This is really something special. I’ve told Tom for years that he would be a great radio host because he has the right voice and personality for it, but in this episode you remember, “Oh yeah, Tom’s a trained historian.”
Also, his take on Mark Levin at the end is great. Levin has been confidently, shall we say, disagreeing with those (like Tom) who claim that states retain the right of secession. Tom says that OK, maybe someone like Levin disagrees with Tom’s historical analysis, but at best Levin should be bemoaning the depressing fact that states don’t have this tool at their disposal as a bulwark for liberty–yet Levin is celebrating it. “What?!” (Pretty sure that’s the exact transcript.)
An excerpt from his wonderful book, where he’s showing that a “loving God” wouldn’t just sit back and let us persist in our natural state and try to just let us “be happy”:
Another type [of love that humans understand] is love of a man for a beast–a relation constantly used in Scripture to symbolise the relation between God and men; ‘we are his people and the sheep of his pasture.’…[T]he association of (say) man and dog is primarily for the man’s sake; he tames the dog primarily that he may love it, not that it may love him, and that it may serve him, not that he may serve it. Yet at the same time, the dog’s interests are not sacrificed to the man’s. The one end (that he may love it) cannot be fully attained unless it also, in its fashion, loves him, nor can it serve him unless he, in a different fashion, serves it. Now just because the dog is by human standards one of the ‘best’ of irrational creatures, and a proper object for a man to love…man interferes with the dog and makes it more lovable than it was in mere nature. In its state of nature it has a smell, and habits, which frustrate man’s love: he washes it, house-trains it, teaches it not to steal, and is so enabled to love it completely. To the puppy the whole proceeding would seem, if it were a theologian, to cast grave doubts on the ‘goodness’ of man: but the full-grown and full-trained dog, larger, healthier, and longer-lived than the wild dog, and admitted, as it were, by Grace, to a whole world of affections, loyalties, interests, and comforts entirely beyond its animal destiny, would have no such doubts. It will be noted that the man…takes all these pains with the dog…only because it is an animal high in the scale–because it is so nearly lovable that it is worth his while to make it fully lovable. He does not house-train the earwig or give baths to centipedes.
From my latest Mises Canada post:
As I’ll be exploring in many future posts, Canada offers a great opportunity for U.S. economists interested in historical research. Because the U.S. and Canada are both wealthy countries with similar forms of government, their physical proximity sheds light on the effects of different policies.
Take the Great Depression and the impact of Franklin Roosevelt’s sweeping “New Deal.” …
Yet I had encountered defenders of Roosevelt who argued that…no other U.S. president had ever inherited such as mess as Roosevelt acquired from Herbert Hoover after the 1932 election. In other words, since FDR started out in such a quagmire, it’s not surprising that it took him longer to achieve recovery. These writers still wanted to say, “Roosevelt and his New Deal got us out of the Depression.”
It occurred to me to compare U.S. and Canadian unemployment. Here’s what I found…
I thought I should actually state my long-term vision for liberty.
==> Lew Rockwell explains why he’s an anarcho-capitalist.
==> Yet another post from me on the tax interaction effect, which might be easier if you are not a trained economist.
==> I totally get what Jason Brennan is saying in this post, but I still think it’s useful for libertarians to point out that taxes are theft. (Or if you think that’s a loaded statement, then: …for libertarians to argue that taxes are theft.) I mean, take just about any systematic social injustice. The only reason it exists is that a bunch of people think it’s morally OK. So the only way for opponents to argue the morality of it, is to try to show these same people that it actually conflicts with their moral code; they just need to think about it. Would Brennan have criticized the abolitionists, telling them, “Look, stop writing pamphlets that say, ‘It’s immoral to lock up a human being against his will’ or ‘It’s wrong to split families up at auction.’ That’s precisely what the argument is about, so you’re not helping, you’re just embarrassing yourself.” ?
==> At first this story–about a guy showing you how to take “selfies” that make it look like you have a girlfriend–is funny. Then it just gets depressing.
==> The Nullifiers have a plan to smoke out, er, thirst out, the NSA.
==> I admit I don’t read the site very much, so perhaps I’m way out of line, but I think this is the first time I’ve seen ThinkProgress take the side of the church against the State.
Incidentally, if you’re a public official trying to justify why you’re not letting a church feed thousands of homeless people, it’s probably a wakeup call for your life when you find these words coming out of your mouth: “If I want to cook and poison my own family and friends that’s OK, but when you’re open to the public that’s implying a certain standard of safety,” Walker said. “That’s the standard we have in place for all the homeless shelters in the city.”
In light of all the attacks on Stephen Williamson–Noah Smith has provided the best summary I’ve seen in his updates at this post–my inner defense attorney instincts have been activated. (Nicky, this is not Nam, this is blogging; there are rules.) So I offer the following testimony. Do with it what you will:
Dr. Williamson, if you’ll bear with me, I am truly trying to make sure the blogosphere mob doesn’t lynch an innocent man. So can you please clarify your position by telling me if I’m understanding you?
You are saying that if the Fed hadn’t engaged in QE, then price inflation (such as the increase in CPI from 2008-13) would have been higher than what we observed. Further, you are saying that the mechanism at work here is *not* that the Fed’s policy announcements of QE led investors and consumers to revise their forecasts about the economy; in other words, it’s NOT that people said, “Whoa, they’re announcing another trillion in asset purchases, so they must think we’re on the edge of a depression here. I’d better put off buying that plasma screen TV.”
