November 30, 2006

Tax Free Christmas

Though not a done deal, this might be your last Christmas to stick it to the man.

    Last year, Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced similar bills that would require online and catalog merchants (or at least bigger ones) to collect sales taxes for any states that met standards set by the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). The Enzi-Dorgan proposal stood no chance with taxophobic Republicans in control of the House.

    Next year, with Democrats in charge? "The stars are lined up better," says Harley Duncan, executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators, which represents state tax officials.

    It's not just the change in partisan control that has raised the states' hopes. They also believe they can make a stronger case for new collection authority now that the SSUTA, which is designed to harmonize and simplify sales tax laws, is finally operating. As of Jan. 1, 15 states will be full participants in SSUTA, meaning they've adopted the required changes to their own laws. State officials spent years haggling over such issues as whether bakery bagels should be considered groceries, which few states tax, or prepared food, which is widely taxed. (The conclusion: If a bakery provides a utensil with your bagel or heats it for you, it counts as prepared food.)

On the web Posted by AlexC at 7:14 PM

Doubting the DAWG

Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe (DAWG). That's my addition to the global warming debate. Like the famed dyslexic agnostic, I question the existence of DAWG.

In four somewhat amusing letters, this captures three things that I think the climate change lobby has to prove. Let's go back to front:


  • G. (Globe) The world is round, we all agree. I'm a uniter, not a divider.

  • W. (Warming) It seems likely that the planet is warming. I'm not sure this has been incontrovertibly proven, but I'll go along.

  • A. (Anthropogenic) If the world is indeed round and indeed warming, is it a natural cycle as we have seen for millennia? Or is Sugarchuck's very large SUV responsible? I go with natural cycles here. The models have not predicted the shape and scope of this warming. Karl Popper would tell us to discount this theory.

  • D. (Deleterious) As New Yorkers run to the sunny climes of Florida and Colorado folk migrate to the warmer mountains of Arizona, is it all bad? Longer growing seasons, less cold?

Bjorn Lomborg is interviewed in TCS Daily today. He has a new book coming out. Mr. Lomborg believes in the G, the W, and the A. But he feels, at worst, this is the third potential cause of death behind non-potable water and indoor air pollution.

Only a very distant third comes climate change, which the WHO puts at 150,000 to die right now.
This of course ignores those people that are no longer dying from cold-related deaths. For some inexcusable reasons, I would argue, they have the idea that they will only look at things that are going to be bad and don't have to look at will be good from climate change.

One of the top climate change economists has modeled - and several papers that came out a couple of weeks ago essentially point out - that climate change will probably mean fewer deaths, not more deaths. It is estimated that climate change by about 2050 will mean about 800,000 fewer deaths.


Of course, Lomborg is unusual in that he is an environmentalist that likes humans.

If DAWG is real, we must then decide the most efficient remedy. I'm a fan of iron seeding in the ocean to promote plant growth to convert CO2 to O2. Kyoto style caps would be investigated, mirrors in space has been suggested. But first:

Do you believe in DAWG?


Changing the Narrative

President Bush's opposition, both in politics and in the Press, has successfully undermined the Iraq liberation with a constant focus on WMds. They are very good at this kind of myopic focus. I would cite the defense of President Clinton "It's all about sex" and the press redemption of Anita Hill, who went from discredited witness to feminist hero in a couple years of NYTimes and WaPo puff pieces.

That's all old hash (dude, did he say something about hash?) but they are being just as successful today advertising that the war was based on a lie and that the reasons crumbled when no WMD stockpiles were found.

A realistic look at the reasons for war must include the sanctions. And any discussion of the sanctions should include the widespread corruption unearthed by the Volcker report.

Nobody seems to be looking for either WMDs or Oil for food corruption anymore. But the WSJ Ed Page reports that Australia is proceeding with prosecution of an Aussie firm that paid bribes.

The Australian government started to act once Mr. Volcker's probe began turning over the rocks. Apart from the U.S., no other nation has launched a full-scale, independent criminal investigation into the crimes committed as part of Oil for Food. Mr. Cole's thoroughly readable report is available at www.oilforfoodinquiry.gov.au. He has recommended 11 AWB employees, plus a BHP Billiton executive, for criminal prosecution.

Meanwhile, most other countries have done little or nothing to come clean. France, which was given preferential oil allocations, has only a lone prosecutor moving ahead, with little support from the Elysée Palace. Russia, which facilitated the oil allocations and blocked moves on the Security Council to investigate kickbacks, refused to assist Mr. Volcker, much less prosecute anyone. Ditto for China, which received huge oil allocations, and Vietnam, whose state-owned food companies paid kickbacks in exchange for business contracts.

Regarding the U.N., Mr. Cole notes that "The United Nations knew that Iraq was breaching sanctions by requiring payment of inland transport fees and surcharges or after-sales-service fees. It knew this between 1999 and 2003. . . It took no steps to publicize or warn member states of the Iraqi practices, and it took no steps to stop the practices." Mark it down as another coda to Kofi Annan's disastrous legacy as Secretary General.


Count me in the 40% who still support the war. The status quo was not an idyllic kite-flying paradise portrayed in "Fahrenheit 9/11" but an untenable dystopian fear-society where a corrupt leader was skirting sanctions to become a more dominant player in the politics of an important region..

Freedom on the March Posted by jk at 10:26 AM

The Speed of Meme

Ian at Banana Oil! is playing, I guess I will too:

Acephalous

Most memes, I'd wager, are only superficially organic: beginning small, they acquire minor prominence among low-traffic blogs before being picked up by a high-traffic one, from which many more low-traffic blogs snatch them. Contra blog-triumphal models of memetic bootstrapping, I believe most memes are—to borrow a term from Daniel Dennett's rebuttal of punctuated equilibrium—"skyhooked" into prominence by high-traffic blogs.

For my talk at the MLA, I'd prefer being able to quantify this triumphalism with hard numbers. Had I paid attention when "DISADVENTURE" and "My Morning" made the rounds, I could've completed this little experiment without revealing its existence. Since I lack foresight, I'm stuck announcing my intentions and begging participation. Here's what I need you to do:

1. Write a post linking to this one in which you explain the experiment. (All blogs count, be they TypePad, Blogger, MySpace, Facebook, &c.)
2. Ask your readers to do the same. Beg them. Relate sob stories about poor graduate students in desperate circumstances. Imply I'm one of them. (Do whatever you have to. If that fails, try whatever it takes.)
3. Ping Technorati.


Acephalous suggests that the word "meme" is popular with bloggers because "it has 'me' in it twice."

Posted by jk at 9:33 AM

November 29, 2006

Speechless

I don't know what to say.

Yeah.

But jk thinks:

Uhhuh.

Posted by: jk at November 29, 2006 1:33 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Indeed.

Makes you wonder why any women bother to blog at all. It must be like decaf coffee and near-beer to them.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 29, 2006 10:16 PM

Thanks For Your Service

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will not seek the Presidency in 2008. The Wall Street Journal reports

WASHINGTON—Leaving behind a Republican void in the South, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he has put aside plans to run for the White House in 2008 and instead will return to medicine and the health-care field that helped launch his political career 12 years ago.

In an interview, the Tennessee Republican said he wanted a "sabbatical from public life," suggesting he could very well return to politics in the future. But the 54-year-old heart surgeon-turned-politician said he needs time now to reconnect with himself before plunging into the presidential race.

Having pledged to serve just two terms in the Senate, Mr. Frist long ago planned to leave Washington this year and had begun building a presidential campaign structure in key states such as South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa. But after early successes in the Senate, he has taken a beating in the press in recent years, and in the interview, seemed to acknowledge he had lost some of his own identity.

"Starting fund-raising for a presidential race in January really doesn't leave time to re-energize and be myself, a self stripped away a little by being majority leader. I really do need to re-energize in terms of who Bill Frist is," he said.


I had zero intentions of supporting Senator Frist's presidential ambitions. He suffers from Senatitus as a candidate and never struck me as a man of strong conviction and ideas.

And yet, I must say some kind words in parting. Frist honored his term-limit pledge which is rare in itself. I think he made the right decision in not running in 2008. I'd love to see more people keep their pledges and accurately assess their fortunes.

I longed for a more combatitive leader during his tenure, but he was a man of good character and integrity. I thank him for his service. I hope he will make gazillions lobbying for big Pharma.

Lastly, I have to laugh at the lede: "Leaving a void in the South..." I think that Democrats need a Southern candidate to counter their Northeastern views. I don't think Dixie will abandon the GOP if they don't run a candidate with twang.

Politics Posted by jk at 11:31 AM

Oil, That Is

In case you were wondering...

    About half the oil and more than a quarter of the natural gas beneath 99 million acres of federal land is off-limits to drilling, the Bush administration says in a report that had been sought by industry to highlight environmental and other hurdles to development.

    Just 3 percent of the oil and 13 percent of the gas under federal land is accessible under standard lease terms that require only basic protections for the environment and cultural resources, according to the survey, which was ordered last year by Congress.

    An additional 46 percent of the oil and 60 percent of the gas "may be developed subject to additional restrictions" such as bans to protect animals and sensitive terrain during parts of the year.


Another example of government being the primary obstacle to lower gas prices. They're in the way, as usual.

