. And finally, hearing aids. I cannot wait to see that.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at February 7, 2007 9:56 PMFebruary 2, 2007
Government Accounting
Here's a story that's hard to believe...
- A recent audit of cash-strapped Camden, N.J. school district's finances found it was paying an employee $130,000 annually — and he's been dead for more than three decades.
City officials were shocked by the discovery.
No!! Not as shocked as the poor f*cker is going to be who's been cashing those checks....
- Camden has been plagued with scandal and is known as the nation's poorest city.
The audit also found outside vendors have been overpaid more than $17 million. In one case the district forked over $953,000 for copy equipment even though the purchase order was for only $55,000.
So who got the $900K?
This is criminal.
A lot of people need to be hauled into a courtroom. Outrageous.
Come on, ac, you worry too much. The dead teacher probably did a lot less damage to the children than his living peers, didn't overuse the health care benefit -- don't always look on the dark side.
Posted by: jk at February 3, 2007 11:14 AMIt isn't criminal, Alex,..its ops-normal in Camden ( and probably in Philly, too, if we ever get a chance to dig a little).
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at February 3, 2007 12:05 PMJanuary 4, 2007
Haste Makes Waste
Opinion Journal looks at the Democrats rush to get things done in the first 100 hours and their motivations for doing so.
Namely, their ideas won't stand up to scrutiny.
- The need for scrutiny is even more compelling on price controls for Medicare prescription drugs. Under the Medicare Part D benefit that took effect last year, private companies negotiate prices. Democrats want to allow the government to deal directly with drug companies. They argue that this would lead to lower prices for medicines, but the more likely outcome is fewer drug choices and price controls.
Democrats point to the Department of Veteran Affairs as a model, but we doubt seniors will like that story when they learn about it. The government already negotiates drug prices directly with the VA. But as Robert Goldberg wrote last month in The Weekly Standard, "Far from negotiating prices, the VA imposes them. Federal law requires companies to sell to the VA at 24% below wholesale price. If they won't, they are banned from selling medicines to Medicaid, Medicare and the public health service."
The VA has created a list of approved drugs for its patients. Companies that don't pay the VA price don't make the list, and a slew of drugs fall into that category. They include Azilect and Tysabri, two of the newest therapies for Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis, respectively. That's what happens when keeping prices down takes priority over getting the best available medicines to patients. Both drugs are available through Medicare Part D, by the way. Maybe Congress ought to debate this.
December 18, 2006
Air Quality
- More than a dozen states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today to lower soot levels from smokestacks and exhaust pipes, a move the state officials argue would save thousands of lives.
The states argue that the Bush administration is ignoring science and its own experts in refusing to slightly reduce the allowed threshold for soot. The "fine particulate matter" in soot contributes to premature death, chronic respiratory disease and asthma attacks, said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The pollution also leads to more hospital admissions and other public health costs, he said.
Officials from Pennsylvania, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia joined New York in the action filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
"It is unfortunate that this coalition of states must resort to legal action to get the EPA to do its job — protect the environment and the public health," said Spitzer, the Democratic governor-elect.
EPA lied, people died.
- The states want to reduce the current limit of 15 micrograms of soot allowed per cubic foot of air. States say even a reduction of 1 microgram would save as many as 11,000 lives. They don't agree on a specific amount to cut the limit.
It's not clear how much the states want to lower it. But if one is good enough, why not five?
I mean there's lives at stake here.
How about 10?
Do I hear 15? I read that John Kerry promised that, if elected president, he will reduce the allowable level of soot in industrial air emissions by TWENTY MICROGRAMS per cubic foot from its current level.
Posted by: johngalt at December 19, 2006 3:09 PMDecember 15, 2006
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Folks still clamor for public finance of elections. I always ask "who decides who gets to run?" There are only two reasons to oppose public finance of elections: those who run and those who don't.
It doesn't seem right that a long shot would have to compete with a publicly financed candidate, and if Senator McCain gets his way, anybody who spends more than $300 would be thrown in jail.
We need to seriously rethink the amount of money we currently provide. It's not enough for legitimate candidates, all of whom eschew the funds to avoid the attached strings. So, who is getting this money? The Charleston Daily Mail lists a few:
EVERYONE who laughed when the elfin Dennis Kucinich threw his hat in the ring to run for president in 2004 should realize why he smiles.He had 2,955,963 reasons to smile. That is how many bucks federal taxpayers gave his ridiculous campaign for president.
Kucinich had no chance.
Yet under the bizarre federal election rules, taxpayers had to give this fool $2,955,963 just to humor his vanity.
Ralph Nader took $798,827 from taxpayers in 2004 to indulge his fantasy of being elected president. Consumers beware. I look for this demagogue to run again.
Lyndon LaRouche is another likely candidate. Last time, he squeezed $1,456,019 from taxpayers.
In 2000, Pat Buchanan hit the jackpot, drawing $16,635,624 in federal matching funds. He drew just 0.4 percent of the popular vote.
Do you want $3 of your taxes to go to ending this travesty? Why, yes.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: Remember, it's the price of five weeks of Wii sales, and one-twentieth what we spend on potato chips.
I was going to bring this up on the watercooler, regarding Pa's laws. (there are no limits)
But that doesn't mean Philadelphia doesn't want to do it's own thing.
Here's an opinion from the other side.
Naturally there's no discussion of how the money gets distributed or in what amounts.
Posted by: AlexC at December 16, 2006 12:10 PMColor me unswayed.
Are we free of not? There was a discussion on Samizdata of the French belief that freedom is within natural boundaries. Who gets to choose and define these interstices? You're free or you're not.
Good for Philadelphia, cradle of freedom, to allow free speech. I'd love to know what Rep. Chaka Fattah does to extort -- I mean raise -- huge contributions, but the solution is not to limit them.
Of course we're not free. That's why one of the commenters had the guts to write:
"Public financing is the solution. (Mandatory low-cost tv advertisements on cable would help too, if only by reducing the cost of public financing. But it is not enough.)"
When more government is the answer to every problem, you're a slave to it.
Posted by: AlexC at December 16, 2006 2:25 PMOctober 31, 2006
Environmental Reactionaries
As Great Britain prostrates itself over the urgency to save the world from Global Warming [all caps because this is a proper name, not an actuality] David Cox writes in The Guardian that we're "back on the road to nowhere."
So off we go. But are we going anywhere? This is not the first time that the peoples of the world have been mobilised to confront a common danger. Success has usually proved elusive. You may remember the "war on drugs", or, if memory fails you on that one, the "war on terror". Ten years ago, a hundred countries, including Britain, pledged to halve global hunger. During the following decade, the number of starving people rose by 54 million, and that was with pop concerts, TV pictures of starving babies and Bob Geldof leading the charge.
Cox's conclusion is encouraging, however:
So all the curbs on free flights, higher motoring taxes and increased fuel bills which Mr Juniper has in mind for us would be unlikely to do the planet much good. In due course, this is likely to become apparent to both our politicians and to voters. Sacrifice that is clearly pointless soon loses its allure. So we need not be too fearful that the harsh measures currently being canvassed by the likes of David Miliband will actually materialise.
September 29, 2006
Social Security Statement
Happy Days.
I got my statement today in the mail.
- If you continue working until your full retirement age (67 years), your payment would be about $2,178/month.
age 70, your payment would be $2,701.
Wonderful!
The only thing this stupid document for is to make me realize how much of my money has been pissed away ($61,534) thanks to our government.
That and I made $187 dollars in 1994.
That's when the nanny state is most pernicious. Get EVERYBODY on the dole and entitlements are popular.
That's the failing with President Bush's Medicare drug benefit. It is cheaper and has more market incentives than a Democratic plan would have, but it was a mistake to put everybody on it. Means testing. If everybody’s collecting, we turn into France pretty quickly.
September 28, 2006
Just call me Cassandra...
Here's a rare (first ever, actually) guest blog from dagny:
A few days ago in a comment I noted that:
"When the smoking is all banned, next they will decide that bacon is a crappy habit and I will not be so happy waiting in that restaurant since I will not be able to get an avocado, bacon burger to go with my fries. Maybe no fries either and the burger won’t be beef!"
As if on cue, New York and Chicago legislators are discussing ideas to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants.
From the NY Times:
The aldermen voted in April to forbid restaurants to sell foie gras. They have weighed a proposal to force cabbies to dress better. And there is talk of an ordinance to outlaw smoking at the beach.Even Mayor Richard M. Daley, who often promotes bicycle riding and who not long ago appointed a city health commissioner who announced he was creating health “report cards” for the mayor and the aldermen, has balked at a trans-fat prohibition as one rule too many.
“Is the City Council going to plan our menus?” Mayor Daley asked.
And, from Scientific American:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City's Health Department on Tuesday proposed a near ban on the use of artificial trans fat at restaurants, likening its health danger to that of lead paint.The proposal would limit the use of the artery-clogging fat, which is often used in fast foods, to 0.5 grams per serving. The proposal comes after a year-long city campaign to educate restaurants on the effects of such fats and encourage them to stop their use.
The city said the voluntary campaign failed and while some of New York's more than 20,000 restaurants reduced or stopped using artificial trans fat, overall use did not decline at all.
This falls into my official category of, “WHAT’S WRONG WITH PEOPLE?” I would really like to know what happened to the concepts of individual rights and personal responsibility in this country.
"Then they will start on whatever YOUR crappy habit is so watch out!"
Welcome aboard, Dagny. Let me know if you'd like a login.
It causes one to tremble for the idea of self-rule. If we're going to vote these little tin-pot dictators into office, we might as well be slaves or subjects.
My hometown of Lafayette, CO is trying to take over recycling. We have two vibrant firms who do trash collection and both offer curbside recycling. But both charge extra (something like $2/month). Our Nazis have decided that is unacceptable, the city will take it over so it is "free."
I wonder what the French Embassy has to say about this. Banning foie gras? How anti-French!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 28, 2006 11:04 AMSeptember 14, 2006
"Lead-Free" - The International Environmental Boondoggle
In honor of today being the unofficial "L day" I'm posting this item that came to my attention last Monday.
In case you wonder what might have happened if the Kyoto Protocol had been adopted and implemented world wide, consider what happened when the EU unilaterally determined that the lead in solder used to produce electronic devices is a "hazardous substance" and mandated its elimination from all products marketed in Europe by the July 1, 2006.
