03 Apr 2012

More Evidence That Bryan Caplan Is the Funniest Econ Blogger

Bryan Caplan, Humor 5 Comments

From today:

I’ve been having an extended Twitter discussion about the history of women’s liberty with Cato’s Jason Kuznicki (@JasonKuznicki), the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo), and others. I find some of the issues hard to address in 140 characters, so I’m moving my thoughts here.

03 Apr 2012

John McCain Agrees With My Assessment of the Two-Party System

Conspiracy, Politics No Comments

I’m sure this has already made the rounds, but I don’t have a TV…

02 Apr 2012

Potpourri

Drug War, Economics, Potpourri, Shameless Self-Promotion 4 Comments

==> I missed this when he first posted it, but Silas Barta has a good contribution on the broken window debate, and how it relates to “recalculation.” I think if Tyler Cowen had written the exact same blog post (scattered with references to classic papers in the literature) people would be doubled over at the profundity. (My point is, I think it’s a really deep insight but you will be tempted to dismiss it because “it’s just from some guy Silas.”)

==> David R. Henderson reviews Bruce Bartlett’s new book. (And I’m a wiseguy in the comments, as is my wont.)

==> Speaking of David, he also blew up Krugman’s recent post on how health insurance obviously doesn’t work without government oversight.

==> The new “Circle Bastiat” blog looks promising. So far they’ve got a good rotation of fresh posts.

==> It’s that time of year…another session of my Principles of Economics online class! We’ve shortened it to 8 weeks. I cut out the methodological stuff; we jump right into the fun material like profit/loss and the drug war.

01 Apr 2012

Palm Sunday: The Fickle Public

Religious 113 Comments

Today is “Palm Sunday.” Here is how the gospel of Matthew describes it (Chapter 21):

1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”
4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

5 “Say to Daughter Zion,
‘See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,

“Hosanna to the Son of David!”

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”

“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

10 When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?”

11 The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”

This description always amazes me, because in just 5 days the crowds (with how many of the exact same people?) will demand that Pontius Pilate nail Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth, to a cross.

It’s astonishing how this can happen–such a turnaround in so short a time–but I know it is plausible, even if we set aside me believing in the Bible as a historical document. One time I actually toyed with the idea (I can’t remember if this was when I was an atheist or not) of trying to write a play that is set during Holy Week (i.e. the week that Jesus is crucified and then comes back from the dead) but tells it from an unusual perspective, so the audience forgets that it’s a standard story. (The effect would be similar to what they achieved during the beginning and middle of Inglourious Basterds.) Then at the climax of the play, the actors playing the Pharisees etc. get the audience all fired up and get them to start chanting, “Crucify him!” Then the curtain drops and the lights go up, and that’s the end of the play. And everyone gasps and realizes what just happened.

Joseph Sobran once had a great line that I will paraphrase: Say what you will about the death penalty, but the fact that we used it to kill the Son of God is surely a strike against it.

31 Mar 2012

Potpourri

Economics, Federal Reserve, Market Monetarism, Mises, Potpourri 41 Comments

==> This article about “how modern men are trained to hate women” is actually really insightful. It’s supposed to be entertaining and has lots of absurd photos, but I actually think the guy makes some good points.

==> Even though he and I don’t see eye-to-eye on everything in the “free banking” argument, I must admit George Selgin has a fantabulous critique of Bernanke on the history of the Fed here.

==> Tom Woods jumps on the clicking-Like-on-Facebook-does-nothing bandwagon. But actually, I think we need to be more specific. “Raising awareness” actually is tremendously important; that’s all Tom and I do, for heaven’s sake! In other words, we agree with Mises that public opinion ultimately determines what the government can get away with, and so that’s why Tom and I (and just about all of our professional colleagues) devote our lives to educating the public. As far as I know, we’re not going to intercept funds flowing to the IRS and return them to their rightful owners. So I think the scorn heaped on the “Kony 2012” crowd, if it’s to stick, has to be more accurately defined. It’s not that “just telling people how you feel about something” is a waste of time, but rather, “telling people how you feel about something that you’ve spent 20 minutes investigating” is a bit silly.

==> It was pledge week at my NPR station and holy cow, this piece on Texas secession almost made me donate. Of course they ultimately make it a criticism, but tell me the first 3 minutes aren’t awesome! I’m moving to Texas, baby! (It’s also funny that when they start discussing the problems of Texas secession, the first thing that actually makes any sense is that they say the feds would retaliate. Yeah, that’s what happened the last time, too.)