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Hey, the fact we buy oil abroad which funds terrorists is a good thing. I mean, when was the last time a terrorist tried to blow up a rock that the seven toed blind newt was using as a breeding créche. Now, if we could get Al Kookda to declare a fatwa against the flora and fauna of America as well ... oh, boy. The Nature freaks would ... well, freak.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 29, 2006 11:12 AM

November 28, 2006

Wells Fargo

They still using that covered wagon?

I logged in to make an online payment of $16.50 before I got a $40 fee, and was greeted with:

Upgrade Your Browser

Browser Requirements

We support the following browsers. If your browser does not meet Wells Fargo's security standards, please follow the download instructions below. Otherwise, your experience may vary, or you may not be able to sign on to Wells Fargo Financial Bank Online Payment System.

If you have the required minimum browser version, it must also have at least 128-bit encryption. This is a very strong, secure form of encryption. This will allow you to make your payments online securely.

Note: We strongly recommend that your computer be running one of the operating systems listed below, and be connected to the internet using one of the browser versions indicated.
Netscape® 6.XX and 7.XX

* Netscape Navigator/Communicator Upgrade for Windows
* Netscape Upgrade for Macintosh

Microsoft® Internet Explorer (MSIE) 5.X - 6.XX

* MSIE Upgrade for Windows

America Online® 4.0 - AOL 8.0 for Windows; use with MSIE 5.X - 6.0

* America Online Browser Upgrade


Yeah, I think I have an old 386 with one of those browsers on it.

Posted by jk at 4:55 PM

Poll: People Don't Like Kerry

They had a poll a couple Novembers ago, and Senator Kerry came in second. Now, Reuters reports Likability poll bad news for Kerry.It seems the Junior Senator from Massachusetts finished 20th. Out of 20.

In the current poll, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, ranked first with a mean score of 64.2, followed by Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, 58.8, and McCain, 57.7. All three are potential presidential candidates.

While Obama received a high score, 41 percent said they had not heard enough about the first-term senator to offer an opinion.

Bush finished 15th with 43.8, behind former Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat who lost the 2000 White House race to Bush, who was 14th with 44.9.

Kerry was last with a rating of 39.6. In three earlier polls this year, he never scored above 46.3.


Were he as likeable as Rep "Old Chollie" Rangel, he could say whatever he wanted.

But AlexC thinks:

A rich haughty giglo, twice marrying into money is not liked by American Joe Sixpack?

I didn't see that one coming.

Posted by: AlexC at November 28, 2006 4:56 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Alex,..check your e-mail

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 28, 2006 11:04 PM

November 27, 2006

The School Year

Charlie on the Pa Turnpike looks at his kids' school calendar and it leaves him with a few questions.

    Why are these "essential" Staff Development Days always at the beginning or end of a weekend?

    Why do teachers routinely complain about their work schedule, when they are typically scheduled to work just 185 (or so) days per year? And they are paid a full years salary!

    Why is the national holiday of Labor Day recognized, but not the national holiday for Veteran's Day?


... among others.

But jk thinks:

Many many teachers in my and my wife's family. They all seem genuinely surprised every year that I don't get two weeks off for Christmas.

Say what you want about teachers' salaries (I think they're way too low because of a lack of merit pay), but any look that does not take 15+ weeks of vacation into account is not valid.

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2006 4:34 PM
But AlexC thinks:

Hear hear, a good teacher making $100K wouldn't break my heart.

Posted by: AlexC at November 28, 2006 4:57 PM

Socialized Health Care

Terrible.

    A Canadian man who could not figure out how to deal with his girlfriend's feverish 10-month-old daughter put the baby into a freezer to cool her down, a local newspaper reported on Friday.

    Derrick Hardy faces charges of criminal negligence and assaulting the infant, who was rescued when her mother came home, the Charlottetown Guardian said.

    The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. said the mother found the girl crammed into the freezer alongside ice cubes and hamburger meat. Hardy said he had left the door ajar but the mother said it had been closed when she returned.

    He told a court in the eastern province of Prince Edward Island on Thursday the child had only been in the freezer for about 40 seconds.


Surely he should have known that he could go to his friendly local health clinic (free you know), and they would have dealt with the child promptly and efficiently.

(tip to Ace)

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Hey, it's Canada ... just open the friggen window!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 28, 2006 12:20 PM
But jk thinks:

Socialism, Schmocialism, he speaks the truth (LOL).

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2006 5:38 PM

Kerry Without The Humor

I watched Rep. Rangel yesterday on Fox News Sunday and my jaw dropped to the floor. He said the exact same thing Senator Kerry did in his "botched joke." Nobody made too big a deal of it and my mind went on to other things.

Taranto hit it today; Hot-air has the video up; and Instapundit linked to the Hot-Air post. I don't know, does anybody care that an incoming committee chair said this:

If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

or
No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits.

I hope that's true, Congressman. The ones I have had the privilege of meeting do it for far more important reasons, and it frightens me that you do not understand.

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

The last humorous thing Kerry did was order a cheesesteak w/ Swiss Cheese at Pat's Steaks in '04!

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 28, 2006 11:06 PM

Hope for Free Trade

With protectionist populism sweeping the GOP, and protectionist Democrats taking over in the 110th Congress, the outlook for free trade is bleak.

One ray of sunshine is a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today by U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. These guys get it.

Over the last 30 years, world trade has grown twice as fast as output -- and the economies that have grown fastest have been those that trade most. Nothing is more important to global economic growth than trade. Far from being a zero-sum game, expansion in trade benefits all countries -- big and small, rich and poor.

Citizens of nations that reform their economies and open themselves to trade and competition have better jobs, improved living standards and greater opportunities. At the same time, nations that try to close themselves off from competition, hinder free markets and fail to invest in their people simply get left behind. Indeed, no country has escaped from poverty without opening up to trade.


Brown will soon be Prime Minister and he is known to be far to the left of my favorite socialist, Tony Blair. I am glad to see the words come off his pen. Trade still has a tough road, but two important people understand its benefits.


November 26, 2006

Tubes

JK wonders where I've been.

I'll tell you.

Watching the entire set of Star Wars movies, beginning to end.

It was an epic adventure, and a real family values thing. I must say.

My daughter can quote Yoda's best line ("Do or do not, there is no try."), but cannot pronounce R2-D2. "Artie Doo Too," or some such. "Dark Vader" is apparently her favorite. (I need to keep my eye on her.)

But seriously, the empire's best engineers suck. Why in the world would anyone include tubes to the heart of the Death Star, not once, but TWICE? The first I could maybe understand. It was a vent.... at the end of a well defended trench. (wtf?)

The second time around, these tubes were big enough for the Millenium Falcon AND chasing X-Wing and Tie-Fighters to fly around in and fight in. Jeez. Talk about not learning your lesson. Don't tell me that the Death Star was under construction.

Indeed, it was, but the targeted generator at the core of the Death Star was in a fully enclosed hollow chamber hanging from some sort of a gigantic metal stalactite.

Why? Yes, it looks good.

It goes without saying that if it wasn't for superfluous tube technology, Emporer Palpataine would not have fallen to his death.

Like any construction site, the second Death Star must have been teeming with designers and engineers. My heart goes out to the regular construction crews and their families (nod to Clerks), but the D&E group got what they deserved.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Watching them all in order and within two days leaves me with the sense that the newer movies over did the special effects. Episodes IV, V and VI (1977 through 1985) used advanced special effects (for the time), but not at the expense of the story. I think the effects in the first three episodes were done just for their own sake. Overdone, much like the dialog; and Yoda was too silly to be a Jedi. Nevermind the entire character of Jar Jar.

Early stuff, embarassing. Later stuff, quality pulp.

But jk thinks:

Always curious: when you say "in order," do you mean I, II, III... or the order they were made? IV, V, and VI were among my favorite movies of all time, I found I and II to be tedious and still haven't seen III.

Posted by: jk at November 27, 2006 10:55 AM
But AlexC thinks:

Yes, I, II -> V, VI.

Watching Anakin morph into Darth and regain his humanity at the end.

III was better than I, II. Plus you get to see Darth Vader for the first time.

Posted by: AlexC at November 27, 2006 11:16 AM
But jk thinks:

I'll certainly catch it in DVD.

I'd refer you to my post on free market health care, ac. The empire engineers were no doubt working in a top-down bureaucracy and were unable to pursue radical ideas like not having an enemy-fighter-sized vent leading to the most vulnerable area of the ship.

Posted by: jk at November 27, 2006 11:23 AM

They Wuz Robbed!

Rove's operatives at Diebold were unable to steal a Congressional majority, but a Democratic Club in Pennsylvania (where else?) felt the stinging bite of crime last week. Dr. Rick at The American Check-Up reports:

According to Bethlehem police, thieves ransacked the Edgeboro Democratic Club, 1427 Marvine St., after kicking a hole in a side door between 4 p.m. Thursday and 6 p.m. Monday. Once inside, police said, they stole a round beer clock, 12 to 14 whiskey bottles, two cases of assorted beer, two speakers, a stereo, a touch-screen video game, 11/2 kegs of beer, a case of malt liquor and 500 packs of cigarettes.

Malt Liquor and cigarettes, No wonder we lost. Doctor Rick wonders "what else would you expect the local Dems to have? Hookers?" I wonder what might have been taken that they perhaps did not mention to the police.

In related news, I am considering changing parties.

But AlexC thinks:

Why in the world would the Dems need 10,000 cigarettes on hand? It's not like any one or 10 people could smoke those quickly.

Were they buying votes? Crazier things have happened.