On Monday a colleague emailed several of us a list of issues related to lead-free electronics manufacturing that was provided to him by our assembly vendor. Before reading the attachment I had no idea just how disruptive this lead-free process business is. Why would we voluntarily evolve into a process that is less reliable, more expensive, fraught with extra hoops to jump through and, by the way, is WORSE for the environment?
This all stems from an EU directive called the "Reduction of Hazardous Substances" directive, or "RoHS" adopted January 27, 2003. Here's what I found when I investigated.
From “The ultimate in fatuity” on EU Referendum blog (based in UK):
According to the authors, "The study presents extensive data that show that heavy metal concentrations in leachate and landfill gas are generally far below the limits that have been established to protect human health and the environment."By then, it was too late – the "train had left the station" and the momentum for new legislation was too great. But, by 2005, the US Environmental Protection Agency had got its act together and produced a 472-page report, assessing the full, life-cycle environmental impact of banning lead solder.
From this work, it emerged that when the impact of mining and refining substitutes was taken in to account, the higher energy consumption in using the lead-free solders, which require higher temperatures, and all the other issues were factored in, the banning of lead – far from having a positive impact on the environment (and worker health) – actually had a significant negative impact. Amazingly, though, this work had never been done by the EU and the legislation was, by then, already in place.
And then there are the long-term reliability concerns. Also from the EU Referendum blog:
On the basis of this charade, proprietors of firms not obeying this cretinous law can face unlimited fines and imprisonment yet, worryingly, there are still many serious doubts about the reliability and suitability of lead solder substitutes, so much so that military equipment has been exempted.
And this isn’t just some mad right-wing anti-environment rant. In the comments on the blog is a reference to this article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoting a Canadian environmental scientist who doesn’t support lead-free:
But not all lead is the same. Lead in paint and gasoline is easily absorbed into human cells. Lead in metallic forms such as solder is not.In addition, evidence indicates that soldered lead, once inside landfills, does not leach out into drinking water, said Laura Turbini, a materials science faculty member at the University of Toronto.
Turbini has studied and tried to help diminish the impact of industry on the environment since the days of CFCs in refrigerators. Her presentations declare "humanity is off course" environmentally. She also strongly advocates recycling electronics. But she does not support lead-free.
"From cradle to grave," Turbini said, "lead-free soldering is not better for the environment." Replacements for lead solder cost more to mine and require more energy to use and produce.
As for “state mandated deadlines for compliance” are we sure there are, or will be, any? Consider this, also from the news article:
No U.S. firm is legally bound to use lead-free solder. Only California has any restrictions on lead, and no federal laws are pending. But not conforming to European standards means giving up a lucrative market, and potentially that of China and Japan. China is expected to announce a restriction policy soon.
But since our market is exclusively the U.S. and not even Canada, much less Europe or East Asia, it appears that we should do everything possible to avoid lead-free like the plague. The problem with this strategy is that component manufacturers, forced to comply with RoHS by customers who market products in Europe and eager to avoid the added cost of parallel leaded and lead-free product lines, are gradually discontinuing the leaded components.
And so we have a world-wide economic and environmental travesty all because one man, the EU minister of state for energy, Malcolm Wicks, signed the final RoHS document declaring, "I have read the regulatory impact assessment and am satisfied the benefits justify the costs."
And angry-left nutjobs worry that we are sliding into a monarchy!
Take the disruptions, cost increases and environmental unintended consequences of this and multiply them by ten, or even a hundred, and you'll have an idea of what Kyoto could have wrought.
(Click "Continue Reading" to see the list of issues related to lead-free soldering processes.)
Company x’s Lead – Free Process Issues
1. Lead-Free assemblies are less reliable: Company x says we should expect 30% more solder joint failures in a lead-free process.
a. Through-hole joints will not be filled up to IPC-Level 1, but should conform to the IPC Level-2 soldering standard.
b. Our QA group should expect to see less flow and poorer overall solder joints. These joints are more susceptible to mechanical stress and vibration.
c. Tin solder will “grow” thin shards (whiskers) over time. These whiskers can eventually short higher density designs
2. Lead-Free assembly processes cost more: You will see why as you read the issues here.
3. Gold PCBs: Company x prefers Immersion Gold on top of Nickel. Company x is having issues soldering to our Immersion Silver boards:
a. The silver oxidizes fairly quickly, so the PCB shelf life isn’t very long with silver
b. Company x uses a lot of cardboard, which is one of silver’s worst enemies. They try to be careful, but find they still set a lot of bare boards directly on cardboard.
c. The flux isn’t powerful enough to break down the silver oxide when soldered
d. The lead-free solder doesn’t adhere well to silver even when it is not oxidized
Company x prefers 180-200 micro-inches of Nickel over the copper and 3-8 micro-inches of Gold over the Nickel. This finish has a good shelf life, doesn’t react with materials used in handling and storage, and readily adheres to the tin solder.
It may cost us more per board up-front, but Company x is saying due to the soldering issues, it saves us money on the overall assembly.
4. High-Temp FR-4: Most assembly houses request a higher temperature rated FR-4 material for lead-free processing. Company x hasn’t seen any PCB issues due to the higher oven temperatures yet. However, de-laminating and warping may occur, especially on PCB areas with few parts. Data Circuits/Merix hasn’t charged us more for this material in the past, so I suggest we start using it on all of our PCBs.
5. High-Temp Parts: Company x has settled on 245 C as their lead-free oven temperature. Many aluminum electrolytic capacitors and connectors will be destroyed at these temperatures. I have found that many ROHS rated aluminum electrolytic capacitors aren’t specified to handle this temperature and are rated to only 235-240 C, especially the larger caps. All of the parts we want to run through a lead-free reflow process must handle at least 245 C, although 260 C is preferable, but hard to obtain in the larger caps. Due to the higher oven temperatures required for lead-free reflow, we must re-evaluate each part in the assemblies we want to become lead-free.
6. Hand soldering is difficult: Lead-free solder not only requires a higher temperature to flow properly, but it doesn’t wet, flow, or adhere as well as lead based solder. Interestingly, soldering iron tips only last 8-10 hours due to the aggressive tin reaction to the tips themselves. To increase the soldering temperature, the soldering iron tips are larger which makes it more difficult to solder small parts. Company x has asked us to change the following in our designs:
a. Increase annular rings around hand-soldered holes or anything we will want to ever be re-worked. 15-20 mil per side is desirable. Use elliptical holes for finer-pitch parts.
b. Try to always use thermal rings to connect pads (SMT and thru-hole) to ground planes and copper pours. The pads must get hotter for good reflow and direct plane/copper connections pull that heat away.
7. Wave Soldering:
a. Only boards stuffed completely with lead-free parts can run through a lead-free wave soldering process. Otherwise the lead will contaminate the solder, costing upwards of $50K to empty, clean, and refill the wave soldering pot. So we must be absolutely certain all of our parts are lead-free before we request a lead-free wave process. Lead-free wave soldering requires a higher temperature pre-heater for the board, which is not desirable.
b. Due to higher reflow temperatures, Company x does not want to run parts through the wave soldering process for a second reheating. Many parts won’t survive a second re-heating, which is 500C. To prevent damage to SMT parts on the bottom side of the PCBs, they are using “selective wave fixtures” that attach to the boards and only exposes the parts needing wave soldered. These fixtures costs $300-$400 although they may need several to allow them to continue running boards as other fixtures cool enough to be handled. The fixture rules are:
i. No SMT component on the bottom side of the PCB can extend more than 0.125" from the PCB surface. If they are taller, then a more expensive fixture can be built (double layer) or they will have to hand solder the parts. Either way costs us more for assembly.
ii. All SMT parts should be at least 0.100" away from the parts to be wave soldered. This leaves room for the fixture to fit tightly to the PCB. Obviously all of the parts can’t adhere to this rule. In these cases, we should provide build instructions to specify to either glue the intruding part to the PCB and wave solder it (indicating it can handle the heat for a second pass) or to have them hand solder the part to the PCB after the wave process.
8. Pre-Fabrication DFM Review: Company x wants 24 hours to review our PCB artwork before fabrication. This allows them time to review the board and suggest changes for better manufacturability. This also gives them time to look at some of the parts to see if they can handle the lead-free processes and high-pressure post-washing.
I'm fighting with the whole R22 vs R410A refrigerant issue right now with regards to getting a new AC unit. A lot of the seasoned HVAC guys want to eat their eyes over this knowing damn well that the replacement is so much less effective that it takes a lot more energy to gain the same benefits. This creates more damage than it avoids. DDT v2.0
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 14, 2006 11:19 PM...and I got one of those 1.75 gallon Al Gore Toilets. My contractor begged me not to replace the old contraband 3 gal unit but I wanted colored fixtures.
They should put the (then) Senator's picture on a plunger -- it's his fault you have to use it so often.
(Andrew Sullivan blazed the trail in bathroom plumbing blogging, I'm just a copycat.)
Posted by: jk at September 15, 2006 11:30 AMJK, you might want to add a little fiber to your diet. ;)
But the Al Gore plunger is a great idea!
August 16, 2006
TSA Snooping
When TSA searches your checked luggage they used to put a note in saying "Hey we opened your bag."
When did this policy end? Was there any official notice? Is it something that the TSA in Philadelphia decided to do on it's own?
Yesterday I checked a bag with some clothes and some fly fishing gear. The fishing gear included a hemostat (looks like scissors, but used like pliers), flies, hooks, and fly floatant. For those who don't know, fly floatant is a liquid/gel product that you put on the fly to keep it afloat. All of the fly fishing gear was stored in a glorified fanny pack, which was velcroed shut.
When I unpacked, I noticed that the fly floatant wasn't in the pouch anymore. There's no way it could have flopped out of the pouch. It was laying loose in the suitcase, and the pouch was still velcroed shut.
I'm amazed that they found the floatant. I suspect that the hemostat showed up on an x-ray and figured that they opened it up then. But where's my note? ... and why not put it back where it belongs?
For what it's worth, a month ago, I carried the same setup on the plane. No problems... I wish they would profile frequent fliers and let us be.
We are supposed to be frightened by al Qaida's recent addition of "women and children" to the ranks of their homi-suci-cide squads. "Now ANYONE could be a terrorist," the media wails. But what is the big deal when our big, fancy, (bloated and bureaucratically hamstrung also go without saying) new federal agency created expressly for preventing terror attacks on airplanes vehemently REFUSES to profile terrorists?