==> So if I’m interpreting this article correctly, in 2011 fully 61% of the new debt issued by the Treasury, was picked up by the Fed. At what point will people stop saying, “IF then Fed ever started monetizing the debt, then we’d be in trouble”?

Let me elaborate on this theme: If I understand Scott Sumner’s worldview, he is saying that our ultra-low interest rates right now are a sign of “tight money.” So let’s say starting Monday, the Fed began selling off $1 trillion of its Treasury holdings, and Bernanke promised that he wouldn’t let the Fed’s balance sheet rise more than a 3% rate per year, thereafter. Does Scott think yields on Treasury securities would go down because of this move? In other words, does Scott actually think if the Fed suddenly dumped one trillion dollars (at current prices) of an asset onto the market, and promised that it wouldn’t buy it back anytime soon, that the new market price for this asset would go up?

Let me also turn this question over to the Keynesians: If I understand them, they are saying that the big problem right now is that people are trying to save (particularly in safe assets like Treasury securities) way more than people want to borrow. The only way to get that market to clear, at full employment, would be to have a negative nominal interest rate. So from that perspective, the absolute worst thing the Fed could do, would be to buy up a trillion dollars of Treasury securities, right? I mean, injecting new reserves (through open market operations) per se might be OK, but it would be far far better if the Fed created money out of thin air in order to, say, hire people to dig ditches and fill them back up, right? But given that Bernanke is going to issue a new trillion dollars, the single worst thing (from a Keynesian perspective) he could do with that new money, is go buy U.S. Treasuries, right?

29 Mar 2012

Utilitarians Might Want to Save This Defense for Later

All Posts 44 Comments

Bryan Caplan:

The key difference between a normal utilitarian and a Leninist: When a normal utilitarian concludes that mass murder would maximize social utility, he checks his work! He goes over his calculations with a fine-tooth comb, hoping to discover a way to implement beneficial policy changes without horrific atrocities. The Leninist, in contrast, reasons backwards from the atrocities that emotionally inspire him to the utilitarian argument that morally justifies his atrocities.

So when your 3rd grader complains about math class, remind him of this…

Seriously, does anyone else find Bryan’s deep thoughts to often be laugh-out-loud funny? I swear it’s like that guy lives in a bubble.

29 Mar 2012

Krugman Gets Hit Hard by “Please” and “Thank You”

Conspiracy, Krugman 17 Comments

So here’s Paul Krugman describing his journalistic intrepidity and victimization by an evil corporation:

Predictably, the letter from Corrections Corporation of America has arrived, demanding a correction on yesterday’s column. Strangely, though, it demands that I correct statements I didn’t make, just things CCA claims I implied. I don’t think that passes the test; maybe they’ll find an actual error on second pass, but I was pretty careful precisely because I knew they’d be looking for something, anything.

According to the letter, by the way,

CCA does not and has not ever lobbied for or attempted to promote any legislation anywhere that affects sentencing and detention — under longstanding corporate policy.

Pure as the driven snow, they are.

A word about this sort of thing: anyone who steps on the toes of either corporate interests or major conservative institutions (which are often more or less the same thing) has to expect to run into a buzzsaw. The purpose of that buzzsaw is not so much to get specific corrections as to intimidate — to deter the journalist and his or her colleagues from going there again.

And it works. I’ve seen it over and over: some commentator says the obvious, gets hit hard, and thereafter steers away from such issues and is very, very careful not to offend the hard right.(And when the other side points this out, they get very upset — they thought they were safe).

I won’t pretend that I don’t get rattled myself. But I decided a long time ago that it’s precisely the areas that make you nervous that most need addressing.

Wow, I’m dying to see what those jackals threatened him with. Libel suits? A visit from Luca Brasi perhaps?

Here’s the letter:

Dear Mr. Krugman,

We are requesting that you publish a print-edition correction to several errors in your column, “Lobbyists, Guns And Money,” published in The New York Times on March 26.

The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is not a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as you assert. It ended its membership in 2010.

You also severely mislead your readers by suggesting that CCA is involved in seeking to influence, promote or lobby for immigration detention policy through former membership in ALEC. That association was as a non-voting member only to monitor policy and not participate in discussions or votes.

In fact, CCA does not and has not ever lobbied for or attempted to promote any legislation anywhere that affects sentencing and detention — under longstanding corporate policy. Any statement to the contrary is false. The original basis for the falsehood in your column was a story by National Public Radio (NPR) in late 2010 that has been subsequently corrected by NPR, as you note in your corrective blog this morning. Indeed, if you choose to research the topic further, you will see that NPR broadcast a report in the months prior to its own correction of the 2010 report that identified the author of the Arizona detention legislation.