Posted by: AlexC at November 26, 2006 11:17 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

If I know the dems, I'd think they were trying to influence the Native American vote. Not that I'm saying that Native Americans drink and smoke alot. Maybe it was the Italian vote ....

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 27, 2006 1:06 PM

Welcome to the NAPTDC

Mary Katherine Ham calls it the "New Age of Prosperity in a Time of Democratic Control TM"

She links to coverage of "Black Friday" sales last year, where "reluctant shoppers were lured by big discounts." This year, conversely, she finds the coverage more like this:

Thousands of lights were twinkling. No fewer than 178 banners festooned the streets. The 60-foot white fir trucked in from Northern California was anchored fast. Santa was in his log cabin. And before dawn the shoppers began streaming in.

All day Friday they came in throngs to the sprawling Victoria Gardens open-air town center in Rancho Cucamonga. "Thanksgiving is over, cooking is done and now we're on to Christmas," Darla Steffen said.


This is what the other side means by "elections matter."

Hat-tip: AlexC, by email. I am guessing he is still in a tryptophan coma and cannot blog yet.

Posted by jk at 11:18 AM | What do you think? [1]
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Democrat control of Republican policy ... sheesh!

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 27, 2006 1:09 PM

November 25, 2006

Lileks 3, Edwards 0

James Lileks has a column that would be worthwhile just as a merciless takedown of Senator John Edwards. But it is so much more.

He opens with the PlayStation 3 kerfuffle.

While ordinary working-class people across America were queuing for the new PlayStation 3, one fellow had a bright idea — dropping his boss's name at Wal-Mart to get the next-gen console sent over on the QT for the boss's family.

Unfortunately, the boss was former Sen. John Edwards, John Kerry's would-be veep and famous nemesis of Wal-Mart's evil dominion over the Earth. The hypocrisy was delicious: It was on the same day Edwards was talking to union activists about Wal-Mart's labor policies.


He starts there, but he's Lileks, so he goes further and funnier than others. "Edwards is a historical footnote with admirable hair..." He picks up on Edwards's place in the anti Wal*Mart coterie and remind readers of the chain's virtues. But the best part, well, I'll let him tell it:
But that's not the interesting part of the story. Nor is the fact that the person who made the call was a volunteer — you mean Edwards doesn't pay his staffers a living wage with full medical/dental and a $200 deductible for eyeglasses? Must have been a hangup in the paperwork. No, the telling part was in Edwards' conference call statement to the union activists. Said the AP story:

"Edwards ... repeated a story about his son Jack disapproving of a classmate buying sneakers at Wal-Mart.

"If a 6-year-old can figure it out, America can definitely figure this out,' Edwards said."


Young Master Jack needs better manners. It's possible the kid didn't have access to a Bruno Magli outlet store, and his folks shopped at Wal-Mart because it fit their budget — in which case being lectured by the scion of a millionaire trial lawyer is a little like scolding classmates for drinking Tang instead of having Alfred hand-squeeze a dozen Valencias.

But never mind that. What the story reveals, in the end, is the tiresome fashion in which our betters insist on politicizing not just every aspect of adult life, but every detail of their children's world.

Everything is fraught with fashionable morality. Reasonable stewardship of the world turns into solemn denunciations of people who don't recycle; reasonable lessons on staying healthy end up stigmatizing people who enjoy a puff or a snoot as ethical degenerates.


A six year old could figure it out.

Posted by jk at 2:23 PM | What do you think? [2]
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

I wonder if I can get the Pope to beautify James as the Patron Saint of Common Sense Conservatives. I'd hate to have to wait for My Minnesota brethren to have to die first, but it seem that is the only way we can get anyone to listen these days.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 25, 2006 11:07 PM
But jk thinks:

St. Lileks. I'm in. I don't have a lot of pull in the Holy See these days but you can tell them jk is on board.

Posted by: jk at November 26, 2006 10:44 AM

Free Market Medical Research

Glenn Reynolds links to an interesting article on stem cell research. It interested the writer from the Globe and Mail because some plucky Canadian scientists have bested their better funded peers below the border. It interested Professor Reynolds because a better understanding of the cells that can produce and sustain tumors augurs well for innovation in treatment and prevention.

It interested me because it speaks of a Hayekian mechanism that works in so many arenas as being important in scientific research. The so called "bad news" of this recent discovery is that it discredits the foundation of the most popular research of the last decade.

The implications are staggering. Billions of dollars and decades of research may have targeted the wrong cells to cure the disease. No current treatment has been designed to kill them and they appear to be naturally resistant to the gold-standard therapies.

The work has whipped new optimism into cancer research, but Dr. Dick is loath to take too much credit. “It's rare in science you find something that is completely novel,” said Dr. Dick, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Stem Cell Biology. “Science is like laying a brick wall, one piece is laid over another.”

Science, like any other human endeavour, can be a slave to fashion. From 1975 to 1995, the research world was captivated by the wonder of genes and molecular biology, Dr. Dick said. “Cell biology had fallen by the wayside, and stem-cell research was carried on by a fairly small club of people.”


This is exactly how the market works. Let the herd chase the conventional and the fad while a small group rewrite the rules and leap to the top in a redefined game.

The Hayekian mechanism is allowing a large group to pursue a large number of ideas and using market forces to pick a winner. The antithesis is the top down, command and control method where experts choose the fields of study.

I posit that Billions of government jack's being "invested" in stem cells short circuits this process. We have allowed Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox to select the most promising areas of research, now politicians are mad to shovel more and more money into it.

Private research, or smaller scale academic projects have a better chance of finding the most effective areas of study over the most popular. Pharmaceutical companies are paying taxes they could be using for R&D to chase technology that has been selected by Senators and actors.

I have no objection to stem-cell research based on the destruction of embryos, (though I can respect the position of those who do. I do object to this herd mentality of allowing people to pick winners instead of allowing science to pick winners.

But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Sorry, your consideration is not to be included in the 10 year economic plan for scientific advancement. Check back next decade and we will see if the soviet board will consider your application. Provided there is not an islamic coup by then.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 25, 2006 11:11 PM

Immigration Politics

The holidays. It was nice to take a break from arguing about immigration with my blog brothers and spend some time arguing about immigration with my real brothers.

To be fair, the food was better. And, actually, it was my brother-in-law, whom I will call "Alejandro" to protect his privacy. Alejandro and I kept quiet cool on Thanksgiving Day, but we ended up going to lunch together on the day after. Al is a reliable Republican vote these days, but, like my blog brothers, has been seduced by the enforcement only camp. "'Dro" as we sometimes call him, contributed to Randy Graf's campaign in Arizona.

I suggested, as I did here, that the enforcement-only wing deserves some of the blame for the GOP losses in 2006.It was a tough climate in a historically difficult six-year midterm. I'm not saying that the GOP would be popping the corks on great gains, but I have great company in the belief that convincing the electorate we had a national emergency and then doing nothing to solve it hurt the party's chances.

Alejandro asked me to read Mark Krikorian's column in the December 4, 2006 issue of National Review. If the Wall Street Journal Ed page has led the charge for comprehensive immigration reform, I think it is fair to say that NR has led the enforcement-only wing.

Krikorian wonders if "Amnesty" is so popular, why the Democrats didn’t come out for it as a campaign issue. He makes arguments that ThreeSources own JohnGalt made: that many Democratic victors were tough on immigration and that some tough GOP pols did win. Alejandro asked me to specifically address the Krikorian column as it seemed to him to contradict our friendly discussion at Chilis. I never turn down a request:

First of all, I don't think Krikorian contradicts me. The thesis of his article is that there is no electoral mandate for amnesty. I do not claim there is. I claim that the GOP looked feckless after creating a crisis and not solving it, and that compromise is popular. Sometimes compromise means watered down mush that makes nobody happy. In this instance, it is good policy and good politics.

I abhor his use of the word amnesty. I never once heard any of the most liberal proponents of comprehensive immigration come out for amnesty. I suspect that Krikorian considers anything less than shooting border crossers on sight amnesty. He calls his opponents by name: Tamar Jacoby, Fareed Zakaria, Fred Barnes and Linda Chavez. He snarkily calls them "the smart set" and their movement the pro-amnesty side. I don't expect that any of the people listed would call themselves pro-amnesty. Also, while I respect Zakaria immensely, he does not belong in that group. There are many principled conservatives who have lined up squarely on the comprehensive side (Paul Gigot, Larry Kudlow, Arthur Laffer, Milton Friedman). Without saying he did it on purpose, his shopping basket is not representative of his opposition.

Krikorian also cherry-picks some statistics. He points out that only seven percent of the members of Rep. Tancredo’s Immigration Reform Caucus lost, against 11% of the GOP caucus. I would suspect that members of the IRC might be more likely to be in safe seats. The Weekly Standard and WSJ Ed page pointed this out before the election, suggesting that those in more competitive districts not “follow the Yahoos off the cliff.” It’s hard to slice and dice reasons in a thunderous loss, but the loss of Rep J.D. Hayworth in AZ-05 (Hayworth won by 21% in a district that went 54-45 for President Bush in 2004) and Randy Graf’s loss in AZ-08 (53-46% Bush) offer the clearest data. If they can’t make it there, they can’t make it anywhere.

