"On this Earth Day, I celebrate capitalism -- the institution that, far more than any other, has made human lives clean, safe, dignified, and culturally rich. Capitalism is also responsible for giving people the wealth and leisure to permit them to mis-perceive nature as loving and bountiful, and to enjoy nature in a way that few of our pre-industrial ancestors could ever have enjoyed it...
Before refrigeration, people ran enormous risks of ingesting deadly bacteria whenever they ate meat or dairy products. Refrigeration has dramatically reduced the bacteria pollution that constantly haunted our pre-twentieth-century forebears."
And his list goes on. I knew he'd have something to say about Earth Day, especially after this post. I love nature and believe it should be respected. I don't, however, believe it should be placed above mankind.
"Benedict and Lou" by Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek:
"Mr. Dobbs fulminated that 'I really don't appreciate the bad manners of a guest [the Pope] telling me in this country and my fellow citizens what to do.'
Memo to Mr. Dobbs: I really don't appreciate your bad-mannered habit of incessantly telling me, my family, and my friends what to do. If we want to hire - or to befriend, or to live with, or simply to enjoy as neighbors - non-Americans in our own hometowns, you rudely tell us that we should not be allowed to do so. You insult us with myth-laden bombast and uninformed accusations. The Pope, in this case, spoke out for greater freedom of association; you continue to champion obnoxious restrictions on this important freedom."
"Texas leads list for Forture 500 headquarters" Houston Chronicle (HT: Club for Growth)
"The Lone Star State passed New York as home to the most big companies in the latest list compiled by Fortune magazine.
Texas now boasts 58 headquarters, three more than New York, the previous No. 1, and California, with 52. The Houston area has 26 of the companies.
Business experts say it's a matter of simple economics — Texas attracts companies with its low taxes, affordable land and large labor force."
Of course it's simple economics. That and a business-friendly environment. This article in the WSJ back in March says it all:
"So tomorrow the eyes of America will be on these two states moving in different directions. Ohio has an economy burdened by high taxes and work rules that impose heavy costs on employers. Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn't impose unions on business and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a new plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn't even a close call.
The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio."
"Earmark ban push prompts GOP turmoil" by Patrick O'Connor and John Bresnahan at Politico (HT: Club for Growth):
"The call to arms is particularly sensitive for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who fell short earlier this year when he challenged his Republican colleagues to accept a moratorium while members study the annual earmarking process. Boehner gave ground during the GOP’s annual retreat in West Virginia in January, after some of the members in attendance raised questions about the effectiveness — and the potential political pitfalls — of a unilateral disarmament."
Everyone is worried about doing the political expedient thing rather than the right thing. Instead of only swearing off earmarks, they should go back to their states and districts and educate the people about the problems with earmarks. But they're afraid they will lose political power. If you lose political power by doing the right thing, that's OK. I can't think of any better ways to serve the best interests of your country as an elected official than that. The goal shouldn't be to stay in power. If it is, our elected officials will be more concerned with appeasing special interests that passing good legislation.
"Analysis of John McCain's Economic Plan" by John Tamny at Real Clear Markets (HT: Club for Growth):
"When we consider this reality, a cut in corporate rates is arguably one of McCain’s best policy positions for making it easier for corporations to form stateside. What’s a near certainty is that Bill Gates could not have created what became Microsoft in Paris or Bombay, so anything that makes incorporations easier here will accrue to both ours and the world’s economy. Notably, McCain gets immigration right too, so the ideal scenario for him over the long-term would be to push liberalized immigration rules that make efforts to work in the U.S. legal. A combination of corporate tax cuts and legalized work would in time lead to a revitalized entrepreneurial sector that would once again make the U.S. economy the envy of the world...
As for McCain’s desire to allow immediate expensing of business-equipment purchases, this is faulty industrial policy run amok made even worse considering McCain's stated aversion to aiding special interests. Put simply, we shouldn’t be complicating the tax code even more with rules that favor one business-constituent group over others. Secondly, it’s bad policy. The reality is that American business success stories from Google to FedEx to Goldman Sachs are successes of the mind, as opposed to equipment. Rather than pushing a Keynesian plan meant to stimulate equipment purchases, politicians should be closing special-interest loopholes in favor of reform that reduces the success penalty without regard to the kind of commerce engaged in...
