Tuesday's interesting reads

"A Greater Cause" by Gene Healy at Cato:

"In his speeches, McCain periodically sneers at American opulence and suggests that leaving Americans alone to pursue their own visions of happiness is a narrow and ignoble goal for government. As I point out in my new book The Cult of the Presidency, that’s a common sentiment among the American intelligentsia, and one that’s been used repeatedly to concentrate power in the executive branch:

Like intellectuals the world over, many American pundits and scholars, right and left, view bourgeois contentment with disdain. Normal people appear to like “normalcy,” Warren Harding’s term for peace and prosperity, just fine. But all too many professional thinkers look out upon 300 million people living their lives by their own design and see something impermissibly hollow in the spectacle.

I’m not a Randian, so I’m not inclined to condemn this stuff as whim-worshipping altruism. In the abstract, I agree with the statement that when you turn away from your own self-interest, narrowly construed, and adopt a higher purpose than your own pleasure (which purpose need not, and ought not, have anything to do with service to the state), you’re likely to end up a happier person. But why is any of this McCain’s business? The president is supposed to be a limited constitutional officer, not a national life coach-cum-self-help guru."

This was actually from yesterday, but oh well. The point I like is that I don't think it's the government's place to stand in for private individuals and be the "good guy". We shouldn't look at the state as something greater than ourselves. Healy continues:

"Some have compared McCain to JFK, and there’s something to that comparison. But Milton Friedman said everything that needs to be said about the notion that service to the state ought to be the lodestar of presidential politics. In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman wrote that neither half of JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” “expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.” As Friedman put it:

'To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.'"


"Who Wants to Trade?" the Economist (HT:Club for Growth):


"George Bush’s administration signed a trade agreement with Colombia in 2006. But last week, under the auspices of Nancy Pelosi, the party’s leader in the House of Representatives, an arcane rule was invoked to prevent the bill from moving closer to ratification. Susan Schwab, America’s Trade Representative, called the move “pure, partisan politics” in an interview on Sunday April 13th...


Republicans play politics with trade, too. Although Colombia is a minor trading partner the deal would have the virtue of showing that America has not given up on pushing for global liberalisation. Nevertheless Mr Bush has repeatedly made the case for the Colombia trade deal not on its economic rationale, but because it would help a Latin American ally in the war on drugs, and incidentally one whose next-door neighbour is that anti-American irritant, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s president."


I just get really bugged with all of the talk-around regarding free trade. The Democrats don't support free commerce with a country because it should, I suppose, be a reward given to a countries citizens for electing good government. Despite Colombia's President Uribe's efforts and progress made to reduce violence toward unions, the people of Colombia aren't deserving of the lower costs, increased jobs, and greater diversity of products that come with free trade. The Republicans, similarly, talk about it as a reward for good government and approaches it from a geopolitical standpoint. As the article points out, so often the debates revolve around, to me at least, the secondary issues surrounding free trade. So rarely do we talk about the merits of free trade. What we need in this country are political leaders that try to educate instead of pander. Instead of trying to reflect the will of the people and play to their fears, try to shape the will of the people through education. Of course, that is very romantic and idealistic and may never/probably won't ever happen, but I think it's a worthy goal.


"Biofueling Poverty" New York Sun Editorial (HT: Club for Growth)


"[T]he role the politically manufactured boom in biofuels has played strikes us as the one most worthy of emphasis. No one doubts the sincerity of those who want to wean America off its dependence on foreign oil and protect the environment from the damage done by burning fossil fuels. However, in biofuels, environmental advocates have turned to a solution that is worse than fossil fuels regarding carbon emissions, only marginally effective in decreasing foreign oil dependence, introduces other problems that are proving more serious, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars in subsidies...


As it is, the American government is spending billions of dollars at home to subsidize ethanol production that drives the worldwide price of corn higher, creating a need for America to spend billions of dollars more alleviating starvation overseas...