But johngalt thinks:

I guess I missed all the TV commercials and mass mailings from the enforcement "only" candidates that championed "shooting border crossers on sight." There's no longer any wonder why I thought the GOP lost over it's holding pattern strategy in Iraq, multiple congressmen indicted for fraud, and an eleventh hour MSM orgy over a pedophile congressman from Florida.

Posted by: johngalt at November 25, 2006 2:10 PM
But jk thinks:

Yeah. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf lost because the members of their heavily GOP districts wanted Rep. Murtha to prevail on Iraq and were so concerned about Mark Foley's IMs.

Maybe we could iron out terminology. If you'll provide a good name for Tancredoite, IRC-type Republicans I will use it. What sticks out in my mind is that they want enforcement which is half of comprehensive reform but not any of the other elements. So I call them enforcement only.

In return, I'd like the likes of Krikorian to not call anything else "amnesty." In the article (it's not online, sorry) he claims his opponents use "comprehensive" as a euphemism for amnesty. He uses amnesty as a dysphemism for anything but....er....shoot on site.

Posted by: jk at November 25, 2006 2:42 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Name calling isn't helpful on either side of the debate. Technically, however, it is amnesty to forgive individuals for their criminal acts. There is mitigation when the law in question is as questionable as was prohibition.

In fairness I think you have to concede that the Tancredoite Republicans rejected only the non-enforcment solution that was actually proposed. One would expect them to propose an alternative they DID approve of, but that's not exactly how things work in the Senate. Leadership writes it the way they want it and, voila, it's a "compromise."

My holiday was spent with in-laws in San Diego, on the "front lines" of the illegal immigration crisis. They certainly didn't consider the situation to have been created by the GOP talking about it. Their hospitals were going out of business before it became a fashionable topic in D.C. But another of them said, "I'd be doing exactly the same thing if I were them [illegals]."

Expanded legal immigration alternatives are the moral answer. The extra entitlement burden on US citizens is the impediment that must first be removed.

Posted by: johngalt at November 26, 2006 1:40 AM

November 24, 2006

Friedman Was Right, Part MLXVIII

Professor Henry Manne, from George Mason University, has a great guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today entitled Milton Friedman Was Right

It seems the two tangled on the execution of "socially responsible" corporate behavior. And that Penne has now come around to the Friedmanite position:

Milton Friedman famously declared that the sole business of the managers of a publicly held corporation was to maximize the value of its outstanding shares. Any effort to use corporate resources for purely altruistic purposes he equated to socialism. He proposed that corporation law should prevent managers from straying off the reservation to join the altruists, a power now almost universally granted them by state legislation.

It's a great article. While it is directed more at public utilities and altruistic behavior in the consumer staples, retail, and utilities sectors, I choose to hide behind Friedman in one of my old assertions: That Google should represent its shareholders' fiduciary interests -- even at the expense of standing up to Chinese Communists censors.

The blogosphere had a little boomlet of Google-bashing last January when Google capitulated to ChiCom pressure to censor truly dangerous concepts like freedom, democracy, and falun gong from its searches.

I had few assenters when I suggested that they should worry about shareholder value.

Friedman's points extrapolate well to cover this interest. If Google exists to serve the public good, we the people can make any demands of it we like. Maybe a quota to link to more minority and women owned businesses.

Google made the decision it did and its share price is up more than 25% in ten months. Let the Marines spread Democracy, let Google create wealth for its shareholders.

Now I realize (I should have known) he was absolutely correct about the significance of proposals for socially responsible corporate behavior, whether they emanated from within or outside the corporation. These proposals reflect, as well as anything else happening today, the inability of many commentators to distinguish between private and public property -- in other words, between a free enterprise system and socialism. Somehow large-scale business success, usually resulting in a publicly held company, seems mysteriously to transform the nature of numerous individuals' private investments into assets affected with a public interest. And once these corporate behemoths are "affected with a public interest," they must either be regulated by the state or they must act as though they are owned by the public, and are therefore inferentially a part of the state. This attitude is reflected not merely by corporate activists, but by many "modern" corporate managers.

Google Posted by jk at 4:10 PM

Defending The Snake

Just because there are holidays doesn't mean that the serious issues go away. We covered iTunes randomization before Thanksgiving, now if the Pennsylvanians would talk among themselves, I'd like to discuss Broncos football.

I love the meritocracy of sports but I think that Jake Plummer is getting some undeserved scapegoating. Watching the game last night reminded me of two things. One, Bryant Gumbel is really annoying. Two, the 2006/7 Broncos are not a championship team. Dropping in a top caliber QB would not change that. Jake's numbers look great and I'll listen to leadership arguments, but remember John Elway's receiver corps: the three Amigos, McCaffrey, many years of Shannon Sharpe and a younger Rod Smith. Elway also had the likes of Clinton Portis and Terrell Davis to sell the play action.

Mr. Plummer has Smith, who has lost a couple steps and Jevon Walker who is world class. After that? Who's he gonna throw to? The Portis trade got us Champ Bailey and I will not say a bad word. But the idea that you can just drop anybody behind the line and have a 1000 yard rusher is withering under empirical testing. A small halfback and a green fullback are not likely to deliver championships under a Shanahan offense.

The vaulted Defense has earned its respect for keeping points off the board. All the same, they have not been able to shut down ball control offenses. Opponents have controlled the clock and the pace of the game all year. The D has delivered turnovers and a stingy red zone that keeps the games close.

I do not agree that Jake Plummer is the reason that the close games do not land in the win column.

Posted by jk at 10:50 AM | What do you think? [5]
But AlexC thinks:

grumble grumble grumble
be thankful you still have a football seasons to follow.
grumble grumble.

Posted by: AlexC at November 24, 2006 1:51 PM
But sugarchuck thinks:

I am not on the current dump Jake bandwagon. I have had my own dump Jake bandwagon going for several years now. I know about his winning record and his quarterback ratings but he has not ever been, nor will he ever be the guy to get it done. This year the one stat that matters is third down conversions and he has been Mr. three and out. You can't play Peyton Manning and LT and leave those guys on the field for most of the game. It doesn't matter how good your defense is, they can't stay on the field quarter after quarter and deliver a win. Jake had some dropped balls but he had far more overthrown, underthrown and picked off balls. He left too many guys wide open only to throw into coverage. I think he's got Chuck Knoblauch disease. Chuck was the gold glove, world series winning Twin who left for Yankee jack and wound up unable to throw from second to first. Pulling Jake means the end of the season, but it's hard to believe that leaving him in doens't mean the end of the season too. Go Jay!

Posted by: sugarchuck at November 24, 2006 3:22 PM
But jk thinks:

Make both you guys happy: ship Jake to the Eagles.

I hear you on the third down conversions, sc, but if he had a running threat and it wasn't always third and nine...

Maybe it is just as well to move to Cutler. I don't see Mr. Plummer as the champion, but I hear a lot of delusion around here (you moved far away) that this is a super bowl team with the wrong QB. Huh-uh, this is the weakest offense the Broncos have fielded in many years. John Elway himself couldn't take this group past the wild card game.

Posted by: jk at November 24, 2006 3:50 PM
But johngalt thinks:

There are many reasons to dislike Jake but there is another huge factor that is rarely mentioned: That small matter of Gary Kubiak's departure, and the predictable growing pains of a new offensive coordinator in the saddle. Bowlen and Shanahan understand the division of blame and if we don't see Jay replace Jake soon I'll take it as confirmation of Rick Dennison's complicity in the team's offensive woes.

Rick Dennison? I thought the OC was Mike Heimerdinger! Shows what I know. http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=357&contentID=5573

Either way, it stands to reason that replacing a veteran OC with a reputation for creative, flexible and customized game plans and a proven ability to call the right play at the right time is going to put your offense on the defensive.

Condolences to Iggles fans who lost their franchise QB for the season - again. My in-laws share your pain.

Posted by: johngalt at November 24, 2006 8:54 PM
But Everyday Economist thinks:

I must agree that Gumbel was not the "fresh voice" that I had hoped for from the NFL Network.

Also, the Denver running game has strayed from their formula. Terrell Davis, Clinton Portis, and Mike Anderson have one thing that Mike and Tatum Bell simply do not have: power running ability.

However, even with that being said, Denver cannot and will not win a championship with Jake Plummer. It is clear that the coaching staff knew this prior to the start of the season considering that they picked Jay Cutler in the first round of the draft.

Perhaps I am still bitter from Elway and Davis torching my Packers in the Super Bowl.

Posted by: Everyday Economist at November 27, 2006 10:22 AM

November 23, 2006

Happy Thanksgiving

Everybody

Cool Thanksgiving e-cards.

Posted by jk at 12:17 PM

November 22, 2006

A (gasp!) bad word about iTunes

My ancestors worried about keeping wild animals out of their caves, my Grandmother was born into a Willa Cather existence in the late Nineteenth Century, my Dad lived through the depression. My problem? iTunes does not shuffle my music library to my expectations.

Let me get my bona fides out first. I'm a long-tail guy, and I was celebrating the legal distribution of MP3s in July of 2003 (In a comment, Silence points out that Apple has a "new" service to sell MP3s). Furthermore, I'll call the iPod the singularly coolest product of my lifetime. Great hardware, cool design, form, function -- it has earned its success.

Software-wise, I have never been completely sold. Lileks considers himself part of the iPod army and last week cheered on criticism of Microsoft's stumbles with the Zune. At the risk of starting a flame war, I think some competition for Apple is long overdue. I'd like to see the company fix its software to be, say, 1/100th as good as its hardware.