We will be following up with your office to see if you have any issues or concerns with our request to keep the public record straight and want to thank you in advance for your time and effort to correct the error.

Holy cow, how does Krugman do it? Is he in the NYT writer protection program at this point? (Go look at Krugman’s column and how serious the charges–which may be true, for all I know–are that he leveled against these people, to then gauge the tone of their letter to him.)

The funniest thing about all this is that Krugman’s post opens with: “Update: OK, by popular request, the text of the letter after the jump.”

So I’m assuming that means he initially did his whining without even posting this completely innocuous letter.

27 Mar 2012

GUEST POST: “My Adventure as a Ron Paul Delegate”

Guest Essay, Ron Paul 34 Comments

Editor’s note: This is John Connolly’s follow-up post to an earlier one, in which he explained Ron Paul’s delegate strategy. John is a Ron Paul delegate in Washington.–RPM

====================

My Adventure as a Ron Paul Delegate: The Media Gets It Wrong
by John Connolly

As I stated in my first post, there is a vast difference between a straw poll and a caucus. Read that post if you want to learn more how that works.

But now that I voted today [March 24] as a precinct delegate at the Jefferson County convention, I’m going to give you numbers, but also going to tell you how bad the process was and how the caucus at one point almost came to a complete halt. I will also give you my thoughts on how this is looking to play out. I will also tell you what I witnessed as to what the average Ron Paul supporter type and this will hopefully give you a better picture than the media is throwing out there.

First off, the media is reporting false information. I have not seen some of the local rags, but it is reported that the local media is taking their cue from the mainstream and getting it all wrong too.

The reality is that the State of Washington may not go to Romney. The delegates picked through the caucus process are definitely, in my experience, at the precinct and now at the county level, heavily weighting to Ron Paul – so much for the electability problem. It just looks as if the more people try to use that unsubstantiated argument, the more Ron Paul seems to do better.

OK. You want numbers to back it up. Here is the data from Jefferson County – my county.

Of the 115 precinct delegates selected only 31 chose to put their name in the hat to become County Delegates for the State Convention which happens May 30th through June 2nd. Why so few people? Because many can’t make it on those days or do not have the funds to travel. Interesting that it can come to that level of sacrifice, which I have stated is the strength of the average Ron Paul supporter. It takes time and money to be at the state caucus and even more so at the national convention in Florida in August. I’m thinking the Ron Paul supporter is going to pull the underdog with his or her own cash more than any other supporter for any other candidate.

Breaking this 31 down here is what we have.
Ron Paul – 17
Mitt Romney – 8
Rick Santorum – 4
Newt Gingrich – 2

So before we even vote on the 8 open delegate slots, we are more than 50% in the majority for Ron Paul across the precincts in our county. Incidentally from what I understand, 3 other slots were closed and automatically filled by county GOP chair and a couple other board members. Yes. Technically they are the establishment and I am not sure of their favorite candidates. Not even going to guess on that.

Now in filling the 8 slots, the voting process was a completely complicated process and unnecessarily so. The head person at one point was telling the 115 delegate voters that only the 31 state candidates could vote. They actually had to check the RULES! This is like saying that the four GOP candidates can only vote for themselves! I was baffled by the lack of organization. At one point a former Pan Am flight attendant just took control and started getting things organized. The chairman got back on track after awhile, so they ended up following the rules and selecting County Delegates legitimately.

So it took 3 ballot rounds of voting. I will probably never understand why they use the process of elimination as the method – but they did. It’s probably easier to follow if you are used to High School Basketball District Championships, but I digress.

The first round tossed out 5 candidates. We are down to 26.

The second round tossed out another handful and one of the candidates won the first of the 8 County Delegate slots. Now we are down to about 18 left.

The third round filled the other 7 positions.
The final tally for the 8 open positions,
Ron Paul – 7
Mitt Romney – 1
The other guys – 0

I am curious. If the other counties are having similar results, what do you think the State Convention is going to look like? This is only one state, but it appears from the YouTube videos and other reports out there this is happening in other states (Nevada/Colorado and more).

As for the demographic, I cannot give you hard numbers as I did not go and ask each person how old they were, but I will tell you this, this county has a LARGE senior citizen population and most of the people at the convention there today, roughly 90% were over the age of 50. So we got all this Ron Paul success from a bunch of elderly educated, likely non-pot smoking crowd? How will MSNBC or Fox spin that madness?

Lastly, I think it is going to be a bit difficult for the one Romney Delegate, to stand up with the other seven Ron Paul delegates and say Ron Paul is not electable. Just sayin’.

John Connolly is a software developer and avid sushi eater in Washington State.