TSA - "Thousands Standing Around"
Posted by: johngalt at August 16, 2006 2:49 PMAugust 6, 2006
Spending Database
One of the best political stimulants, is shame.
- U.S. Senator Tom Coburn has an innovative idea that will cost the federal government virtually nothing and provide the public with a depth of knowledge on government operations unparalleled in American History.
The Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommmittee on Federal Financial Management has introduced a bipartisan bill to create a Google-like online searchable database of all federal spending. Currently, said Coburn, there is no way for taxpayers to find out what the federal government is paying individuals, groups, localities, and contractors. "This bill will empower citizens investigators to root out waste, fraud, and abuse," the Oklahoma Republican, a leading opponent of pork, told U.S. News.
He has earned a bipartisan group of co-sponsors including Republicans John McCain and Rick Santorum and Democrat Barack Obama. Since most of the information is already online or in digital data records that could be easily posted, the cost would be comparatively small.
This is a good thing. There's plenty of shame to go around.
Hopefully you can group it by Senator / Congressman and see what they've introduced... and give you a dollar total.
Yes! Transparency is the key, much better than creating some arcane "reform" rules that members will quickly find ways around.
Bloggers can play an active part in the shaming. Not that anybody around here would take pleasure in such a thing...
Posted by: jk at August 7, 2006 11:46 AMDevil's Advocacy time.
Why should we wait for government to fill this need? Why hasn't there been anyone in the think-tank/political agitator segment of society doing this?
Yes, Porkbusters et al is a start.
... my fear is that the government will find a way to make it suck.
Posted by: AlexC at August 7, 2006 2:03 PMThat was actually my first thought: fund a government program to see why government spends so much...
But I believe you might need their access to produce them with accuracy and timeliness. Go government!
Posted by: jk at August 7, 2006 3:16 PMJuly 18, 2006
More Farm Subsidies
Last month I posted a link to a WaPo story of non-farmers receiving farm subsidies. Today, the same paper finds, in the same state of Texas, that you don't really need a drought to get drought aid.
CHANDLER, Tex. -- On a clear, cold morning in February 2003, Nico de Boer heard what sounded like a clap of thunder and stepped outside his hillside home for a look. High above the tree line, the 40-year-old dairy farmer saw a trail of smoke curling across the sky -- all that remained of the space shuttle Columbia.Weeks later, de Boer was startled to learn that he was one of hundreds of East Texas ranchers entitled to up to $40,000 in disaster compensation from the federal government, even though the nearest debris landed 10 to 20 miles from his cattle.
No doubt if farmers had the time, Senators Harkin and Grassley would co-sponsor a bill to reimburse farmers for damage by extra-terrestrial debris. Willie Nelson and John Cougar could do a big concert.
July 6, 2006
Save Us From Spoiled Milk
New Yorkers enjoy an extra set of protection that we do not.
Perry at Eidelblog details a city ordinance to protect its vulnerable citizenry from spoiled milk.
In its benevolence, government at all levels has uncountable regulations and statutes just for what we ingest. It's the tip of the iceberg that the FDA's legions must approve pharmaceuticals and inspect and/or supervise food production. New York City, for example, has decided that milk's usual expiration dates are too long. Once fluid milk is pasteurized, it's legal to sell it only within 96 hours of 6 a.m. on the next day (which is about three days earlier than what most dairy producers stamp on the containers).
Perhaps Colorado doesn't care if its hardworkin' taxpayers drink sour milk. Or perhaps New Yorkers are considered too bashful to speak up and complain when a vendor has sold them something old.
Perry wonders about "The Freedom to Assume Risk." Finding some brave souls who dared to purchase raw milk from an Amish farmer in Ohio, before government stepped in to protect us.
And he quotes Bastiat's "The Law" essay more than I say "stunning exegesis." How can you lose?
Believe me, we're never shy about speaking up about bad food or service. :) I just wish others were more vocal about bad government.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 6, 2006 11:52 PMI understand that the date on milk means it's still good for seven more days.
But they're crazy. It starts tasting different the next day!
... I'm very particular. I only drink two kinds of whole milk.... Wawa & Acme. The rest... blecch.
Yes, I'm a milk snob.
Posted by: AlexC at July 7, 2006 12:48 AMI'm even more of a milk snob. I won't drink it unless it is Scotch.
Posted by: jk at July 7, 2006 11:06 AMConsumer tip for fellow Milk Snobs: We have our milk delivered weekly to our front door direct from a local dairy. I don't know if such services are available in PA but it sure is nice. It is better, and fresher milk. It is a little more expensive, but sure is nice never to have to send my husband to the grocery store for milk.
Posted by: dagny at July 7, 2006 2:20 PMDoes anyone else remember what Brando told Jean Simmons in "Guys and Dolls"? Bacardi is great to add to milk. It acts as a preservative.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 7, 2006 2:39 PMJuly 2, 2006
Farm Subsidies
"This was an unintended consequence of the farm bill," said former representative Charles W. Stenholm, the west Texas Democrat who was once the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee. "Instead of maintaining a rice industry in Texas, we basically contributed to its demise."But, gosh darn it, we tried! This quote is from a WaPo story that details $1.3 Billion in farm subsidies which go to those who do not farm.
EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.
Two things I do not understand:
- Will the Washington Post ever translate this abuse of government power and tampering with markets into opposing a new government program? Or will they just pat themselves on the back for "discovering and exposing" this failure? [Ummm, that was rhetorical, you don't have to answer.]
- As non-farmers outnumber farmers (though not at ThreeSources), why can we not kill these subsidies? Yeah, they have ADM and its lobbying Army, Willie Nelson, John Cougar Mellancamp, &c. But why cannot the urban liberals and small government rural conservatives team up to kill these market abominations. It would lower taxes for the rich and reduce food prices for the poor. Why does it not happen?
The second question is less rhetorical: why is the Ag lobby so strong?
June 20, 2006
Whipped Cream & Donuts Have Calories???
Grab a Cappuccino and watch this video.
Some do-gooder activist group is upset because the FDA does not have the authority to mandate nutrition labeling in restaurants. They've filed suit with KFC and now want to go after Starbucks.
It seems that a double chocolate chip mocha frappucino with a cinnamon doughnut has 990 calories. They want the government to require nutrition labeling. Starbucks makes this information available on its website and in printed brochures "But that's not good enough!" for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Does any sentient being really think that double-chocolate chip mochas with whipped cream and doughnuts are diet food? The ABC News video is, of course, quite deferential to the activists. "They're just trying to help us be healthy, right?" I guess John Stossel was sick that day.
Riza is making placards: "Government Out Of My Coffee!"
Posted by: jk at June 21, 2006 10:40 AMJune 9, 2006
No I.D. at the Airport
- At 6 a.m. the next morning, Harper handed this reporter a green, self-addressed stamped envelope[ with his ID] and entered the checkpoint line, which even at that early hour was filled with travelers facing a 20-minute crawl to the magnetometers.
Harper told the identification checker he had no ID, and the attendant quickly wrote "No ID" with a red marker on his ticket and shunted him off to an extra screening line -- generously allowing him to bypass the longer queue of card-carrying passengers.
There Harper was directed into the belly of a General Electric EntryScan puffer machine that shot bits of air at his suit in order to see if he had been handling explosives.
TSA employees wearing baby blue surgical gloves then swiped his Sidekick and his laptop for traces of explosives and searched through his carry-on, while a supervisor took his ticket, conferred with other employees and made a phone call.
Meanwhile, a TSA employee approached this reporter, who was watching the search through Plexiglas, and said, "It's pretty awkward you are standing here taking notes," but he did not ask for identification or call for a halt to the note-taking.
The TSA supervisor returned from her phone call and asked Harper why he didn't have identification and to where he was traveling. But she was satisfied enough with his answer -- that he had mailed his driver's license home to Washington D.C. -- that she allowed him to pass.
At 6:30 a.m., standing 50 yards away on the other side of the glass screen, Harper phoned to say he now had two hours to kill, having gotten through screening perhaps even faster than he would have if he'd shown ID. He guessed he was able to get through without much hassle by being polite and dressing well.
In the pre-9/11 world I knew this was possible. I've been tempted to try it a number of times, but since I rely on being able to fly to keep the rain of my kid's head.
June 7, 2006
Americans with Disabilities Act
John Stossel writes on regular Americans breaking the law.
- I confronted Gilbert Casellas, head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under President Clinton. He said the ADA is a wonderful law, and had the nerve to say it isn't complicated. "None of this stuff is rocket science," he said.
So I asked him about Janofsky's example: If you come to me applying for a job, and your arm is in a sling, can I ask you why your arm is in a sling?
"You can ask -- you know what? I'm going to ask you to stop the tape, because we're getting into -- "
I was incredulous. "You want to check?"
The head of the EEOC had just said the law wasn't complicated, and every employer in America is supposed to obey it, but he had to consult one of his experts.
This is one of those articles that's infuriating to read.
April 20, 2006
Minneapolis
I grew up in Denver and can barely tolerate it now. New Orleans and Boston were always fun for a three day trade show. But Minneapolis was a tertiary home to me. I have had family on both sides, friends, and business there, so I've spent some time and come to dig it. I’ll be there at the end of May, though I’ll be staying outside the cities.
Sadly, I think the little Marxists have completely taken over there, refusing to fight crime lest it offend some minority somewhere. Powerline calls it "Murderapolis." That is probably way too far but for a pleasant collection of friendly Midwesterners, good economics, pretty scenery, and happy Scandinavian-Americas it does have some scary places.
LILEKS takes a whack today. It seems Target Corporation (It was Dayton-Hudson in my day) cannot upgrade a store in its hometown.
Target would like to raze the store and build a gigantor UberHyperTarget with a grocery store and twice the shelf space and a petting zoo and underground NASCAR track, etc. But! The city wants to upgrade the entire area, make it a new downtown with the usual pedestrian amenities. This means bisecting the aforementioned blocks with a “spine” that connects dead old Southdale with the housing to the south.Here’s the catch: the new store Target wants to build does not sufficiently respect the spine. The city says: we’d like you to put affordable housing facing the spine, please. Target says: uh, we sell laundry soap and shoes and batteries; we’re not exactly in the housing business. The city says: you are now. And so the latest proposal to build the new Target was rejected. Rejected! New Urbanism, triumphant!