Lileks mentions later, "I took a small amount of flak yesterday for linking to the Zune-installation page. I should have noted that it wasn’t so much the problems encountered, but the overall sense of Lame that flowed off those screengrabs." Sorry, James, the graphics on the installation screens is not up to your aesthetic standards? Did I mention the part about the cave and the wild animals, and our ancestors working 365 days a year?

I can't say how "cool" the iTunes install was, but years later, I am extremely disappointed in its look and feel. Maybe it's better on a Mac, but I run iTunes on a PC, with my library mounted on a shared network drive. I'll confess that I have probably brought on some performance problems with this setup, but it -- if I may borrow a word from Lileks's buddy’s review of the Zune install -- sucks.

iTunes takes a long time to load. If I plug in my shuffle to have it automatically launch, it's about a minute before I see a screen. I trust that it is doing something because the CPU and IO drain take the system down to glue and molasses.. Hey -- there's the friendly iTunes window, let's get to work.

If the network drive is unavailable, it will first delete every song on the shuffle, then try to load it full of new songs, then generate an error for each song. That, Mr. Lileks, is lame. I do this for a living and that is unacceptable for a general use consumer product. Whatever. Get the drive mapped, we've got tunes to load.

With the drive connected, the performance is so bad, and the feedback so ill-planned, that I have to open the shuffle, then click very deliberately the "Autofill" button. Very deliberately, because it will be minutes before the program acknowledges that I pressed a button. It just sits there. Now that I expect it, I go make coffee or work on another machine for a while. In a minute, it will start loading. and I can tell by the progress bar that it's working. Cool. (Hint to Apple programmers: it's called a "thread." Let the user know that you know he clicked the button and offer some indication that you are working on something that might take some time.)

Waaah, I know. But this seems too clunky to me for a consumer product. And WAY too clunky for a product that everybody loves. But once it's done it's done and my cool little shuffle is loaded with a random selection of tunes from library, life is good.

Life is sort of good. I have about 40 GB of tunes (a decent sized collection, but I know a lot of folks with much more). I get the same artists and the same songs almost all the time. When I reload the large iPod, the shuffle feature vends the same songs it did last time I loaded music. And the same songs it "randomly" puts on the shuffle. Out of 8000+ songs, there are some that show to have been played more than ten times, while thousands of tunes have never been played.

As a statistical arbitrary math problem, I know it is extremely difficult to write a true randomization algorithm. But that iTunes has not bothered to write an even decent one, when it detracts from the iPod experience, is shameful.

Let the flame fly. AM I nuts? I'm keeping the iPod, but I will not pay homage to the mighty Apple engineers until they produce software in the same league as the iPod.

Posted by jk at 11:30 AM | What do you think? [7]
But jk thinks:

Point taken, mdmh, but if I hear that ****in' theme song to "The Newlywed Game" one more time, my head might explode!

A hazard of having any Herb Albert on your hard disk, but if it chose them in proportion to their volume, I'd be okay. Da nuh na nuh, na na na nuuuuuuh...

Posted by: jk at November 22, 2006 2:47 PM
But jk thinks:

Not hitting any nerves here, I guess. An emailer informs me that the software rocks for him but that the family has replaced each of their five iPods once or twice. We've had four, each a different model, all have performed flawlessly.

I'm thinking I might see if I can get Bill O'Reilly wound up -- "Dammit, the FOLKS are not getting their tunes shuffled fairly! This is an outrage!"

Posted by: jk at November 22, 2006 2:52 PM
But lattesipper thinks:

I'm sure you can get O'Reilly wound up on this ... it's every bit as important as the War on Christmas. Seriously, I agree with you. I may not be as energized about the topic, but I agree that the mediocre Apple software is nowhere near being on par with the device. This may only be true for those of us who dock to a PC, but last time I checked, that's what most of us use.

Posted by: lattesipper at November 22, 2006 4:22 PM
But AlexC thinks:

I'm an iTunes fan, but I've never tried running the library over a network connection. That's really just a very slow HD... even a wired network isn't going to compete with your library on the hard drive in your machine.

In terms of the randomness, you're not the first person with that problem.

I've got one of the early iPod Photos, and have had it going for almost two years now. I've formatted it FAT32 so I can use it on both Windows and MacOS, and it's ok with that. My wife's got a newer iPod Video with no probs.

Like all hardware, your mileage will vary.

Posted by: AlexC at November 22, 2006 5:37 PM
But jk thinks:

Both machines are on a wired 100Gb connection, it shouldn't be crawling. The slow and clunky I can work around -- the lack of randomness is ruining my life.

I'm most intrigued that this is some of sort of Gold Standard (forgive me Milton, I'm justing using a phrase) for software quality, when I find it to be one of the worst commercial apps I work with.

Posted by: jk at November 22, 2006 7:32 PM
But jk thinks:

LS -- much more important than the war, but not quite up there with O.J.'s book deal. When that dies down, I'll make my move.

Posted by: jk at November 22, 2006 7:33 PM

November 21, 2006

Syrian Help

Gov. Dean, Senators Kerry and Levin and quite a large hunk of the WashDC Conventional Wisdom brigades are pretty hot on the idea of working with Iran and Syria to extricate ourselves from Iraq.

If our President were not so bellicose, we're told, we'd talk with Iraq's neighbors, certainly sign a piece of paper someday, and use diplomacy to end the violence.

At the risk of shading my sunny optimism, might I suggest that these folks might not share our ambitions for the region?

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- Pierre Gemayel, an anti-Syrian politician and scion of Lebanon's most prominent Christian family, was gunned down Tuesday in a carefully orchestrated assassination that heightened tensions between the U.S.-backed government and the militant Hezbollah.

Anti-Syrian politicians quickly accused Damascus, as they have in previous assassinations of Lebanese opponents of its larger neighbor. Gemayel, 34, an outspoken opponent of the Syrian-allied Hezbollah, was the fifth anti-Syrian figure killed in the past two years and the first member of the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora to be slain.

The assassination, in Gemayel's mainly Christian constituency of Jdeideh, threatens further instability in Lebanon at a time when Hezbollah and other parties allied with Syria are planning street protests unless Saniora gives them more power.

The United States denounced the killing, calling it ''an act of terrorism.'' The U.N. Security Council said it ''unequivocally condemns'' the assassination as well as any attempt to destabilize Lebanon.


On an equally pessimistic note, I can find no fault with Christopher Hitchens's suggestion that Sec. Baker is the wrong choice to lead Iraq policy. Hitch starts with a warning about Lebanon that looks pretty prescient:
The summa of wisdom in these circles is the need for consultation with Iraq's immediate neighbors in Syria and Iran. Given that these two regimes have recently succeeded in destroying the other most hopeful democratic experiment in the region—the brief emergence of a self-determined Lebanon that was free of foreign occupation—and are busily engaged in promoting their own version of sectarian mayhem there, through the trusty medium of Hezbollah, it looks as if a distinctly unsentimental process is under way.

Worse, he reminds the country of some 15-yaear old history.
n 1991, for those who keep insisting on the importance of sending enough troops, there were half a million already-triumphant Allied soldiers on the scene. Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, just waiting to be discovered by the inspectors of UNSCOM. The mass graves were fresh. The strength of sectarian militias was slight. The influence of Iran, still recovering from the devastating aggression of Saddam Hussein, was limited. Syria was—let's give Baker his due—"on side." The Iraqi Baathists were demoralized by the sheer speed and ignominy of their eviction from Kuwait and completely isolated even from their usual protectors in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing. There would never have been a better opportunity to "address the root cause" and to remove a dictator who was a permanent menace to his subjects, his neighbors, and the world beyond. Instead, he was shamefully confirmed in power and a miserable 12-year period of sanctions helped him to enrich himself and to create the immiserated, uneducated, unemployed underclass that is now one of the "root causes" of a new social breakdown in Iraq. It seems a bit much that the man principally responsible for all this should be so pleased with himself and that he should be hailed on all sides as the very model of the statesmanship we now need.

I don't fault President GHW Bush for not deposing Hussein. He clearly lacked a mandate. While it would have been a benefit to us today, I throw no fault for not rolling into Baghdad. Sitting still while Hussein massacred the Shia and Kurds right after the war, however, was a failure of catastrophic proportion, and Sec. Baker's hands are still dirty on that account.

War on Terror Posted by jk at 5:47 PM

Dell Profit up 12%

They are still too chicken to release financials (did somebody say something about SarBox?) but the Wall Street Journal reports:

Dell's profit increased 12% from a year ago, when it took a hefty restructuring charge, as revenue reached $14.4 billion. The computer giant provided preliminary results but few details in its delayed earnings release, citing an accounting review. Shares surged more than 10% in late trading.

I see these gloom-and-dooomers on Kudlow & Company, and I wonder what planet they live on. This is an anecdote, but a large business and personal electronics manufacturer should carry some bellwether status.


Interesting Site

I clicked on blog ad link somewhere last week, and signed up for a free account on BackPack. Working from home on many different machines, I am finding this site pretty handy.

For nothin', you get a few web pages that function as to do lists, virtual whiteboards, even collaborative work areas. You can email a page to have an item appear and you can also schedule reminders to be sent to your email or cell phone.

Paid accounts get you a calendar, storage, more pages, yadda. I'm not sure their pricing points are right, but the free service is priced right and does some cool things.

On the web Posted by jk at 12:25 PM

SarBoxo Delenda Est!

