Monthly Archives: November 2009

Regulation of the Day 76: Generic Medication for Farm Animals

If you put chlortetracycline powder in your farm animals’ drinking water to prevent disease, please be aware that a new federal rule now allows you to buy a generic version of the powder if you wish.

Actually, I probably shouldn’t be calling that rule a “rule.” As the new rule states:

This rule does not meet the definition of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’

Despite the rule being called a rule twice in one sentence, it really isn’t a rule. Probably best to let logicians sort that one out.

The Economics of Black Friday

This year’s Black Friday was much more peaceful than last year’s. No tramplings were reported. There was a fight at a Wal-Mart in the wee hours, unfortunately. The store was temporarily closed, which led to this lovely scene:

[P]eople began “yelling and screaming,” pounding on the glass doors and trying to sneak into the store through the lawn and garden section. Store managers had to be sent outside to try to calm the crowd, workers said.

Which brings us to Black Friday’s most important economics lesson: not all costs are measured in money. Yes, the discounts to be had can be great. But you pay a price for them. The price can be waiting outside in the cold. It could be the crowds, the parking, or the long checkout lines. In rare cases like today’s Wal-Mart near-riot, safety becomes an issue.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Suppose the people who camp out all night end up saving $40 on their purchases. If they spend eight hours suffering in the cold, that’s a savings of only $5 per hour. Less than minimum wage. Some people don’t place much value on their time, it seems.

Or, for some people, Black Friday’s pomp, circumstance, and sales are a cultural experience. They’re worth all the trouble. For other people, they’re not. Wherever you stand, non-price costs should be factored into your shopping habits. Otherwise you just might be getting ripped off.

The Obvious Reply Is “No I Didn’t”

“No college sophomore has ever turned in a paper denying the existence of free will without first choosing to do so.”

-Stephen Landsburg, The Big Questions, p. 68.

(Hat tip to my fiancée’s quick wit)

500th Post

If WordPress’ statistics are right, this is the 500th post here at Inertia Wins. This blog has changed quite a bit since I started it in 2005. Mostly for the better, I hope. Last month’s redesign has gotten a lot of positive feedback, and the traffic has well exceeded my expectations (tell your friends!). The new About and Publications sections are handy additions. More new features are on the way.

I also thought I’d take this opportunity to look back at a few of this blog’s highlights. Hopefully old readers and new will find something to enjoy.

-In one of my first posts, 2005’s “Is This Grounds for Pessimism?“, I recount one of my many learning experiences on Capitol Hill.

-A quick look through the category “The Partisan Mind” should dispel the notion that I am a Democratic or Republican party hack. I’ve been accused of being both over the years.

-For my views on executive power, soured by the experiences of the Bush and Clinton years, see “Why Good Men Don’t Become President Anymore,” written on the day of President Obama’s inauguration.

-Echoes of Mencken in one of my favorite lines I’ve ever written. The post was in response a comparison of the presidency to a monarchy: “Presidents are unremarkable creatures. Borne of much talent for campaigning and little for governing, more love for power than for principle, and the unyielding belief that they know best, presidents have the worst kind of hubris. This is perhaps their only regal trait.” The whole post is here.

-Channeling Charles Darwin, the French Enlightenment, and Austrian-school views on consumer sovereignty, I explain why most news coverage is shallow and overly pessimistic.

-I remain particularly proud of this letter to the editor from 2007, even though it was never published.

-On Earth Day of 2008, I explain what has become known around the office as my certainty principle.

-And finally, my ongoing Regulation of the Day feature. 75 dumb rules and counting.

More to come on all those fronts and more. Much more. Thanks for reading.

Happy Birthday, Carl Sagan

I’m a bit late on this, but Carl Sagan would have turned 75 on November 9. The Skeptic Society’s Michael Shermer has set up a nice tribute to him.

The thing I admire most about Carl Sagan isn’t his academic credentials, impressive though they were. It’s that he wasn’t afraid to be a popularizer. In fact, he embraced it. He has been an inspiration for what I hope to accomplish in my own professional life.

Will Durant’s book The Story of Philosophy is credited with introducing more people to its subject than any other book. What Will Durant did for philosophy (and later, with his wife Ariel Durant, history), Carl Sagan did for astronomy.

Some pointy-nosed academics looked down on Sagan for pandering to the masses. But Sagan did more in his too-short life to actually educate people than the lot of them combined. How many of those same disdainful academics were inspired to forge a career in science because of Carl Sagan? For a subject as esoteric as cosmology, this is no small achievement.