A friend of mine tried to build a new stereo store in Boulder and was told his company would have to put affordable housing on top (umm, mightn't that be a little loud?) Again, I fight the fight nationally, and these little Stalins ruin everything on a local level.
(The same "Bleat" also has some kind words about "Firefly.")
But dig the Fox News stores inside the airport! That shocked me. And there's a CNBC store in the Philly airport that shows FoxNews... but that's off topic.
Posted by: AlexC at April 20, 2006 2:21 PMApril 17, 2006
Gut-Wrenching
Hugh Hewitt links to a WaPo story, Parks Feel '80 Percent' Squeeze. It seems park managers are being asked to operate at 80% of previous budgets. You'll want to grab a Kleenex before you read this:
But park officials in the field said the initiative was forcing "gut-wrenching" decisions that visitors will notice. At many parks, volunteers will take on larger roles, and there will be fewer interpretive ranger programs, the officials said.
At Rocky Mountain Natl. Park (a little more than an hour from my front door), they're forced to prioritize:
At Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, one of six visitor centers was closed and two water stations were shuttered as a result of the initiative.Kyle Patterson, a park spokeswoman, said the decisions prompted "soul-searching" but that one of the park's most popular visitor centers was able to stay open four more hours a day thanks to the money saved by closing a less-used one.
I would ask every, non-military segment of the Federal Government to work at 80%. This happens in the private sector everyday and companies trim ineffective programs.
April 11, 2006
Little likelihood of tax system overhaul
I found this article by Robert J. Samuelson on the lack of progress on the tax system overhaul interesting. I'd be interested to hear comments on his arguments for why the current system is unlikely to change and the benefits that would accrue from implementation of the plans proposed by the President's commission in November. Let the schoolin' begin.
Silence's law applies here "Only 535 reasons why that'll never happen!" (Hope I quoted it okay)
There was much excitement around for Social Security reform, you can click on the archives and see the discussion.
By the time tax reform came around, we were a little subdued. The kind version is that this is a war presidency, and he cannot finish his domestic agenda; the less kind version is that this White House is not skilled enough to get things through an obstreperous Congress.
The commission was a disaster. I was upset from the start as they were instructed to use the static CBO model that says every dollar of tax cut is added to the deficit. You and I might argue as to how much tax cuts pay for themselves, but to refuse to consider any economic gains from simplification or reduction is an abdication of principle -- and it doomed it from the start.
Some of the suggestions had merit but I saw one of the architects on Larry Kudlow's show. A Republican committee member as trying to explain it to a friendly, Republican, brilliant, professional economist. When I saw that it was too confusing for these two, I had my concerns that it wasn't gonna be a big hit.
JohnGalt and I are huge fans of consumption-based-taxation and I think we even have Silence on our side. It's the way to go: privacy, ease of compliance, captures black market monies. But it also reduces government power. Right about now is where Silence's law comes in...
Count me in on consumption based taxation.
But how do you tax foreign purchases? A free trader would never want to have tariffs, levies or duties.
Posted by: AlexC at April 11, 2006 11:53 PMAlexC: I think we could probably apply a tax for use of infrastructure. It has to come through a port or some sort and then, like postal charges, a destination fee could be levied based on the declared value of the package. This would certainly work with the '100% container check' mindset.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at April 12, 2006 11:42 AMA free trader would never want to have ANY kind of tax, but there are legitimate national expenses that must be funded. Foreign purchases must be taxed just the same as domestic ones. Foreign sellers who refuse to comply with tax remittance shall be prosecuted under law.
Or, mdmh's port of entry model may work even better. The point is that this "levy" is exactly the same thing as the domestic consumption tax. (To do otherwise effectively subsidizes foreign sellers against domestic ones.)
Posted by: johngalt at April 13, 2006 3:28 PMWow, I have my own law now. Yeah, count me in on consumption tax. Again the problem is how to get the change when it removes power from those who must make the change. Since I have been a bit absent of late in discussions I will tie in here with the "pox" thread above. Forget line item veto, what we need is line item votes. How can even the best of our politicians not be frustrated by the choice of voting for a huge pork project because it is part of a larger bill that supplies our troops with armor?
Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 15, 2006 12:50 AMInteresting idea, the line-item vote. But isn’t the omnibus bill the cornerstone of our sausage of democracy (metaphor alert!!!) Ted Kennedy says "I'll vote for your tax cuts if I can slip in a few million for midnight basketball in Southey." It would seem to thwart the mechanism for compromise. Handing that off to the Executive at least moves it down the street.
Truth be told, I am skeptical of the line item veto. Like term limits, it makes a problem go away, but whether it is constitutionally sound, I am not certain.
April 4, 2006
The Opposite Of Progress...
The Everyday Economist gives us this Quote of the Day.
“There’s a power outage in the Capitol. No power, no product. The Dow is up 120. Draw your own conclusions.”- Larry Kudlow
Reminds me of the good ol' days when Newt Gingrich closed down Congress (and the federal government)...
ahhh... those were the times my friends.
Sadly the doors opened again.
Posted by: AlexC at April 4, 2006 7:57 PMMarch 16, 2006
Government as a virus
I don't want to make light of bird flu. As I recall, I already have. But it is worthwhile to watch government growth more like a virus. Once it gets hold of the host its raison d'etre is to grow and spread.
The Wall Street Journal has enjoyed many clever "Meathead" headlines following Rob Reiner's troubles of late. Reiner has come under scrutiny for spending the government funds of "First 5" which he has headed, unelected, for years. He has doled them out like the political pro he is, getting patronage for money that's not his. (Paid link)'
This is not the commission's only questionable contract. First 5 has received to date $800 million -- about 20% -- of the tobacco proceeds that Mr. Reiner convinced California voters to impose on themselves in a 1998 referendum. Of this, the commission has awarded contracts totaling about $230 million to firms or individuals known to Mr. Reiner -- some of them without competitive bidding. Meanwhile, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office is mulling whether to launch its own investigation to determine if there was any cronyism involved in awarding the ad campaign contract to a firm with long-standing ties to Mr. Reiner.Now, he is in trouble for spending those funds to support the election of a new government program: universal pre-school. I guess the government in California is doing so well educating those in its K-12 system, it's obviously a great time to expand public education to younger students.
Mr. Reiner's ad campaign mentions neither the indifferent results of universal preschool nor its budgetary consequences. This, in itself, would not be a problem, because a democracy counts not on any one person's script, but many partial ones from numerous interested parties, to get the full story across to voters. But there is a problem when someone has unfair access to taxpayer dollars to bankroll his script over others. This is why California authorities need to give close scrutiny to Mr. Reiner's tactics -- and California voters to his grand taxing plans. As Archie Bunker would say: Hands off my fridge, Meathead.Once these people get a little power and money, they inevitably use it to create an inexorable new government creation machine. Cuts (that would be a reduction in the rate of growth for you newcomers) and cutbacks are slow, difficult and always ripe for retraction. New programs are eternal.
Funny thing ... government is like a mirror image or weight lifting: Hard gains are not lost quickly. If only we could come up with an incentive program for legislatures. You get a bonus based on the amount of money you cut from the budget ... conversely, your bonus is decreased proportionally by the cost of new programs. If only ...
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 16, 2006 2:25 PMI LIKE it!
Posted by: jk at March 16, 2006 3:38 PMFebruary 11, 2006
Data Entry Error
Maybe it's just me, but I'm a little sensitive to any kind of government's bass-ackwards usage of common words when it comes to taxation.
- A house erroneously valued at $400 million is being blamed for budget shortfalls and possible layoffs in municipalities and school districts in northwest Indiana.
An outside user of Porter County's computer system may have triggered the mess by accidentally changing the value of the Valparaiso house, said Sharon Lippens, director of the county's information technologies and service department. The house had been valued at $121,900 before the glitch.
County Treasurer Jim Murphy said the home usually carried about $1,500 in property taxes; this year, it was billed $8 million.
Budget shortfalls? It's not like they "cut taxes." They overspent! Waaaaay over spent money they never had.
- Most local officials did not learn about the mistake until Tuesday, when 18 government taxing units were asked to return a total of $3.1 million of tax money. The city of Valparaiso and the Valparaiso Community School Corp. were asked to return $2.7 million. As a result, the school system has a $200,000 budget shortfall, and the city loses $900,000.
Officials struggled to figure out how the mistake got into the system and how it could have been prevented. City leaders said Thursday the error could cause layoffs and cost-cutting measures.
Lesson here? Any government will spend as much money as it thinks it can.
If I were an up and coming Porter County politician, I might be campaigning on a "rainy day fund" platform.
Now THAT'S a housing bubble!
Posted by: jk at February 11, 2006 1:11 PMFebruary 9, 2006
TSA Registry Plans
- Security concerns have caused the government to suspend plans for an ambitious program to check every domestic airline passenger's name against government watch lists, Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley said Thursday.
Hawley told the Senate Commerce Committee that he has directed that the program's information technology system "go through a comprehensive audit."
A comprehensive audit would be an understatement.
- Nearly four years and $200 million after the program was put into operation, Hawley said last month that the agency hadn't yet determined precisely how the it would work.
Are you kidding me?
But if we put these same people in charge of health care, we'd live in utopia...
Posted by: jk at February 9, 2006 3:28 PMJanuary 12, 2006
Fight the Power
Gentlemen's clubs employees took it to the streets in Trenton NJ this thursday to protest government meddling.
- More smoke than fire might best describe an anti-smoking ban protest in front of the Statehouse in Trenton on Thursday.
There were far less than the 100 strippers promised by New Jersey 101.5 shock jocks, "The Jersey Guys."
The women waved signs saying, "Defy Anti-Smoking Nazis" and "Tobacco Control Is Out of Control."
In the background, a loudspeaker blared the songs, "Girls, Girls, Girls" and "Highway to Hell."
The strippers say they oppose the ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and other public establishments because it would drive away customers.
I always thought that leaving a "gentlemans' club" stinking like stale beer, cigarettes and perfume was part of the experience.
New Jersey is also the state where you can't pump your own gas for fear of the catastrophe that might result. The N in NJ should be changed to "Nanny."
Funny line...
- Others in the crowd swore they were there because they were on their way back to work.
Riiiiiiiight.
January 11, 2006
Public Transportation
Here's an idea from YoungPhillyPolitics.