Rep. Barney Frank's proposed "Grand Bargain" with business sounded like a positive step to me. Taranto likens it to a protection racket today, but -- ever the optimist -- I see it as a chance for the most onerous business regulations to be lifted.

In exchange for minimum-wage hikes, health care guarantees, and a lot of other crap that we can just expect from a Democrat controlled House, Rep Frank offers some streamlining, consolidation or reduction of regulations. I'd trade Sarbanes-Oxley in for a higher minimum wage in a second. The minimum wage will hurt poor minority teenagers, but business will be fine. I know I sound like the heartless man on the Monopoly(r) box, but it's not my team that is pushing this.

On the other hand, SarBox is destroying the US Capital Markets. The WSJEdPage is concerned but measured in an editorial today (Paid site, sorry!)

We've argued that the Occam's razor explanation for this trend is that overregulation and lawsuits have tipped the balance in favor of private management for many investors. Managers who want to spend more time taking risks, and less time talking to lawyers, are increasingly turning to private equity to reduce their hassles and improve their returns. Money will flow to where the returns are, and these days more and more investors seem to think that more money can be made outside the hyper-regulated public equity markets.

As a political matter, this should worry anyone who believes that the development of a broad investor class is good for the preservation of capitalism. But as an economic matter, it is largely irrelevant whether the shares are publicly traded or not. We doubt the employees of such profitable closely held concerns as Cargill or Koch Industries fret much that their shares aren't listed on any public exchange. What they care about is that their companies are successful.


They don't byline their editorials, but I can guarantee Stephen Moore didn't write that. On Kudlow & Company last night, he was much harsher on SarBox. He said that the private LBO buyoiuts are a disturbing trend and that London Stock Exchange refused the NASDAQ takeover in large part because they were worried that it might import SarBox in the UK capital markets -- and they're too smart for that.

I, for one, welcome our Democratic Overlords. If Frank, who is actually one of the smart and serious members of the caucus in line for a gavel will make that trade, we're in business. The S&P 500 is right to be less worried than ThreeSourcers.


November 20, 2006

Monopolies

I came across this great ad from 1976 the other day, I wish I knew the complete context behind the it.

monopoly_thumb.jpg

It struck me as interesting in two ways.

First, it's an ad in National Geographic by an oil company taking an unapologetic look at the state of it's industry. It's actually pretty aggressive in it's own defense.

    You're looking at some of the brands and names of companies that sell gasoline. Some people say oil companies are a monopoly. If so, it's the world's most inept monopoly.

    This "monopoly" is so inept, it offers the world's richest country some of the world's most inexpensive gasoline.

    This "monopoly" is so inept that it lets everybody and his brother horn in on the action. Did you know that of the thousands of American oil companies, none has larger than 8.5% share of the national gasoline market?

    In fact, this "monopoly" is so inept, that you probably wouldn't recognize that it is a monopoly, because it looks so much like a competitive marketing system.

    People who call us a monopoly don't know what they're talking about.


Self-defense from a company or industry is always fascinating. The American Petroleum Institute did this a year ago when they compared their profit rates with other industries. Oil came in in the middle of the pack at about 7.5 cents on the dollar. Banking was at 20%.

There's also a great defensive cartoon from the 50's.

Secondly, thirty years later, some things have changed.

ExxonMobil, the largest American oil company now controls something like 15% of American gasoline refining, Roughly double the "largest" block in 1976. By contrast Coke and Pepsi are at 41% and 31% of the soft drink market, respectively.

Of course that's comparing apples to oranges. Coke and Pepsi compete globally. There is no OPEC of dyed sugar-water. XOM's market is artificially manipulated.

Looking the companies shown, you have ask yourself, how many of these are still around? Most have been merged into other brands. Perhaps only Sunoco, Shell and Tesoro are the only companies still existing in the same sense as 30 years ago.

Of the large oil companies listed above, Gulf, Sohio, Texaco, Conoco, Amoco, Getty, Chevron, Union, Arco, Union, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips 66, Hess and Citgo have all been acquired by another or merged with each other in some way... and that's without counting up the minors and regional players.

Overall, pretty neat stuff.

(graphic from GasSigns.org)

Update: An email from a friend of mine who really should be blogging.

    In 1976 the oil companies a.k.a. "big oil", were under attack not only for their usual evilness but also for the companies' operations known as "vertical integration". (A term that came and went like so much political wind.) Which meant they held ownership of upstream and downstream companies; the entire oil delivery mechanism. There was political talk about breaking that "monopoly" up.

    As ever, it was a politically motivated extortion threat generated out of the heat for Congress to "do something" after one or more of the '70s oil shocks. The McCain-Feingold act of the time, sorry, I can't remember its name, forbade the companies from donating directly to politicians. Political Action Committees (PAC)s were the result. I suspect the ad that you show - and a zillion others of the time - was financed by one of the oil company PACs.

    PACs probably still exist but have probably morphed into a "Section 1701" or some similar techno-lawyer rubbish term for the same thing.

Oil and Energy Posted by AlexC at 2:25 PM

While Time Magazine Slept

A ThreeSources reader sent me a link to Time Magazine's article on Pope Benedict XVI over the weekend. The suggestion was that BXVI might be as important an ally in the War on Terror as JPII was for Reagan in the Cold War.

The article was good and I hope my friend is right. I took the time to complete an online survey at Time.com, where I gave them a harsh assessment of their product and a stark evaluation of how frequently I visit their site (Never, unless somebody sends me a link).

sisu does a much better post on the article than I would have, under the title While Time Magazine slept.

The blog post points out that somebody paying more attention would not have been quite as surprised as Time, that then Cardinal Ratzinger had shown definite proclivities, and that perhaps a real news organization should have paid more attention.

But AlexC thinks:

Before Pope John Paul II died, there was discussions of the next Pope being from a country that has a "Islamic" problem, must like JPII was from a country that had a "Communist" problem.

The front runner was a Cardinal from Nigeria, some Catholics (myself included) were surprised that a German was picked. Though after reading Marc Steyn's "America Alone," it's easy to see how prescient the Pope's selection was.

It's obvious that Pope Benedict is willing to take on Islamicfascism head on. Witness his speech from a few month ago.

He's going to keep doing it, too.

Posted by: AlexC at November 20, 2006 3:24 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Alex, Germany has a sizeable Turkish population. Turkey straddles the divide between East and West and therefore Christain and Muslim (as well as secular and religious).

Makes sense to me.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 20, 2006 8:57 PM
But AlexC thinks:

Trekmedic, I know... that's the thrust of my 2nd paragraph. Europe is slowly evoling into Eurabia, and Germany near the head of the pack.

Posted by: AlexC at November 21, 2006 12:39 AM

Bolton

UN Ambassador John Bolton, not long for the UN, lashes out publically against it.

(Again)

    "Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies," he said.

    "This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel's inalienable and recognized right to exist."

    "This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region," Bolton continued.

    "In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States," he said.

    "The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries," Bolton charged.

    "The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies," he continued.


More please.

But jk thinks:

I wonder that this could not be a good political issue for the GOP: we need a tough advocate at the UN and Ambassador Bolton has shown himself to be tough and effective. The Democrats out of pure partisan spite, will not allow him to keep the job.

Posted by: jk at November 20, 2006 2:31 PM
But AlexC thinks:

So what's Lincoln Chaffee's excuse? ;)

Posted by: AlexC at November 20, 2006 3:20 PM
But jk thinks:

I think the technical term is "asshat."

Posted by: jk at November 20, 2006 3:59 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:

Squeaker of the Mouse Pelosi and her attack chihuahuas want what every good, Socialist-leaning Democrat in Congress wants: a yes man at the UNtied Nations. Bolton doesn't fit that bill, so he's out (for now). The Republicans would indeed do well to stick this in their back pocket for 2008.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 20, 2006 9:01 PM

Friedman

I know, it's Monday, you're trying to get some work done. But Josh at Everyday Economist posts video of a 30-minute interview with Milton Friedman that will cause you to yell and cheer.

Posted by jk at 1:30 PM

More Breast Banter

Must be my week for promotion and publicity at ThreeSources, I've hit breast implants twice in as many days.

The Wall Street Journal Ed Page hails the FDA for finally putting science over politics and lifting the 14 year ban on silicone implants.

The news is good for freedom lovers, but the editorial warns that the forces of darkness are still arrayed:

One of the ugliest aspects of the breast-implant controversy has been the irresponsibility of the feminist movement, whose championship of a woman's right to "choose" doesn't extend to breast implants. It's all the more outrageous given the tens of thousands of breast-cancer victims seeking reconstructive surgery each year. Silicone-gel implants tend to feel and look more natural than the saline alternative.

It would be nice to think that the FDA's move closes the chapter on this nasty episode, but given the anti-implant crowd's reaction to Friday's announcement, that's probably too much to hope for. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, called it a "reckless decision" and promises to seek reversal "when the new Congress takes office." Sidney Wolfe, head of Public Citizen's Health Research Group -- the Naderite outlet that spearheaded the campaign against silicone in the 1980s and is a front for the trial bar -- called breast implants "the most defective medical device ever approved by the FDA." He also vowed to seek Congressional action.

While we're glad the FDA has overturned 14 years of politicized medicine by approving silicone breast implants, it's worth remembering the enormous price that has been paid: to the credibility of the legal system, in jobs lost, and in public health. And it's worth asking what is more toxic: the silicone implants preferred by thousands of women, or the trial bar that purports to "protect" them.