One area to look is anti-trust given McCain’s idolization of Teddy Roosevelt. Despite the fact that anti-trust rules arguably weigh on our economy more than the most governmental policies, if as president McCain were to nose his way into pay, he logically wouldn’t stop there...
Indeed, while it’s presently fashionable to question the markets and the signals they provide, as a nation of investors we can rest assured that no matter who’s elected, the often harsh message of the markets will presumably restrain any of our choices from causing too much harm."
"The Case for Ending Ethanol Subsidies" by Diana Furchtgott-Roth at The American (HT: Club for Growth):
"Yet President Bush still believes in ethanol. “We worked with Congress to pass energy legislation that specifies a new fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022,” he said in his speech last week. “This should provide an incentive for shifting to a new generation of fuels like cellulosic ethanol that will reduce concerns about food prices and the environment.”
The problem is that the new generation of biofuels is not yet commercially viable. When it becomes viable, perhaps with the help of government-funded research, it will undoubtedly succeed without government mandates."
The biggest problem is that government thinks it can specify what's best. It's the basic idea behind the title of Hayek's The Fatal Conceit: that government knows better than the rest of us. They believe that in their positions as elected officials (or even unelected buereaucrats) they are afforded a view of the world that the rest of us aren't privy to enjoy. They then feel overconfident in those views and hence the solutions they come up with. This is why I don't trust government.
"Government Involvement Should Be Expelled" by Neal McCluskey at Cato:
"But does this mean we should force all schools to teach about, and governments to fund, alternatives to evolution, like Intelligent Design, or for that matter such dubious fields as alchemy, or divining-rod theory? Of course not! Some scientific theories have much more merit—and supporting evidence—than others. But it must be scientists, along with voluntary, private backers, and parents and college students with free educational choice, who decide what science is good enough to learn and fund. In other words, it must be “natural” scientific selection—not selection driven by politics, or the slickest, most rabble-rousing documentary—that determines which theories live, and which die."
I do have a problem with people trying to force creationism and intelligent design into public schools. While I believe in the creation, I don't think it's the school's place. Science should be taught in school and religion should be taught at home. Parent's should be more concerned about what they are doing themselves to build the faith of their children and not rely on the state to supplement it for them.
"Message to Hillary: Americans Still Make Lots of Things" by Dan Griswold at Cato:
"On the eve of today’s crucial Pennsylvania primary, here is how the Boston Globe described a scene at a Hillary Clinton event in the western side of the state:
"We need to still be a manufacturing nation,” she said at a rally in downtown Pittsburgh yesterday, as a woman in the crowd shouted “Right on!” “I don’t think a country that doesn’t make things can remain strong and vibrant and leading in the global economy.”
Right on? Not exactly. Implied in Clinton’s remark is that manufacturing has been in decline and that we are in danger of becoming a nation “that doesn’t make things.”
One huge problem with her statement is that manufacturing output in the United States has continued to EXPAND in recent decades. According to the Federal Reserve Board, America’s factories produced 30 percent more in real output in 2007 than a decade earlier and three times more than in the 1960s...
The real beef of the Democratic candidates and their union allies is that all that stuff was made with fewer unionized workers than in years passed. We can make more and better things with fewer workers because of soaring productivity."
"The Real Joe McCarthy" WSJ op-ed by Ronald Kessler:
The Army-McCarthy hearings followed a pattern, notes Donald A. Ritchie, associate historian of the Senate. Typically, McCarthy held hearings in executive session first, "like a dress rehearsal," says Mr. Ritchie, who studied the transcripts of the hearings. Mostly McCarthy didn't have any hard evidence against the people he was interrogating; he just hoped to get them to contradict themselves or to take the Fifth Amendment, or to confess.
"He interviewed about 500 people in closed session," Mr. Ritchie told me. "He called about 300 people to public session."
"After they'd testified in closed session, he'd go out in the hall, and he'd tell the waiting press what had just happened," Mr. Ritchie says. "We looked at both the New York Times's and the Chicago Tribune's accounts and then we compared that to what actually went on inside the hearings. What he told the press grossly exaggerated what took place."
This is why powerful governments are a problem. They can use that power for good or bad, and they have the ability to destroy innocent people. It reminds me of a story in "Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson" (great book by the way, even though I can't stand LBJ despite his political genius) of how he effectively destroyed Leland Olds, saying he was a Communist, for political gain. Disgusting.
No comments:
Post a Comment