Finally, you aren’t claiming to have discovered some knife-edge equilibrium result that wouldn’t survive a “trembling hands” perturbation. Rather, you are saying that given the situation the last few years, a burst of QE would quite naturally lead to lower price inflation; there doesn’t exist a more stable path toward an equilibrium of higher price inflation.
I realize you might not have worded everything the way I did, but do you endorse the above statements?
Then he answered:
My original post actually didn’t focus on QE, I merely wanted to suggest reasons why, if the Fed maintained policy at the zero lower bound for a long time, we need not observe deflation, and why we could see falling inflation. In the model, it’s a long-run proposition. Then, some people wanted to focus on the QE result in my working paper which is that, as a long run proposition, at the zero lower bound QE will lower inflation (while also raising consumption and making us better off, through a mechanism which involves relaxing collateral constraints. That idea ran away with itself, and people started putting words in my mouth.
1. There are some complications. For example, I haven’t worried about the short run effects of monetary policy. That’s going to complicate what we see in the actual time series of prices 2008-13.
2. I wouldn’t rule out announcement effects from QE. The effects I’m talking about could be quantitatively small, and all you’re seeing are signaling effects of QE. Maybe it’s only the policy rate that matters, and QE is just signaling future policy rates.
“Finally, you aren’t claiming to have discovered some knife-edge equilibrium result that wouldn’t survive a “trembling hands” perturbation.”
Definitely not. When Krugman was discussing “little arrows,” he seemed to have a well-specified notion of dynamic stability in mind. I addressed that. There’s no stability problem in that sense at all. As to the other “stability problem,” that was just some nonsense.
“Rather, you are saying that given the situation the last few years, a burst of QE would quite naturally lead to lower price inflation; there doesn’t exist a more stable path toward an equilibrium of higher price inflation.”
I would put it differently. The original issue that I was focused on, was the idea that there is another long-run equilibrium with higher inflation, but the liquidity trap equilibrium was indeed highly stable. It’s so stable in part because of policy errors the Fed is making, or it’s own misunderstandings.
A lot of people are reading things that other people are writing about what I’m writing, rather than actually reading my writing unfiltered, and that’s bound to be confusing.
I added the bold above, which was precisely why I asked him.
In the past (not going to bother digging it up), Krugman has argued that the Republicans who were desperately trying to avert the onset of ObamaCare were belying their own arguments. If they actually thought it would be a disaster, Krugman argued, then they should let it get implemented, because then everyone would see how awful it was, and it would get repealed, much to the chagrin of the Democrats.
I’m not kidding, that’s really what he argued. In case you’re not seeing why that’s so absurd, Krugman unwittingly spells it out when he blogs today:
For almost two months, the debacle of healthcare.gov allowed conservatives to live the life they always wanted. Health reform was a dismal failure; Obama would go down in history as a laughingstock; government can’t do anything; viva Ayn Rand!
Meanwhile, the technicians were working on what was always a technical IT problem, not a problem with the fundamental structure of the law. And while things are far from completely fixed, the crisis is clearly over. Obamacare will have millions of beneficiaries by the time open enrollment ends; it will add many more in the 2015 cycle. Health reform is pretty much irreversible at this point. [Bold added.]
Let me add one final clarification on the above point: No Tea Party partisan ever denied that handing out federal money to millions of people, would create millions of people who supported the government program. That was part of the objection all along, that once this thing started, it would be impossible to turn off, no matter how awful it was.
Next, young progressives who really love ObamaCare and trust Paul Krugman should take pause at this throwaway line:
Apparently, however, many people on the right are still stuck on the notion that Obamacare is doomed, indeed that it’s collapsing as we speak. The latest version is the supposed “death spiral” of young people not signing up.
As Ryan Cooper says, don’t count on it. There are lots of good reasons for the young to sign up, including the fact that it’s the law. [Bold added.]
Incidentally, I can’t remember the last time I heard anybody mention this–certainly none of the people explaining how great ObamaCare is going to be–but let me quote from healthcare.gov to make sure we all realize what’s in store:
The penalty in 2014 is calculated one of 2 ways. You’ll pay whichever of these amounts is higher:
* 1% of your yearly household income. The maximum penalty is the national average yearly premium for a bronze plan.
* $95 per person for the year ($47.50 per child under 18). The maximum penalty per family using this method is $285.
The fee increases every year. In 2015 it’s 2% of income or $325 per person. In 2016 and later years it’s 2.5% of income or $695 per person. After that it is adjusted for inflation.
(Note you are exempt if you are below 133% of the federal poverty line.)
Now why would they have the (minimum) fee at $95 per person in 2014 when it first kicks in, but by 2016 it rises to $695? Is that because something changes in the underlying actuarial tables? Of course not. It’s because they wanted the initial fee to be something extremely modest, so the media could focus on that. If you surveyed Krugman and Yglesias’s readers and asked, “What will the minimum individual mandate penalty be in 2016 for not having health insurance?” what do you think the median response would be?
Also, note that even in 2014, the tax for not having insurance is either $95 or 1% of household income, whichever is higher. So, if you’re a young person out there who currently doesn’t have insurance, unless you make $9,500 or less annually, you’re paying more than $95. (I think it’s technically adjusted gross income, but you get my point.) This whole thing is unbelievably deceptive.
Oh, the government’s official term for this tax is “individual shared responsibility payment.”
But remember everyone, the only reason anybody could possibly oppose this, is hatred of poor sick people.