In case you missed my post yesterday, I'd call your attention to a piece by Lance at A Second Hand Conjecture. This is one of the great blog essays I have ever encountered. He ties in freedom, innovation and choice.

UPDATE: Welcome to the Blogroll: A Second Hand Conjecture

Pharmaceuticals Posted by jk at 11:29 AM

November 19, 2006

Draft '07

Are the Democrats going to cut and run?

Not if some want a draft.

    Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

    Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

    "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

    Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

    In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

    Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

    At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

110th Congress Posted by AlexC at 2:09 PM

Let's tralk about breasts.

I've been whining about the FDA' s supra constitutional intrusion into our lives for many years. I hear you tuning out already. Were I discussing women's breasts, you'd stick around, right?

Lance, at A Second Hand Conjecture looks at the FDA's role regarding Dow Corning's silicone implants. Not just the FDA, but also the whole gamut of elite opinion makers and organizations bent on taking care of us by removing our birthright liberty.

Okay, so the breast discussion is strangely un-titillating. But he looks at the issue in light of Virginia Postrel's "The Future and its Enemies:"

Technocracy is by nature hostile to diversity and freedom. Its goal is control–a uniform future shaped by experts. It recognizes only one best way. So it overrides the judgments and desires of individuals, curbing choice, experimentation, and learning in the name of “scientific” wisdom. Now, however, our technocrats aren’t keeping their side of the bargain. They’re destroying not only choice but progress, attacking not only liberty but truth. They have joined forces with those who seek to quash technology, innovation, and “unnatural” inventions–to create a static society by defamation and decree. By attacking the innocent and emboldening the malevolent, spreading rumors and defying their own experts, they have betrayed the public trust.

He contextualizes it in reference to the drug war and do-gooder feminists, everybody who wants to make our decisions for us. Comparing it to the drug war, he finds that black market implants go for $1800 a pair (that would be $900 apiece) and tells the story of an unfortunate man busted --and jailed -- for smuggling. (Anything to declare?)

It's a long piece and sadly there are no pictures. But he does keep his composure better than I. My friend Sugarchuck does a great riff on the Supreme Court using Major League Baseball's antitrust exemption. This is the strongest freedom in medicine piece I have read and I collect them.

The implications however go further still. In previous essays I have argued that the recent outrage about our civil liberties being eroded are misplaced. I do not mean to imply that issues such as the warrantless wiretapping are unimportant, or worthy of serious debate. I do mean to say that they are not the largest or most prevalent threat to us as a free people. It is the very size and reach of the government. The story of how bogus science, zealous litigators and activist groups acting “on our behalf” limited our freedom, destroyed careers and fortunes is alarming, but it is part and parcel of the technocratic regulatory vision which animates the drug war, invades our privacy, and the privacy of how we chose to live our lives.

Hat-tip: Instapundit and I'll steal his line: Read The Whole Thing.

But johngalt thinks:

I was most interested in this passage from Lance's piece:

"We have to give a “good reason” for our choices. For those of us concerned about the ongoing drug war, such as the recently deceased Milton Friedman, this is a key point. I have a close friend who often used to justify (despite ample evidence) his vote for Democrats on the Republican drug war. I argued that neither party was serious about doing anything about it, and that the most vocal opponents of it were certain Republicans and libertarians."

Voting for Democrats will give no more satisfactory resolution to the "war on drugs" than it will to the "culture of corruption" in government. Sadly, voting for Republicans is rarely better, but only the best of two bad alternatives.

Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2006 5:22 PM
But jk thinks:

Amen. I would even ask gay marriage supporters if the Democrats' tepid non-opposition is worth their vote.

The heart of this piece is its assurance that we quibble about crumbs of liberty on the edges while ceding swaths of control without a quibble. (Sorry about the high metaphor density of that last paragraph). Have hearings on terrorist surveillance -- but allow the FDA to deny 30,000 terminal colon cancer patients access to Erbitux.

Posted by: jk at November 20, 2006 5:36 PM

Dems to Raise Gas Prices

Apparently the latest drops in fuel prices have really sent the Dems into a titter.

To rectify this problem, it's time (yet again) to stick it to the oil companies.

    House Democrats are targeting billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal that would boost alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to be put off until later.

    Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

    Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."


So which subsidies are they going to do in?
    -Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

    -A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.


That's the top of their list.

Say hello to three dollar gas soon, and a screeching halt to the current boom in oil field projects and workers.

But jk thinks:

I'm a big fan of big oil, ac, please don't take my question the wring way, but: "Is it wrong to end subsidies in such a profitable industry?"

Precisely for the reasons that I would argue forcefully against windfall profits tax, the subsidies you mention seem anti-market. It seems if you craft some way to get government the hell out of the way, refinery capacity would skyrocket without tax breaks. Ditto for domestic drilling.

If gas costs three dollars without government subsidies, that's what it costs. Now a coffee subsidy...

Posted by: jk at November 19, 2006 1:36 PM
But AlexC thinks:

I don't think it should be anyone but the shareholders business what the profits of a company are, and "are they enough?"

I think the fact that a "subsidy" like this exists is a symptom of the fact that some government inspired imbalance in the free-market exists.

Rather than asking "Should be cancel tax breaks?" the question should be, "What has government done that we need to do tax breaks?"

In that sense, we agree. But it's government "solving" a problem of it's own creation.

In the end, we don't know what gas costs. It's being meddled with innumerable ways.

Posted by: AlexC at November 20, 2006 2:22 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I absolutely agree with AlexC, although it took his reply to jk's comment before I realized we'd both been snookered by NoCal Nancy's misleading terminology.

When is a subsidy not a subsidy? When the money at issue was looted from the beneficiary in the first place! Nancy nearly persuaded us of her delusion that those "multibillions" belong to "the people."

JK even referenced this in his comment: "...if you craft some way to get government the hell out of the way, refinery capacity would skyrocket without tax breaks, [i.e. getting government the hell out of the way.] By the time you include regulatory limitations, some of which are defensible but most are not, the burden upon "big oil" is disproportionate in the same way as the burden on individuals - those with a "greater ability to pay" are compelled to do so.

Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2006 5:40 PM

November 18, 2006

Weekend Fun

Attila at Pillage Idiot brings tales of internecine strife in the new Democratic House Leadership.

But TrekMedic251 thinks:

So much for "Let the Healing Begin,.."

The next two years will be "interesting times," for sure!

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 18, 2006 9:37 PM
But jk thinks:

Yeah, I'm not much into "healing." Like Larry Kudlow, I like full contact partisanship. I don't quote Ann Coulter very much, but she had a riff I really liked. President Bush (41) said "I know you didn't send us here to bicker." And Ms. Coulter said "yes we did, we sent you there to out-bicker the other guys."

Not only the Democratic Party gains, but also many of the referenda and ballot issues make me think this nation is poised to take a left turn toward European style, mixed economy socialism. I'm certainly not looking to get along and I doubt many ThreeSources, Pillage Idiots or Is This Lifers are. Interesting times indeed.

Posted by: jk at November 19, 2006 11:56 AM

One More for Milton

Thomas Sowell has a great column on OpinionJournal today (free link). He reminisces about studying under Milton Friedman, and the significant impact of Friedman's work:

Ironically, Friedman began his career as a believer in both Keynesian economics and in the liberals’ vision of the world with which it was so compatible. Yet, in the end, no one did more to dethrone both. It is doubtful whether Ronald Reagan could have been elected president in 1980 without the changes in public opinion produced by Friedman’s work in the previous decades.

The Keynesians’ belief that government policy could wisely make trade-offs between rates of inflation and rates of unemployment was epitomized in the Phillips Curve, which seemed to lend empirical support to that belief. Friedman dealt that analysis a body blow when he argued that it was not the rate of inflation which reduced unemployment but the fact that inflation exceeded expectations.

In other words, even a high rate of inflation would not reduce unemployment if inflationary policies became so common as to be expected. The "stagflation" of the 1970s--with simultaneous double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment--validated what Friedman had said, in a way that no one could ignore.


Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Hat-tip: Everyday Economist.


Review Corner

I have to call attention to a series of book. Stars must be given to the "Eminent Lives" series of biography from Harper Collins.

At ~200 pages, with no footnotes or bibliography, these books probably send serious historical scholars screaming for the exits (though should really serious historians be running around screaming?) Yet I think they provide a great opportunity to catch up on a historical figure. I may or may not have read a full length treatment of President Ulysses S. Grant, but Michael Korda's was great. I'm certain I would have passed on 550 pages about Ludwig von Beethoven but I enjoyed the Edmund Morris book. I might look a little more deeply at both of these.

Also offered by the series is a little analysis and opinion. Jefferson's Presidency is by far my favorite period in American history. I wouldn't call myself a scholar, but I've read many books about the time, the man, and his contemporaries. Christopher Hitchens's take on our third president was an interesting addition to the field and if you're looking for one in the series, start there.

I just finished "Democracy's Guide," Joseph Epstein's take on Alexis de Tocqueville. I've been enthralled by "Democracy in America" but didn't know anything about the author's life. Epstein does a great job capturing Tocqueville's life, thought, and current relevance. Epstein and Tocqueville remind us of the important differences between the French Revolution and America's Independence (Tocqueville considers "revolutionary spirit" pejorative and claims America's separation from Britain was not the class struggle associated with the R-word).