- I’ll start us off by presenting my idea (that has been discussed by many others before) to use an expansion of public transportation to create new jobs, improve the city’s neighborhoods and bridge the gap between all Philadelphians.
It goes on to list all of the ways....
- In total, for the transit expansion projects I propose above, we are talking anywhere from $20-$30 billion in capital spending. This may seem like a lot of money. However, because a lot it could be bonded, the actual cash outlay would be a lot less. A billion dollars a year for 30 years is a better way to think of the expense. And, as I will report in the next section, this level of transit infrastructure investment would have an astounding impact on our city’s economy which would pay for the $1 billion a year in debt service easily.
So the plan is to spend a billion dollars a year to cover a billion dollars a year in debt using money that might come from tax revenue based on new jobs!
I guess compounding interest never figured in to the calculations. To be fair, Ray did admit to some guessing in his calculations.
Nevertheless, I still have a philosophical problem with centrally planned problem solving like this. It would be a total and complete racket. It's begging for mismanagement and graft.
If the objective is to lure better paying jobs BACK into the city, I guess getting the city on the correct side of the Laffer Curve isn't in the cards.
In related news, a new paper from the Cato Institute came out last week.
- Prior to 1964, when Congress began subsidizing transit, the industry was mostly private. Since then, the industry has been almost entirely taken over by state and local governments. Today more than three of every four dollars spent on transit come from taxpayers, not transit riders.
The effectiveness of local transit systems is undermined by federal subsidies, which encourage the construction of highly visible and expensive services such as light-rail trains to suburban areas despite the chronically low number of riders on those routes. Federal subsidies to transit advocacy groups and misguided environmental and labor regulations also encourage a large investment of taxpayer money in wasteful transit systems.
Public transit is a tricky question. In urban areas, you have to have it.
Mass rail-transit has pretty much been a financial loser since automobiles were invented, and were heavily subsidized by freight reciepts when real railroads has shiny classic passenger trains. However, when your entire income stream is based on passengers themselves that need to get from point A to point B as fast as possible, it becomes very difficult to do.
Subways, "El"s and trolleys, as light rail used to be called, are in that same vein. The physical plant maintenance is high, and you can only make money in high volumes, but even then with government subsidies.
Buses have always been expensive to run, but cheaper than rail, as the "tracks" are someone elses problem.
I think the solution to transit funding is that we need to abandon the idea of public transit monopolies.
With regards to rail, the government should offer tax incentives (not subsidies) for self-contained railcar development and passenger service companies to run them. Though some lines would need to be improved for the additional traffic, they can co-exist with freight traffic when properly dispatched.
The Colorado Railcar DMU is an example.
But here's my twist.
For example on the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington, why not allow multiple companies to run the operations? Not just Amtrak sharing with NJ Transit, MTA or Septa, but with an airline style model. The service can either be contracted out by the municipality OR companies could run them on their own schedules, offering first-class, upscale or economy style service. Additionally, premium slots during rush-hour can be sold to the companies. In addition to frequency or quality of service, competition could also be based on speed of service. Trains could make the local stops or the bigger city stops (express), or some mix (limited).
For those locations where rail service might not exist, or exists on terrible economics, why not contract the service out? Instead of completely wasting money, there would be a better return. The competitive bidding process still works... Since we're already paying for some service to these areas, can't we pay less? I'm sure we can.
We can do something similar with buses. It would actually be better than trains. There's a lower cost for the infrastructure. Another government bureaucracy is maintaining the roads. Heck, we could fold some of the rails into the DOT's as well. In any case, a bus can go anywhere. Greyhound, Martz, et. al. do it now.
With unmonopolized public transit any bus company can run a bus from anywhere to anywhere. I bet they would do it at far better efficiency than a "transit authority."
Free our transit.... either that or perfect "tube technology" ala Logan's Run. Except we all know how that turned out.
I don't think any of the Colorado folks are going to be real sanguine on the DMU.
The Colorado "FastTrack" boondoggle was passed by voters in the same election where Democrats took both State legislatures. That was a dark day.
You're -- of course -- dead on on the private competition claims.
Well, my post regarding the DMU is the technology itself. Self-contained railcars. It's not new, but the DMU is the latest in the evolution of the railcar.
A boondoggle is still a boondoggle, however.
Posted by: AlexC at January 12, 2006 1:12 PMDecember 9, 2005
Government Worries
The Club For Growth Blog has become my new favorite.
Witness a post called Worried About the Wrong Thing...
- “Worried that too many young Americans are turned off by the idea of working in government, Congress has provided $600,000 for a research project to develop strategies to raise interest among college students in federal service.”
The fact that the government has to spend $600,000 to make itself more appealing should reveal the obvious fact that it needs to be reform. But heavens, that’s just flat out crazy talk for bureaucrats.
It's fiscally conservative and snarky.
I would love to get paid just to blog like that everyday. I don't have the ability to be full-time snarky at my current position!
Tax Cuts!
Mmmm.... Tax cuts.
- The House successfully passed a $56 billion tax cut this afternoon, designed to further spur economic growth. Congressman Tom DeLay (R-TX) said passage of the bill would be good for the economy.
"Republican efforts to deliver hard earned money back to American taxpayers is sparking America's economy, creating jobs, strengthening markets, and improving the lives of every American" DeLay said. "Republicans will continue to create an economic atmosphere that expands our nation's economy and provides entrepreneurial and job opportunities to all Americans."
Not ready for Presidential signature, but it's only a few weeks away.
Now how about some more spending cuts?
Spending Cuts!? My GOD man, have you gone mad!? It would take a miracle for that to happen. Then again, perhaps there will be a Christmas miracle and we will start taxing the ACLU as a For Profit organization.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at December 9, 2005 9:48 AMBTW: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13364170.htm
A few of our more favored leaders will be in town Monday.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at December 9, 2005 10:18 AMI want pictures for the blog!
Posted by: jk at December 9, 2005 3:07 PMI'm in Alaska plundering as usual. Had I know, I'd probably be able to snag some tix.
Posted by: AlexC at December 9, 2005 11:04 PMOctober 30, 2005
Caveat Emptor, Hybrid Shoppers
When gasoline hit 3 bucks a gallon the hype over "hybrid cars" really shifted into high gear. "More than half of US consumers see a hybrid in their future," one article reports.
Americans surveyed had a generally dim view of U.S. automakers' efforts. Viewed most favorably for their hybrid plans were Toyota, with 41 percent of respondents, and Honda, with 40 percent.
Ford's hybrid efforts got the nod of only 14 percent, GM's only 13 percent and Chrysler was last at 8 percent.
Sales of the Toyota Prius hybrid grew 90 percent in September.
But are hybrids really as superior in fuel efficiency as automakers claim in their multimillion dollar advertisements? Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, has thrown a half-bucket of cold water on that nouveau conventional wisdom. In an October cover article the magazine reveals how their own fuel economy test results compare to the "EPA estimates" behind the mileage claims of every automaker selling cars in the USA.
Highlights of our study:• Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models.
• The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent.
• Hybrids, whose selling point is fuel thriftiness, had some of the biggest disparities, with fuel economy averaging 19 mpg below the EPA city rating.
Everyone who's ever computed his own gas mileage knows the EPA figures are unrealistically high, even after they were arbitrarily "adjusted" with a 10 percent reduction in 1984. But the government mandated test regimen for measuring fuel economy is still the same dinosaur it was when originally cobbled together in 1975. So how does it deal with these newfangled "hybrid" cars? They start their testing with a fully charged battery! If the test is long enough this advantage will be minimized, but the test protocol runs for only 31 minutes in the "city" test and 12.5 minutes for "highway." Consumer Reports, on the other hand, starts their hybrid tests "with the battery at the charge level you normally find--about half." Their "city" test is not as long at 16 minutes, but "highway" is longer at 37 minutes. Larger "real-world" discrepancies exist too, like the EPA test's professional driver following a prescribed speed and acceleration curve on a dyno vs. CU's two test drivers making 6 test runs on real roads, and EPA's variable "highway" speed of 30 to 60 mph, averaging 48 vs. CU's constant 65 mph.
So what's the result? Here are the tallies for select cars from Honda and Toyota:
From the chart we can see that, if you believe Consumer Reports' "real world" tests, hybrid cars 'city' fuel economy is often no better than good old fashioned gas only cars from the same maker. And no expensive, complicated, heavy, limited lifetime battery/motor system is required to achieve it. Just lightweight, aerodynamic and underpowered - the classic japanese car formula.
If you really want the best gas mileage try driving slower. I typically get 26 mpg while commuting in my 6 cylinder Audi "upscale car," mostly on an interstate highway. One day I tried driving at the speed limit on every street in my route and the on-board computer reported: 30 mpg.
-
"The trouble is...?" What are you, a social engineer? Yeah, we sure don't want people to have more choices, or have more freedom, or to LIVE more.
But let's not get sidetracked in these comments. The important revelation here is that Hybrid gasoline-electric cars are tested by the government in such a way that they "f[a]ll short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."
They are not "magicmobiles." They do not defy physics. Energy in is still equal to energy out, no matter how many times you convert it.
Now, IF nearly all of the energy content of gasoline can be losslessly extracted as hydrogen (and that's a very big IF) then hydrogen fuel cell powered electric vehicles could pose the revolution in transportation that JK presupposes. But they'll STILL be running on the demon fluid - gasoline!
Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2005 2:28 PMJust to keep things interesting around here I am going to side with johngalt against JK and second his questioning your social engineering proclivities. People will just drive more if fuel economy is raised? I gauge how far I am willing to live from my job based on time not the cost of gas. Even at a moderate 20mpg and 60 mph that is only 3 gals/ hour or $9/hr at $3/gal. I am comfortable that my time will always be worth more than the cost of gasoline. This seems analogous to the argument that if you widen roads more people will drive and you will just have traffic again.
Interesting report on fuel economy though. A friend who has a Civic hybrid says she gets 43-46 mpg in a City/Hwy mix. I can readily see how battery charge level and driving style could have a bigger effect on a hybrid than a single fuel vehicle but the 35-50% lower values seem so excessive that I have to wonder about the test parameters. I do wonder about the long term viability of hybrids though, there is a weight, cost, and complexity issue with two power sources. I think the US automakers pinned their hopes on fuel cells and largely figured hybrids as a short term stop gap measure. This may still turn out to be true, even with the current high demand for hybrids only 88,000 were sold in 2004 or 0.52% of the total market according to J.D. Powers.