People who work in economics or public policy would do well to pay attention not just to what Carl Sagan did, but to how he did it. Intellectuals from all disciplines should follow the sterling example set by Carl Sagan.

Brett Favre: Psychological Terrorist Weapon?

WTMJ’s headline: Detainees at Camp in Iraq Use Favre To Tease Wisconsin Soldiers

According to a military official, detainees at a Wisconsin National Guard camp in Iraq are using Brett Favre as a manner of getting at the guard troops there.

“They know Favre by name,” said First Lieutenant Tim Boehnen, who is from New Richmond, Wis.

“One of the big words they know now is shenanigan. They’ll constantly talk about ‘Favre shenanigans,’ ‘He’s so good for the Vikings,’ and ‘The Packers have got to really feel bad about that one.’ “

(Hat tip: Ivan Osorio)

The Partisan Deficit

When Republicans are in the White House, Paul Krugman thinks budget deficits are bad. When a Democrat is in the White House, deficits are no problem at all.

Correctly noting in 2005 that the Bush deficits were “comparable to the worst we’ve ever seen in this country,” Krugman worried that investor confidence would wilt under the difficulty of paying back such massive obligations.

Now that President Obama has tripled the Bush deficits, he has a column poo-pooing deficit worriers as “being terrorized by a phantom menace — a threat that exists only in their minds.” Investor confidence will be just fine.

Would he be so sanguine if a Republican president ran up a $1,400,000,000,000 budget deficit in his first year in office? The party in power has nothing to do with whether deficits are good or bad. Deficits are either a problem or they aren’t.

Krugman’s partisanship is regrettable. What’s more regrettable is that it is taken seriously. Such is the tragedy of the partisan mind.

Illegal Immigration: Make it Legal

The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby wrote a wonderful column yesterday that highlights the inconsistent stance of many conservatives when it comes to immigration:

If Republicans really believe, as Baker says, that “it doesn’t make any sense’’ to allow illegal immigrants to enjoy the same benefits as other state residents, why stop with in-state tuition? Why not bar them from driving on state highways? From camping in state parks? From using libraries?

Of course illegal immigration is a problem. But it can only be solved by overhauling our dysfunctional immigration laws, not by demonizing or scapegoating illegal immigrants. Those immigrants didn’t come here in order to be lawbreakers; they broke a law in order to come here. That’s a distinction with a crucial difference – one that sensible and principled conservatives should be able to understand.

A point of my own to add: many conservatives say they have no problem with immigration itself. Just illegal immigration. Often, this isn’t actually true. Here’s a thought experiment: suppose the definition of legality were changed overnight. Suppose the twelve million men, women, and children currently here illegally are now, suddenly, legal.

People who really are only against illegal immigration will now welcome these new citizens to America with open arms. After all, they’re legal now.

But many conservative immigration opponents don’t think that way, even though they use that reasonable-sounding legality argument. They oppose legalization. They tar it as “amnesty.”

That means some factor other than legality plays into their opinion. They shouldn’t be using it as an argument. Maybe they believe that the U.S. is overpopulated (it isn’t). A belief that immigrants consume more public services than they pay for in taxes (in the long run, they don’t). Whatever. Let the intellectual battle over immigration move to those fronts, then. The legality argument is just a smokescreen. It is the triumph of semantics over substance.

Immigration is either good or bad for America. This is true whether or not the laws in the books reflect that. That is the substance of the matter. I happen to think immigration is an almost unmitigated blessing. And I will defend that view with logic and data. Not an appeal to a dysfunctional legal code rooted in obsolete Progressive-era thought.

Regulation of the Day 75: Food Containers

The Code of Federal Regulations has 28 sections on food containers. Metal, glass, plastic, flexible, rigid – if you can put food in it, there are rules for it.

Recent innovations, such as easy-open tabs on cans, have prompted the Department of Agriculture to issue a 13-page update to its food container inspection regulations. If you have some spare time on your hands, you can have a look by clicking here.

The Economic Way of Thinking about Stimulus Packages, Part II

In light of the news about stimulus job creation statistics not being as advertised — complete with made-up Congressional districts — I offer another surprisingly relevant insight from Mises’ Human Action. Turns out there is a reason stimulus advocates are resorting to trickery:

“If government spending for public works is financed by taxing the citizens or borrowing from them, the citizens’ power to spend and invest is curtailed to the same extent as that of the public treasury expands. No additional jobs are created.”

-Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, 4th ed., (Irvington-on-Hudson New York: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996 [1949], p. 776.