Epstein closely examines Toqueville's faith. Though he left the Church philosophically in his teens, he uses religion to great effect in "Democracy In America" and Epstein riffs that he could not come to terms later in life to turn back, declare himself atheist, or even declare himself agnostic. Epstein discusses the controversy of whether he made a deathbed conversion.

This is an example of the freedom of the series. The authors provide a general biography but each is free to explore his or her own specific interests. jk gives four stars to the books on Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Beethoven, and Tocqueville. My wife the Psych major wants the Freud book. I have to confess I don't know who the hell Caravaggio is, but for twenty bucks and an afternoon's effort, I could be a scholar.

Review Corner Posted by jk at 12:34 PM

November 17, 2006

Heinlien and Friedman

Two great tidbits in a single Instapundit post. (That guy's gonna be big someday, mark my words...)

1. An emailer's father had "a detailed discussion" of "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" with his professor Friedman.

2. Tim Minear of Firefly/Angel/Wonderfalls fame is working on a film version of TMIAHM. Says Glenn: “Efforts to translate Heinlein to film haven't generally been very successful, but if anyone can do it, it'll be him.”

Posted by jk at 5:23 PM

Amendment 28

Josh Poulson offers an amendment to the Constitution in the name of the late Milton Friedman.

    Amendment XXVIII—Limiting Taxation and Voting to Specific Dates

    1. Each year all Federal, State, and local government shall hold two elections for public offices: a primary election the first Tuesday in May and a general election the first Tuesday in November.

    2. All taxes and set-asides, except the collection of sales taxes by sellers from direct consumers, shall be paid twice annually, due two weeks before the primary and general elections.

    3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Yes! Yes! Yes!

Government Posted by AlexC at 4:50 PM

Big Advertising

KFC has a new logo, and you can see it from space.

    The company unveiled a new brand logo Tuesday that includes bolder colors and a more well-defined visage of the late Kentucky Fried Chicken founder, who will keep his classic black bow tie, glasses and goatee.

    As part of publicity for the new logo, KFC commissioned a giant, 87,000-square foot version of it that can be seen from space. The massive logo consists of 65,000 1-foot square painted tiles that were laid out in the Nevada desert over 24 days.


0_61_kfc_logo_desert.jpg

I was never one for the Colonel, but that's pretty damned cool.

I can't wait for the day when someone gets a) the money b) the guts to project an ad onto the full moon.

With a sufficiently strong laser beam (or multiples) I bet you could do it.

Imagine the round red Coke Classic logo or the old fashioned blue AT&T logo up there. Everyone would see it. It'd be a sensation.

(tip to HotAir)

But jk thinks:

Please don't let them blast the Barry Manilow KFC jingle loud enough to be heard in space.

Yes, itchy-fingered engineers, I know, no air no sound, but the idea of trying is too horrible to contemplate.

"Get a bucket of Chicken, finger lickin' good Goodbye ho-hums..."

Posted by: jk at November 17, 2006 5:13 PM

Keep Friedman Spirit Alive

Stephen Moore relates a recent lunch with the late, great, economist Milton Friedman in today’s WSJ Political Diary.

I had lunch not long ago with Milton Friedman, the most influential economist of the past half-century or more, who died yesterday at 94. I asked him the three economic policy changes he would recommend to President Bush to achieve a high rate of economic growth. His first prescription was free trade: "I think that free trade is the most important single way to promote growth. The Bush administration has protected three industries: steel, timber, and agriculture. Those should all be repealed," he advised.

No. 2 was cutting government spending "as much as you possibly can." Friedman long maintained that resources contribute more to human betterment and happiness in private hands than government hands.

But it was on school vouchers, a cause he had championed for 50 years, that his passion for improving the lot of humanity through sound economics shined most brightly. "The third policy, which really should be the first, is to move however quickly you can to get to a competitive educational system. One of the most negative features in our society is the national educational system. There is no other branch of government, no other branch of the economy, let alone the government, which is so technologically backward. We teach kids the way we did two centuries ago. That's because 90% of our kids go to government schools. And most of the other 10% go to privately subsidized non-profit, mostly religious, schools. All should go to a form of free market school. There would be a revolution in schooling if you could get a competitive educational system with parents deciding where their children should go, with parents paying for them either from their own pocket or through a government subsidy which they right now get but cannot control."


The civil rights issue of our time: rescue poor, inner-city kids from union-ruined public education. Continuing to fight will keep Milton & Rose's dream alive.

Education Posted by jk at 12:59 PM

Senator Edwards and the PS3

I was gonna link to this, but I didn't have the right hook.

Wal-Mart issued a press release this afternoon saying that an aide to John Edwards, the former Democratic vice presidential candidate and North Carolina senator, contacted a Wal-Mart store in Raleigh, N.C., in search of a Sony PlayStation3 “on behalf of the senator’s family.” The coveted game console, available in limited quantities, goes on sale at midnight tonight.

The giant retailer noted the irony, given Edwards’s participation Wednesday in a conference call organized by Wal-Mart critic WakeUpWalMart.com. During the call, Edwards criticized Wal-Mart’s employment practices and recounted how his son had taken to task another student for buying shoes at Wal-Mart. WakeUpWalMart.com and other union-backed groups have pilloried the retailer’s employment practices at several events recently.


ThreeSources friend Sugarchuck rides to my rescue. "Two Americas," says sc in an email, "the one where people wait their turn in line and play by the rules and the second where fat cat trial lawyers try to use influence and power to jump to the front of the line and get theirs while the regular guy waits."

From the other side Posted by jk at 12:13 PM

My Kind of Diesel Mechanic

WCCO.com reports on a beauty queen who is giving up her title to serve our nation and the cause of freedom.

Jessica Gaulke is trading in life as Minnesota's queen of the lakes for a year in the Iraqi desert.

"There's obviously preconceived notions about beauty queens," said Gaulke, who was chosen as Minneapolis Aquatennial Queen of the Lakes in July.

Gaulke is giving up her title because her National Guard unit has been activated for duty in Iraq. The 22-year-old Augsburg College sociology student will be going to the Mideast as a diesel generator mechanic.


Senator Kerry could not be reached for comment. ThreeSources wondered if he would retract his famous comment: “You work on your poise, you get your lipstick right, you find an evening gown that fits, you can do well. If not, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Hat-tip: My lovely wife.

Freedom on the March Posted by jk at 11:38 AM

Economics and Freedom

The WSJ Ed Page has two mist reads for freedom and economics today. Indeed, that has been their beat since Bob Bartley sat in Mr. Gigot's chair. Both are available on the free site today.

Dan Henninger celebrates 25 years of President Reagan's tax cuts and celebrates their architect, Dr. Arthur Laffer.

It was entirely appropriate that as its keynote speaker to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 1981 Reagan tax cut, the Heritage Foundation in Washington this week should assign the job to Art Laffer. Mr. Laffer is surely the most irrepressibly ebullient practitioner of the dismal science of economics alive today, maybe ever. It is no surprise that more than a quarter century ago, then California Gov. Ronald Reagan, another genuinely cheerful soul in a dismal profession, would have found common cause with the young economist’s view that cutting taxes would produce a wealth of benefits for the American people.

Now, 25 years later and with the post-Reagan Republican Party in tatters over a confused political agenda, Mr. Laffer stood beaming at the Heritage podium to inform its audience that “illegal immigrants are the lifeblood of our society.” This produced a boo-burst from a distant corner, which Mr. Laffer seemed not to notice. When so informed over a nightcap at the Willard Hotel, he said with the famous smile, “What do I care? I’ve been booed at all my life.”


I know, Dr. L. That's how they treat me around here. Internecine dig aside, it's a comprehensive encapsulation of the benefits of free economics.
Communism had been running what might be called a 40-year demonstration study in life at one end of the Laffer Curve—what happens to economies when you tax away pretty much everything. Freed of this utopia, the peoples of Eastern Europe now had to devise new tax regimes appropriate to nations eager—for want of a better phase—to work, save and invest.

The first former Iron Curtain country to cut its taxes was Estonia in 1994, led by Prime Minister Mart Laar, who claimed then the only economics book he’d ever read was Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose.” Estonia established a flat rate on personal incomes of 26%; two years earlier it had abolished all import tariffs. Estonia grew.

After Estonia, flat-tax regimes coursed across Eastern Europe, as listed below (bear in mind that the top rate in the U.S. is 35%): Lithuania, 33%; Latvia, 25%; Slovakia, 19% (the former sad sack of the region, Slovakia’s growing economy has become its envy); Romania, 16%; Ukraine, 13%; Russia, 13%; and Georgia, 12%.


The second is a thoughtful tribute to Milton Friedman.
There are some public figures whose obituaries can be written years in advance. Milton Friedman was not one of them.

Arguably the greatest economist of the 20th century, he won his Nobel Prize 30 years ago. His classic “Capitalism and Freedom” was published 44 years ago. He died yesterday at the age of 94, but as the op-ed running nearby attests, he was active in writing about, thinking about and explaining how economics affects our world until the end.


Those lucky souls who fill the Dow Jones coffers can then read a recent article by Friedman on monetary policy vs. technical innovation at reversing contractions. Life is good.


November 16, 2006

Some More Milton Friedman

Government Bytes (ha!) reminds us of one of Milton Friedman's best quotations.

    There are four ways in which you can spend money.

    You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.

    Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well,