Johngalt is also right in that there is no substitute for weight in the energy equation. My suggestion to all the politicians now calling for energy legislation is that first stop should be at DOT. They should add a vehicle designation between car and motorcycle and eliminate or limit the safety and emissions regulations for this class of "commuter vehicles". Our average vehicle mileage has been going down and that is attributable to the American desire for "bigness", but increasingly stringent safety and emissions standards play their part in increasing weight and decreasing efficiencies as well. Americans love their boats, their campers and their Home Depot runs but they also increasingly have 3 car garages. Instead of trying to make large do everything high mileage vehicles, make them a small, 3rd vehicle option. In other words, change the vehicle to fit the market instead of the other way around.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 31, 2005 4:21 PMThe engineers are ganging up on me again, nothing ever changes...
1) Yup, jg, poor choice of words on "the problem is..." I'm not supporting social engineering but I would like less reliance on imported oil. I don't see hybrids getting us there.
2) A clarification, Silence. You may not commute longer distances but you might buy a bigger vehicle (the hybrid may ultimately save the SUV -- take THAT Arianna!), might take a driving vacation, might sign up for a machine-gun club in Bennett after "Scalito" is confirmed, &c. My point is that the conservation clamored for will not reduce demand or consumption.
3) Your suggestion for better tinkering in the market seems okay on the surface but Yeccch! On Planet jk, car companies just make what people want to buy without shoehorning it in to CAFE slots. Let's direct our efforts at getting the gub'mint out of the car biz.
4) An upscale Audi? When did this happen?
1) I know you're far from a social engineer JK, I just need to point it out whenever you sound like one. And here's another: "...less reliance on imported oil." Good grief, you sound like Bill Ford Jr! Nobody is RELIANT on any oil, much less IMPORTED oil. There are plenty of other fuels out there and anyone is free to use them (unless the government gets in your way). The fact of the matter is, the most economical motor fuel is gasoline/diesel oil. As for IMPORTED oil, how is it considered "reliance" when we choose to import it at a lower cost than domestic production? That sounds more like smart shopping to me.
2) Excellent observation JK. Thanks for the clarification: Conservation (in the form of more efficiency) will not reduce demand or consumption.
4) February, 2005.
Silence, I suspect your friend's city/hwy mix is really mostly hwy. The CR "overall" number is a simple average of the city and highway numbers. People often consider their driving habits to be "mixed" city/hwy because they use both kinds of road to get to work. The key is how many times you stop and re-start, and idle. My point was why pay more for the hybrid when it's highway economy number is only 5 mpg better than gas only (vs. the 9 mpg difference advertised) and the city number is 26 vs 21 mpg (compared to the 48 mpg advertised.) Or you could pay even less and get an Insight that gets 66 hwy, 36 city!
As for your suspicion of the test parameters, how do you explain JK's MR2 getting the same city mileage in both the CR and EPA tests? There's clearly a difference in the cars as well as the tests.
Posted by: johngalt at November 1, 2005 3:15 PMI just don't see the logic that conservation will not lower consumption or demand. Are you arguing that if my current SUV gets 25 mpg that instead of trading it in for an equivalent hybrid that gets 40 mpg that I will just buy a bigger hybrid SUV and still get my 25 mpg? If those two vehicles had the same sticker price I might see some effect there, but they don't. People may not budget for gas, but they do budget for car payments. That increase from 25 mpg to 40 mpg would net you around $40 a month which won't take your from a Jeep Liberty to a Grand Cherokee, but it would buy you some leather seats, rockin' stereo, or even a machine gun rack.
My point on the DOT classifications is that once a vehicle has 4 wheels it is a car and has all the regulations therein. This actively discourages lightweight vehicle development.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 1, 2005 3:33 PMNot you, Silence, so much as you, aggregate customer. I may not truck with all of John Maynard Keynes beliefs but aggregating supply and demand has its virtues. Conservation would lower prices, which would embolden consumers to disregard gasoline costs.
I'm a small car lover but I did consider a Saturn hybrid SUV (which is not even released yet). That would have put me in a 25mpg SUV instead of the 35mpg conventional car I bought. My wife saved me from myself, she hated it.
August 28, 2005
Hurricane Katrina
When facing an impending collossal hurricane like this one, the only things you can do are take your family to a safer refuge and pray that what you leave behind will still be there.
Our prayers are with the Gulf Coasters.
A coworker of mine is from New Orleans, and he's been saying for as long as I've known him, that New Orleans is just one storm away from being gone.
With the reports saying that this storm is huge, it will be extremely catastrophic. Given that New Orleans is 6 to 10 feet below sea level, it stands to be in a lot of water.
Can a city be destroyed and abandoned?
Do we do that? Does American culture / society provide for something like that?
We always rebuild. Better. It's the American way.
But if it's left a lake, can we rebuild?
Well, it looks like New Orleans may not get it as bad as it looked last night.
As for not rebuilding, I'd add up the property values of what's under there, starting with the Marriott on Canal Street. I think it looks pretty good to do whatever it takes.
Besides which, I don't really want to live in a USA with no New Orleans. I am very fond of it and know Sugarchuck is as well.
Good luck to the Crescent City residents and all the folks on the Gulf Coast.
August 8, 2005
Daylight Savings Time Changed
Look, I've got enough on my plate at the office, and I don't need more.
Now the government has gone and done me a favor.
- When daylight-saving time starts earlier than usual in the United States come 2007, your VCR or DVD could start recording shows an hour late. Cellphone companies could give you an extra hour of free weekend calls, and people who depend on online calendars may find themselves late for appointments.
An energy bill President Bush is to sign today would start daylight time three weeks earlier and end it a week later as an energy-saving measure.
And that has technologists worried about software and gadgets that now compensate for daylight time based on a schedule unchanged since 1987.
At least it's in 2007, not this November.
Which means it can be recinded in the meantime.
August 7, 2005
Nanny State Nonsense
Another "good" idea from a Democrat...
- Motorists filling up in this borough are allowed to pump their own gas - but only if they're supervised by an attendant.
It's been this way for three decades, ever since a motorist overfilled a car tank, sending some 50 gallons into storm sewers.
Mount Pleasant's ordinance, which requires an attendant within 15 feet of the pump, is apparently unique in Pennsylvania. A recent effort to allow self-serve gas in the borough failed, but a state legislator is pushing a bill that would require stations to offer full service.
W. Curtis Thomas, D-Philadelphia, said his bill wouldn't eliminate self-service gas pumps. The bill is still being tweaked, but Thomas said he favors offering full-service along with self-service, which he says would be helpful to the elderly and disabled.
These are the kind of nanny-state nonsensical ideas that we laugh at over-taxed and under-gunned New Jersey over.
Has Rep Thomas paid for gas lately? It's nearly $2.50 a gallon. What do you think forcing a gas station to have a babysitter or a pumper on hand going to do for the price of gas?
Any article like this needs to be replete with quotations.
I present some for your consumption.
- My biggest concern as a fire chief was the overflow of gasoline which can go in the storm sewers," said [Mount Pleasant's mayor and fire chief] Gerald Lucia.
Besides the spill three decades ago, there have been other accidents, Lucia said, including one about six years ago where a trucker was pumping diesel. Even with an attendant within the required 15 feet, "I don't know how it happened ... but (the trucker) ran about 100 gallons of diesel fuel down the street," he said.
100 gallons of fuel? Me thinks this is a wee bit of hyperbole. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a pump that pumps more than a few gallons per minute. I've got an 18 gallon tank, and five minutes at the pump is not out of the question. This must've been a firehose of a pump, or the pumper (and the attendant) both dosed off.
Perhaps from the fumes.
I stick the pump in the tank all the time and wash my windows. It cuts off when the tank is full. I like to have an even amount of money on the meter (to the nearest 10 or 25 cents). I have to work to put more gas in the tank. How is a hundred gallon spill possible?
I suspect screwing around. Or huffing.
Let's continue...
- One of them is Diane Pieszak, who was having her Dodge Durango filled up on Thursday.
"I don't like to pump my own gas," she said, as she was out running errands.
Her SUV Durango? I really feel for her. I mean, my heart weeps.
Drive a PRIUS. You won't need as much gas.
Unreal.
And another one..
- Rachel Williams, also of Mount Pleasant said, "Having an attendant around to check my oil while pumping my gas is a great thing. Think of how it will lower the local unemployment rate."
Hey.
I've got an idea.
All of those overpaid State Reps and Senators.... maybe they can start pumping gas for the elderly, the lame and indigent.
(thanks to Kathy for the tip)
Well, as some gas purchased in Pennsylvania might spill into New Jersey, I think the Supreme Court might get involved. Pretty soon we will have a national "right" to full service.
Posted by: jk at August 8, 2005 10:34 AMJuly 26, 2005
Let's Put Them In Charge of Health Care!
You have to laugh sometimes to keep from crying. Our beloved legislative branch is at it:
Snake Oil AdditivesNever say Congress isn't willing to accept blame -- as long as it can assign it to someone else. Having mandated the use of the fuel additive MTBE, the Members now want to shake down the companies foolish enough to have made the product.
This is the real story behind the debate over MTBE, which has once again become the sticking point in the House-Senate conference over the energy bill. The House has passed modest liability protection for MTBE makers, while Senate Democrats are threatening a filibuster if there's any such thing in the final bill. If we're lucky, the dispute will cause the hot-air dirigible that is the energy bill to crash and burn one more time. But it's more likely the Members will "compromise" by dropping the House provision and thus blame private business for Congress's mistakes.
[...]
Refiners and other companies now face more than 100 lawsuits, even as they are striving to meet growing energy demand and more elaborate fuel specifications. Draining cash from these companies to finance trial-lawyer contingency bonanzas will not lower gas prices.Bear in mind that the House liability waiver would only be for "product defect" lawsuits, which are the most frivolous and deadly because they only require plaintiffs to show that a company made the product for sale. Defendants would still be liable for larger MTBE spills, and the current Congressional negotiations include talk of some sort of industry-financed clean-up fund. In about 95% of spills, a responsible party has been identified and most are already paying for a cleanup.
I paid attention to this in the 1990s as I was quite concerned about MTBE and Ethanol’s effects on vehicles. I guess I'll have to confess to being wrong on that count -- but right about gub'mint meddling in general.