We're not saying that starving Africans should take priority over America's energy security needs. But the law of unintended consequences is something to keep in mind the next time the politicians decide a law is needed to fix another sector of the American economy. If an energy bill that subsidizes corn production in Iowa can cause bread riots in Egypt, who can image the results when lawmakers get together to "fix" health care or the housing market?"


This is problem number one whenever we let the government pick the winner. By assuming they are smarter than everyone else (read: the market), we give them leeway to spend tax dollars on something that seems all well and good on paper but doesn't work in the real world. This is really just a microcosm of socialist planners. They thought that, even with the best possible intentions, they could pick the most efficient way to allocate resources and ensure the most prosperous outcomes for its citizens. By eliminating privately-invested capital wasted in projects that (they could plainly see) had no future, they could ensure more money would be available for projects in the best interest of society as a whole.


This podcast talks about the different aspects of private v. public risk-taking and how public often misses the mark. It gave the example of the computer back in the 70's. If government had been the one deciding whether or not to invest in computers for home use, they probably would have never gotten off the ground. (Or, at least it would still be awhile coming.) It kind of ties back to their concluding argument about housing and healthcare. If government has such a hard time "getting it right" on food, why do we think they can get something as complex as the housing and health care industry right?


"McCain’s Gas-Tax Plan May Be a Clunker" Washington Wire:


"The Arizona Republican and presumptive presidential nominee today urged Congress to institute a “gas-tax holiday” by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day."


A lot of people voiced a lot of concerns in the comments section with a plan like this. I posed the following comment:


"I think this is a good idea. First, it won’t significantly increase gas consumption because gas consumption is fairly inelastic with price over the short run. In other words, for a short time of five months (Memorial Day to Labor Day), we won’t be consuming much more gas. There might be more driving vacations than there would have otherwise been, but it would still be at a level lower than what it was last year (because gas prices have gone up more per gallon than the amount of the tax per gallon).

Second, the oil companies won’t realize tons of profit all of a sudden because 1) gas consumption won’t increase much and 2) they won’t simply raise prices to “fill the void” as someone said. If they could just raise prices at will, why aren’t we paying $5 or $6 per gallon instead of $3.50 or so? The market for gasoline doesn’t work that way.

Third, I’m not concerned that the money we won’t be spending on roads in the next five months is going to have a discernable impact on our “crumbling infrastructure”. How many miles of roads and bridges do we have in this country? How many infrastructure accidents do we have?

Fourth, from the blog: “Relief — or fewer jobs? According to a white paper circulated on Capitol Hill last week by the U.S. Transportation Department, every $1 billion of federal highway investment supports 34,779 jobs.” This is bogus. All that money people are saving on taxes, where does it go? If to their savings account, that’s more available to be invested by others (via banks) and creates jobs. If spent, isn’t that the whole point of the stimulus plan? I don’t think the stimulus plan will necessarily stimulate itself because it requires either debt of inflation to happen, but earned money in someone’s pocket is a good thing and consumption goes a long way toward creating jobs."


"At Least He's Good on Trade" Sallie James at Cato:


"To his credit, Senator McCain has also avoided the easy and politically tempting practice of railing against trade deals on the campaign trail, including in Michigan where the political prize probably required it."


This was one of my problems with Romney.


"The World at 350 ppm Carbon Dioxide" by Indur Goklany at Cato:


"If we can go back to 350 ppm without giving up the real and tangible advances in human well-being that have accrued since that “benchmark” was passed, I’d have nothing against that, but based on the precautionary principle, one needs a stronger reason than the speculative catastrophes that Hansen is concerned “may begin to come into play on time scales as short as centuries or less,” whatever that means."


He provides a list of worldwide improvements in our standard of living since 1988, the time when Hansen said we were at the max CO2 output to avoid the calamities. The effect of cutting CO2 back to 1988 levels ensures most of the world never emerges from poverty.