The Most Ethically Chilling Use of a Steady-State Equilibrium Ever
Now when Paul Krugman said “death panels” (and sales taxes) were the answer, he was obviously cracking a joke and didn’t mean the phrase in the sense in which the critics used it. So, you can understand why his fans roll their eyes when Krugman critics then tried to use that one-off line against him.
In complete contrast, Scott Sumner lays out a whole case for why reckless behavior that causes death is arguably praiseworthy. He tries to hedge himself at the end, but he doesn’t really explain what part of his argument might be wrong. I think he just realizes, “I sound like a nutjob in this post. Man I have a crazy worldview.”
Anyway, here is my Mises CA take on it. No point in excerpting, just click if I’ve baited you sufficiently.
In My Life, I’ve Had a Few Posts That Criticized Krugman
How do you guys feel about that claim in my post title? Probably a bit of an understatement, eh?
Now consider the following from Krugman’s latest post on Obamacare:
A few relatively affluent, healthy people are paying more for coverage; a few high-income taxpayers are paying more in taxes; a much larger number of Americans are getting coverage that was previously unavailable and/or unaffordable; and most people are seeing no difference at all, except that they no longer have to fear what happens if they lose their current coverage.
Just re-read that a few times. (And when I say “a few times,” I don’t mean several million times. I mean, a few.)
That is truly dishonest, wouldn’t you say? If he had said “a relatively small proportion” or even “relatively few Americans,” that could have been defensible and we could go to the estimates to see how accurate his claims are. But when Krugman says a few–and he does it twice, so it’s not some grammar glitch in how he started the sentence–that implies that it’s literally a handful of people, doesn’t it? The only reason we know “that can’t possibly be what he means” is that we independently know that it would be absurd to suggest the literal interpretation of his statements.
I probably don’t need to mention that the title of Krugman’s post is, “Beyond the Lies.”
(David R. Henderson has a different complaint with the same Krugman post.)
In Which I Explain My Bargaining Power at Hair Salons
My latest Mises Canada article. An excerpt:
[I]f the ignorance of alternatives on the part of female shoppers is the culprit here, including being “lulled into not doing anything about it,” then why is the gap in Speed Stick versus Lady Speed Stick 45 cents per ounce–as the article claims–rather than, say $10 per ounce? Why don’t dry cleaners charge women $1,000 to clean a blouse, if they have such power to engage in discriminatory pricing?
John Oliver Has Beautiful Take on Ferguson
Perhaps he made a passing reference to the need for government police at some point, but we can forgive him that.
The Ban on Exports of U.S. Crude Oil Is Bad Economics
My latest IER post. An excerpt:
To see why the logic behind the crude oil export ban makes little sense, change commodities. For example, should the U.S. government make it illegal for American farmers to ship wheat out of the country? After all, don’t we want to make bread as affordable as possible for American households? Or what about banning the export of pharmaceuticals? Don’t we want to keep drug prices as low as possible in the United States? How about jet airplanes or heavy equipment—should American producers of these items be prohibited from selling them in foreign markets?
Also, in case you think I’m just making a generic free-trade argument, you should click the link to see that ironically, the ban on U.S. exports arguably makes gasoline more expensive for U.S. motorists. Here’s a taste of the logic:
First, realize that if there are no restrictions on the import or export of gasoline, then the U.S. price of gasoline is the same as the world price…At the same time, the ban on U.S. crude exports (if it has any effect at all) means that the U.S. crude price is lower than the world price. U.S. producers of crude would like to be able to sell abroad at the higher world price, but this is illegal, so they must be content to sell within the United States at the lower U.S. price.
Now, the U.S. government suddenly lifts the ban on crude exports: what happens? The immediate response is that U.S. oil producers begin shipping crude abroad, to fetch the higher world price. In the new equilibrium, the price that American refiners must pay for crude has risen, because now they are effectively competing with crude buyers all over the world.
…
In the new equilibrium, with more total crude oil being produced on Earth each day, it stands to reason that refiners across the globe will end up producing more total gallons of gasoline each day. Since the U.S. government’s policy shift wouldn’t have directly affected any motorist’s demand for gasoline, the increased quantity brought to market can only be sold at a lower price per gallon at the pump. The free-flow of gasoline across borders ensures that the price of gas in the U.S. is always the world price, meaning that a lower world price for gasoline translates into lower prices at the pump for Americans, too.
I include estimates from different sources about what the actual reduction on U.S. pump prices could be, if the U.S. government allowed the export of U.S. crude oil.
You Might Be in Serfdom
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, my latest LibertyChat article. Lots of pictures! An excerpt:
* If the FAA imposes a no-fly zone above Ferguson “to provide a safe environment for law enforcement activities,” then you might be in serfdom.
* When the police start arresting peaceful journalists covering the story, then you just might be in serfdom.
* When the same two political parties have controlled the White House since the Pierce Administration in 1853, you might be in serfdom.
Potpourri
==> Various reactions to Robin Williams; I am not endorsing anything in here (except Norm MacDonald’s): An Objectivist, someone who wants to “normalize” suicide, and Matt Walsh in his controversial post that I actually don’t think was as bad as people claimed. This guy talks about why funny people often suffer from depression. If I weren’t so bogged down with the Night of Clarity I would pontificate myself on all of this. In any event, I have literally lost social media “friendships” over the reaction to Robin Williams. So there ya go.
==> Scott Sumner on a kinda sorta Krugman Kontradiction.
==> I was skeptical at first, but this article argues that the Michael Keaton (Tim Burton) Batman was better than the more recent reboot.
Recent Comments