Markets work. While we're on that topic, Arnold Kling, an oxymoronic "fun economist" over at TCS is starting a new series on the effects of regulation -- a good excuse for even non-economists to learn about the CAPM. Jk gives it four stars!
June 28, 2005
Lost Liberty Hotel
Want a tangible result from your charitable giving? Help build a hotel!
The US Supreme Court's recent ruling in 'Kelo v. City of New London' removed the last obstacle preventing this project from moving forward. The 'Lost Liberty Hotel' project had previously been blocked by the current use of the desired development site as a private residence for a single American family. Now that the Supreme Court has obliterated the Constitutional restrictions on emminent domain, the process of bribing city officials to obtain condemnation of the property can begin in earnest.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Who's that? Souter? Yes, Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, whose residence at 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare, New Hampshire is the future building site for the hotel.
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
So there you have it. A site is "necessary" just because the developer says it is. As long as the local government goes along the individual is powerless to stop them. We'll see how David feels when he faces Goliath by himself, without his flowing robe.
And there's a delicious coup de grace, for me anyway: "Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." HOO-rah.
Ha! Just to doink with Justice Souter a bit is well worth a few bucks.
I agree that Kelo is a bad decision, but I am having a hard time getting riled about it (I'm STILL fuming from Raich!) At some level, it seems a concept of eminent domain is required for progress. And I suspect the people harmed by Kelo will tend to be wackos trying to block a Wal*Mart and not simple folks who are pushed aside for more government revenue.
I am way out of step with the blogosphere in general and a lot of people I respect on this. Am I banned from ThreeSources?
Posted by: jk at June 28, 2005 3:10 PMNo, you're not banned from ThreeSources, and it's not surprising that you think the government should have SOME recourse with intransigent "wackos" taking unfair advantage of their windfall position in the path of the most advantage rail route through XYZ mountains, or some such. America's Founders, after all, thought so too, and provided said recourse in the Fifth Amendment. But this wasn't "good enough" for Justice Souter and the liberal gang-of-four. It "proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society." [BARF!]
Dagny and I are currently reading Judge Napolitano's "Constitutional Chaos." In chapter 5 (appropriately) he discusses governmental violations of the takings clause. In Hurst, Texas, in 2000, "the town fathers threatened to condemn 127 homes so that its largest taxpayer, a real estate company, could build a larger parking lot for the town's mall. (...) Despite the fact that the government used the eminent domain power for a clearly private use, a Texas trial judge allowed the developer to demolish the homes even though the lawsuit wasn't over. The Prohs and the Duval families had each owned their homes for thirty years. Most shockingly, Leonard Prohs was forced to move while his wife was in the hospital with brain cancer; she died five days after the house was demolished. Phyllis Duval's husband, also in the hospital with cancer at the time, died one month after the demolition."
I also happen to have personal knowledge of such a situation, having followed the newspaper accounts of an eminent domain condemnation of a home in Superior, Colorado to make way for a shopping center that includes a Costco store I shop at regularly. The elderly couple had lived there for decades and had no desire to rip up their lives to make way for "progress." Within two months of their forceable relocation, both had died.
Napolitano goes on to explain that cases like this are copious. "On a daily basis, the government can be found plotting to violate the Constitution in order to take away your land. A recent report by the Castle Coalition [http://www.castlecoalition.org/] ... chronicled 10,382 government attempts to condemn private property for the benefit of other private individuals in the last ten years."
The Founders intended the courts to be a checking mechanism against this sort of tyranny on the part of a branch of the government, but the courts have abdicated that duty. The Kelo ruling is the latest and the most destructive SCOTUS ruling in a string that Napolitano summarizes beginning in 1936 with 'New York City Housing Authority v. Mueller' and including 'Bush Terminal Co. v. City of New York' in 1940, 'Kaskel v. Impellitteri' in 1953, and 'Berman v. Parker' in 1954, which Napolitano characterized as "the final blow to 'public use." (It's an excellent book. I highly recommend it.)
So, is there enough here for you to get riled about 'Kelo' now?
Posted by: johngalt at June 29, 2005 1:06 AMJK and I have argued many things over many years and I can't remember a time when I thought he was more wrong about something. This nightmarish decision is not only an assault on the property rights of individuals,as desribed so well in John Galt's post; it is a huge step towards collectivism and a command economy. If this were simply a matter of "wackos vs. Walmart" we'd see the usual liberal suspects lining up to demounce the decison as "pro business" and as an attack on the "little guy." Of course the champions of working Americans are nowhere to be found because this decision will go such a long way towards creating the "progressive society" they crave. God save us from this court!
If I may, I too have a book suggestion. Take a look at Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America." Bork's arguments for judicial restraint are profound and his recollections of the confirmation process are very timely, given the confirmation battles we are about to go through.
Not to beat a dead horse, but our Supreme Court just handed us a law regarding eminent domain that no sane legislator would have voted for. Coupled with their recent veiws on interstate commerce, these decisions become powerful tools for those in our society who would like to abolish propery rights and move towards collectivism, central planning and the redustribution of wealth. The longer we allow ourselves to view the Supreme Court in terms of abortion rights not found anywhere in the constitution, the more we face the erosion of those rights that were clearly spelled out.
I appreciate the argument. I cannot argue back because I agree that it is a bad decision; it certainly should have gone the other way.
And, whoa cowboys! I agree that SCOTUS is waaaay off track. My point is that I was MORE upset about Raich. Using the commerce clause to regulate intra-state non-commerce! Whaaaa?
I will cry "Mea Culpla" and accept the dressing down from JohnGalt and SugarChuck. There are abuses, and I am likely naive about their prevalence.
But we all have our issues. Two of mine are the importance of Federalism and reduced gub'mint intrusion into personal health care -- especially for the seriously and chronically sick. Raich went by with a small whimper from the libertarian set, and Kelo set off a firestorm of punditry and now legislation. The relative asininity of these decisions is comparable, the reaction was not.
(And you were too upset to catch my joke "Still Fuming about Raich!" I am thinking of a bumpersticker on that...)
May 19, 2005
Gold Plated Bus Stop
File this under Are You F*cking Kidding Me?
- Tom Wilson is faced with a problem many city administrators would envy: How to spend $1.5 million on a bus stop.
Wilson, Anchorage's director of public transportation, has all that money for a new and improved bus stop outside the Anchorage Museum of History and Art thanks to Republican Sen. Ted Stevens - fondly referred to by Alaskans as "Uncle Ted" for his prodigious ability to secure federal dollars for his home state.
Wilson is prepared to think big.
The bus stop there now is a simple steel-and-glass, three-sided enclosure. Wilson wants better lighting and seating. He also likes the idea of heated sidewalks that would remain free of snow and ice. And he thinks electronic signs would be nice.
Much like West Virginia and Robert Byrd, Alaska is becoming one giant monument to Senator Uncle Ted Stevens.
It's senseless spending like this that is really making a lot of people disillusioned with the Republican party.
What ever happened to fiscal restraint?
Sure, it's great if you're an Alaskan, but for the rest of us, I say, "what the f*ck?"
The party of smaller government starts with cutting taxes. But it shouldn't end there. Cutting spending is the next step.
We're not seeing it. The Democrats certainly aren't going to provide it. The Libertarians are far too academic and weird to get it done.
Where's the party of financial restraint?
- "We have a senator that gave us that money and I certainly won't want to appear ungrateful," he said. At the same time, he does not want the public to think the city is wasting the money. So "if it only takes us $500,000 to do it, that's what we will spend."
Oh, well that's a relief. Only $500,000 for a bus stop. Glad to know that they're going to show self-control.
Thanks to Alaska-born ATG, who writes "The current bus stop works fine, I drive by it every day!"
As important as I think the struggle between Democrats and Republicans is, sometimes I think the struggle between Incumbents and challengers is just as vital.
Ted Stevens is the GOP's very own Bobby Byrd (well, except for the Klan membership and the complete takeover of senile dementia...). Each uses his seniority to accumulate re-election pork.
I'm not keen on term limits, but I would like to see a Presidential line-item-veto and relaxed rules for campaign finance. Somehow all the new rules seem to favor incumbents, maybe that's just coincidental.
The real solution is to limit federal government spending (and taxation) authority to national issues, like the military. Local bus stops, like gold-plated outhouses in our National Parks, should be taxed and paid for locally.
Posted by: johngalt at May 20, 2005 2:42 PMJK, the Club For Growth is doing that angle. They like to run fiscal conservatives against incumbent GOPers.
A line item veto would be great, but can you imagine how long the president or his staff would be redlining things?
Actually, it'd be great.
Johngalt, neither party currently stands for limited government. *sigh*
Posted by: AlexC at May 20, 2005 5:05 PMYes. Well, I give you the crux of the problem although I'm admittedly short on how to reach the solution.
I see the line-item veto as a band aid measure. It admits there's a problem but falls short of a real solution to it. It is window dressing on a house in shambles.
Posted by: johngalt at May 22, 2005 9:49 AMMay 16, 2005
Bolton's International Form "RU1-2" Not in Order
In America, "money talks and bullshit walks." Seems it's exactly reverse from that at the UN: "Bullshit talks and the money walks" anywhere except where it's intended to go. Mark Steyn writes:
"Which brings me to the John Bolton nomination process, which is taking so long you'd think the U.S. Senate was run by Indonesian customs inspectors. Writing of near-Ambassador Bolton's difficulty getting his paperwork stamped by the Foreign Relations Committee, National Review's Cliff May observed that "the real debate is between those who think the U.N. needs reform -- and those who think the U.S. needs reform.''
Touche!
Any more excerpts than this wouldn't do the piece justice. The whole thing is noteworthy. Enjoy.
May 10, 2005
Still a Hole in The Ground
A consortium of business and government leaders took on the awesome responsibility to rebuild the World Trade Center area. As readers of this blog can imagine,"3 1/2 years after the 9/11 attacks Ground Zero remains just that: a hole in the ground."
So sez the Wall St Journal Ed Page in a plea to have their old neighborhood rebuilt by Donald Trump:
As for us, we'd like to steal a line from Mr. Trump and say to Governor George Pataki, Mayor Mike Bloomberg and the Ground Zero redevelopment team that has failed the city, the state and the country in this important effort: You're fired. This is a job for a man who knows what he's doing, not for a bunch of bungling apprentices. Mr. Trump's detractors hate him because he puts up impossibly tall, glassy, gaudy, sightline-destroying buildings. In other words, given the current failed thinking about Ground Zero, he's the perfect man for the job.
It seems "The Donald" is not too keen on the current plan for "Freedom Tower" (but it is rumored that he loves the fries...)
"I think the World Trade Center should be rebuilt on the site, only stronger and a little bit taller, even if it's only one story taller," the billionaire builder told the New York Post last week. Asked for his opinion of architect Daniel Libeskind's Freedom Tower, the centerpiece of the redevelopment plans, Mr. Trump said: It's "an egghead design, designed by an egghead, which has no practical application and which, frankly, didn't look very good."
I'm not a huge fan nor adversary of Mr. Trump. But he certainly seems a good choice for this job.
And despite all the great arguments to the contrary, put me down as a 'yea' for the "one-story taller" idea...
Posted by: jk at May 10, 2005 1:13 PMMr Trump has the vision for big things for New York.
It wouldn't be the first time he's taken over a project in the city for development.
Cheaper and faster too.
I offer my thanks to NED that it is still just a "hole in the ground" if the same bumbling nitwits are still in charge of redevelopment.
Two years ago yesterday I blogged on the evils of the "winning" design for redevelopment.
http://www.berkeleysquarejazz.com/blog/archives/000182.html
I re-read the entire piece and found it entirely premonitial to today's story. In particular:
"The idea being expressed by this cutting-edge, "world-class radical architect" is that no building (and no man) must dare to rise above those around him. It is a monument not only to death and destruction, but to mediocrity, conformity, and egalitarianism. It is antithetical to everything good that America stands for. It must never be built.
It is time for America to shine a giant spotlight into the night sky in the shape of the letters "H.R." America's WTC redevelopment must be designed by someone else - the real-life incarnation of Howard Roark."
Donald Trump is no Howard Roark, but I'm sure he knows one or two reasonable facsimiles thereof.
Posted by: johngalt at May 10, 2005 2:58 PMI thought of sneaking in a Roark reference but I'm glad I left it to the master -- well done!
Posted by: jk at May 10, 2005 4:29 PMAwwww, shucks!
Comparing once again Trump's critical opinion with my own, Trump wins on style points but I actually named the reasons WHY it's an egghead design, WHY the designer is an egghead, and WHY it doesn't look very good. And I did these things two years ago.
Ayn Rand has taught me that words have definitive meanings, and that a man's actions express his ideals. Daniel Libeskind's ideals are anti-ego and therefore anti-joy, anti-achievement and anti-life. He is an architectural terrorist.
Posted by: johngalt at May 10, 2005 11:59 PMApril 25, 2005
State Coercion: Two More Years
I have been blogging a long time to be such a nobody, but that's a harmless aside, not the thesis of this post.
Two years ago, I wrote some longer posts and kept them around as essays. This one compared the service and decor of the free-market enterprises offering oil changes with the state-monopoly-dictated provider of emissions checks.
It’s been two years and the State still dictates emissions tests. It is a grisly experience. Government appointed bureaucrats get into your car and treat it roughly on a dynamic test bed. I expect they still don't take credit cards, and I expect the facilities are still dingy and uninviting. Why fix it? Customers are forced to visit you every two years.
But I am going to reopen the whine because of my situation. I have Multiple Sclerosis and my wife has been in the hospital for more than four weeks. I leave the house at 7:00 am to see her; I juggle as much time as I can at work, rush home to let out and comfort the dog, rush back to the hospital for every meal and come home late every night.
Sorry to get out the violins, but now I have to find time for this insane government mandate. It will take two-three hours out of my day that I would love to have for laundry, or to get a haircut, or some other frivolous thing.
I'm not the only busy guy in town. Everybody has got something. Why do we allow the State to waste our time so? I cannot imagine anybody is left who believes that these exams reduce half the pollution generated by everyone driving 20 extra miles to get them.
I have always joked that I wanted to open a GOP registration office next door. We’d offer coffee and sympathy and an ATM machine to the deer caught in gub’mint headlights. It’s a great place to catch people who might be receptive to the idea of a little more freedom.
Technology trumps bureaucracy yet again!
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3637554,00.html
Drive by testing eliminates the need for the old inspection station. Of course currently you probably have to drive on a highway of some sort to pass one of these. I have passed them on US36 entrances and on ramps to Foothills Blvd in Boulder.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 25, 2005 6:40 PMIn PA it's every year, part of your annual inspection, IF you live in the metropolitan counties... loosely defined as "around Philly" and "generally around Pittsburgh."
The registration office is DAMNED good idea.
You don't need an office.
Just a sandwich board and stack of forms...
*AND IT'S PORTABLE!*
Emissions stations, DMV, unemployment offices.
Posted by: AlexC at April 25, 2005 10:31 PMYet another reason why many, including us, are moving to the country and the red counties are growing.
Posted by: dagny at April 26, 2005 10:37 AMI thought that this was just a Colorado problem and that Pennsylvania was better...
Dagny is right. If I were one mile East I would be in Weld County and off the hook.
Posted by: jk at April 26, 2005 9:30 PMPA was better! Ha! Ha!
Ha! I say.
This is the state where the Dem gov wanted a tax hike, and the GOP run assembly gave him half of what he wanted, and they issue press releases about how much they saved us!
At least the emissions stations are in actual garages. So they do have to compete to get your business.
I understand that leaving $20 in the ashtray makes your car run "cleaner."
THAT's my kind of competition.
Graft in Philadelphia? You really are changing my preconceived notions...
Posted by: jk at April 27, 2005 11:46 AMApril 19, 2005
On Second Thought, Make that a Cheeseburger!
Huh? Government wrong? Maybe they didn't kill as many of us as previously thought with their ridiculous "Four Food Groups," and its moronic successor, "The Food Pyramid."
The AP reports Yahoo! News - Obesity Danger May Have Been Overstated
CHICAGO - Being overweight is nowhere near as big a killer as the government thought, ranking No. 7 instead of No. 2 among the nation's leading preventable causes of death, according to a startling new calculation from the CDC.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated Tuesday that packing on too many pounds accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States. As recently as January, the CDC came up with an estimate 14 times higher: 365,000 deaths.
The new analysis found that obesity — being extremely overweight — is indisputably lethal. But like several recent smaller studies, it found that people who are modestly overweight actually have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight.
Biostatistician Mary Grace Kovar, a consultant for the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center in Washington, said "normal" may be set too low for today's population. Also, Americans classified as overweight are eating better, exercising more and managing their blood pressure better than they used to, she said.
Anybody can miss a prediction, but it takes a government agency to miss by a factor of 14. Whadaya say we let the private sector handle diet concerns, and have the government stick to important things like the mohair subsidy.
UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru links to the mypyramid.gov site and asks "WHAT WOULD WE DO without the federal government telling us what we should eat?"
Sounds good to me... Lyle. (Make that a cheeeeeese burger.)
Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2005 1:43 AMNice. I expected Sugarchuck to get the allusion, but I wasn't sure who else.
Posted by: jk at April 20, 2005 11:53 AMMarch 25, 2005
Thank You, TR!
I like TR, and will stand to being corrected if he is not the villain in anti-trust legislation But whoever got the ball rolling deserves disapprobation.
The current crop of deal breakers are myopic to what constitutes competition. It's a fact that DirecTV and Echostar should merge and use their combined assets to take on Comcast. But no! You can't have a single satellite TV provider.
Today Blockbuster is backing out of M&A for fear of sating the trust lawyers. A WSJ news story gives the facts right up top:
Blockbuster Inc. said it won't pursue its $991 million offer to acquire rival video chain Hollywood Entertainment Corp., clearing the way for Hollywood to pursue a previously agreed deal with Movie Gallery Inc.Blockbuster, Dallas, said it was dropping its unsolicited pursuit of Hollywood because obtaining antitrust approval likely would be difficult. The company said it will promptly return any shares that had been tendered under its offer. Earlier this year, Hollywood accepted an $850 million, or $13.25 a share, offer to merge with Movie Gallery, Dothan, Ala.
Anti-trust? Blockbuster is about to get smooshed like a bug by NetFlix and online content delivery. Why not allow them to bulk up and defend their sector with all available means?
Oh, right, you've got a public to protect...
March 6, 2005
Government and the Internet
Another reason why government should not be involved in "free internet" initiatives.
- The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also target e-mail providers and search engines.
Late Wednesday night, the Utah Senate approved controversial legislation that would create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material found to be "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
Here's a case where the government isn't involved in distribution of content. They want to impose these rules on private entities.
Can you only imagine if they had control over it?
- Opponents, though, worry that the legislation could go far beyond just broadband and dial-up providers. "Does this cover only major Internet providers, or are they talking about the local coffee shop that offers Wi-Fi?" asked Kate Dean, manager of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C.
The measure, S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an Internet access service to a consumer."
Of course, it billed as "for the children." Maybe the parents should take the initiative in watching their kids.
Is that really too much to ask?
If signed, this will pretty much immediately go to court.
Where who knows what will happen?
Adult content registry? Hah! Good luck keeping that up to date.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 9, 2005 6:40 PMFebruary 18, 2005
Government Intrusion
- Smokers who have bought cigarettes online are starting to get notices from the state to pay up the $2-per-pack cigarette tax they avoided.
A Canton woman who got a state bill last weekend for $2,500 in back cigarette taxes is among the bulk cigarette buyers learning that avoiding taxes -- the state can go back up to four years -- can be expensive in the long run.
The state's lost tax dollars were estimated at $1.7 million from just one of 13 online cigarette retailers.
In a bold push to catch tax scofflaws, the state Treasury Department has subpoenaed the online retailers in other states to get the names, addresses and purchase records of Michiganders who bought cigarettes from them. In virtually all cases, such sales do not include the cigarette tax that must be paid to the state, regardless of who the seller is or how much is purchased.
So far, the sweep has resulted in letters sent to 533 people the state says bought from just the one online seller.
If the government of Michigan were really interested in stopping people from smoking (as all good governments claim), they would have sent these people "How to Stop Smoking" packets or something.
Instead, they reveal themselves to be what we all knew... just out for the money.
And how long till we all get subpeonaed for purchases on eBay or Amazon or anyone of hundreds or thousands of online retailers?
It's not really a matter of efficacy. People who think that taxes should be used to control our behavior won't change because it works or it doesn't.
That said, it's hard to feel sorry for people who sent Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow to the U.S. Senate.