Doing Good vs. Looking Good

E.J. Dionne’s latest column praises Maryland governor Martin O’Malley. It begins:

Imagine a place where the leading politician pokes fun at those who “regard all taxes as a pestilence, a plague or a disease.”

Imagine the same politician saying: “Not one of us wants to pay more in taxes. But you know what we want even less? What we want even less is to leave our country to our kids in a worsened condition.”

O’Malley probably thinks he looks Pragmatic and Moderate. That will get him Votes, which are a politican’s lifeblood. Forgive me then, for being more concerned with being correct than popular.

O’Malley gives us a choice here between keeping taxes low and bettering the country – for the children, natch. It is a false choice.

Look at some of Maryland’s new spending initiatives the tax increase will fund: more money for health care. More money for education. Transportation. Environmental cleanup. Wonderful things all. But O’Malley is choosing the wrong means for pursuing these ends.

For example, Maryland has some lousy public schools, especially in Baltimore. But giving them more money literally rewards their failure. This problem is systemic; the solution then is to get government out of the education business. Even if it isn’t Pragmatic or Moderate.

And we’ve all heard the stories about how well government health care intiatives work – they don’t. And when something doesn’t work, you should stop doing it. Even if it costs you Votes.

Someone should tell Governor O’Malley that it is better to do good than to look good. Cut spending. The $550m in cuts this year is a good start, even if it’s negated by other increases. After spending is down and the deficit is under control, cut taxes. The children will thank you for it later.

Limiting Political Speech

The AP reports that the FEC is now allowing third-party political advertisements “that name candidates in the days before elections.” This change is because of a June Supreme Court decision that declared the restrictions unconstitutional.

This is America. And to think McCain-Feingold actually made it a federal crime to name a candidate in an ad within 60 days of an election (30 days for primaries) – unless the ad came from a candidate’s official campaign. Or as Ed Crane put it, no criticizing incumbents!

This is a welcome change in FEC policy, but there are still some undue speech restrictions. The ads may only run “provided the overall message is a call to action on a public policy issue.” Two steps forward, one step back, I guess.

Remember the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”

Progressively Sloppy

A professor from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh has an interesting column in his local paper’s site. In his own words, he favors “a progressive tax system that allows us to pool our resources to acquire goods and services we couldn’t afford otherwise.”

To reinforce his point, he pays $9,000 in property, income, and sales taxes, and puts a value of $58,700 on services he receives from the government.

All well and good, but there are holes in his argument:

Taxes are not the only way to pool resources. Regarding police protection, he says, “Of course you could get together with nine of your neighbors and cut [the cost] to $21,900. But wouldn’t that be pooling resources like with taxes?” Does he really think coercive taxation is the only way people will pool their resources? If this were so, we would not have private groups, firms, or associations of any kind. Since these things do in fact exist, there has to be a flaw in the professor’s reasoning. A big one, in this case.

He understates his expenses. He paid a lot more than just property, income and sales taxes. We have gas taxes, excise taxes, utility taxes, you name it. He also pays corporate taxes on everything he buys; companies pass on their costs to their customers. We consumers pay for every cent of corporate tax.

He overstates his benefits. He compares the local $4,100/year private school to the local public school (typically $9,000+/year), as though they generate the same quality of education.

Sloppy reasoning all around.

Barry Bonds Indicted

The indictment is online here.

I’m no fan of Barry Bonds, but I fail to see why there should be legal consequences for his (alleged, but highly probable) steroid use. Upon proving his guilt, Major League Baseball should punish him for breaking the rules of the game.

But what Bonds decides to put in his body should not be a criminal matter. The prosecutors should drop their case.

Happy 60th Birthday, P.J. O’Rourke!

A few of his pithier quotations:

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”

“The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”

“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

“Term limits aren’t enough. We need jail.”

Inflation? Huh?

I had two separate conversations yesterday on the nature of inflation… such is the state of my life. It’s one of those topics that’s actually pretty easy to understand, but economists have made incomprehensible. This failure is depressingly common.

Anyway – figured I’d share a way of explaining it that econodorks and non-econodorks alike always seem to respond to.

Money is a unit of measure, like an inch or a foot or a kilogram. Instead of distance or weight, money measures wealth. It is not itself wealth, but only a measure of it; wealth exists independently of money. What inflation does is change the value of the unit of measure, without changing the amount of wealth that actually exists.

I’m about six feet tall. Let’s say I want to be ten feet tall. I can’t actually grow taller, so I’d have to redefine feet and inches. By reducing the value of the foot, I can be ten feet tall without actually having to grow. Put another way, it would take more feet to describe the same amount of height.

As with height, so with money. Inflation means that more dollars are required to describe the same amount of wealth. When new money is printed faster than new wealth is created, each dollar describes less wealth, and the result is inflation.

There are other causes, obviously, but that’s by far the biggest one.

While we’re on the subject, Cato’s annual monetary conference is today. Worth checking out.

Global Warming and Obesity: Together at Last

The AP has a gem of a story entitled “Fighting fat and climate change,” where the author combines two of today’s more popular scare stories.

The science doesn’t seem very rigorous: “The average person walking half an hour a day [instead of driving] would lose about 13 pounds a year.” Were I to follow this advice, I would apparently disappear from the face of the earth after about 13 years.

Alas, the piece is pessimistic about the people using their cars less and eating less red meat. Scientist Kristie Ebi laments that “It turns out changing people’s habits is very hard.”

She’s right. And I’d appreciate it if she’d stop trying. Thousands of people still die of malaria every year. Over a billion people do not have access to clean water. And Ebi gets worked up about… using less gasoline. Priorities, please.

Pessimistic Bias

One of the claims Bryan Caplan makes in The Myth of the Rational Voter is that people overwhelmingly tend to think the economy is in worse shape than it actually is. He calls this pessimistic bias.

George Will’s Newsweek column puts some fresh numbers on pessimistic bias:

“Recent polls, taken just before the announcements that third-quarter growth was a robust 3.9 percent and that 166,000 jobs were created in October, showed that up to 46 percent of Americans think the economy is in a recession.”

This is a significant, systematic intellectual error on the part of the public. We need to fix it.

As I’ve said earlier, we could blame the media for this, with all of the dire warnings and misleading headlines out there, but that would be a mistake. They’re just giving the people what they want. We humans seem to have an innate psychological predisposition towards doom and gloom. The only way I can think of to counteract pessimistic bias is with facts.

Too bad no one listens.

EVERYBODY PANIC

CNN.com has a scary homepage story today entitled Stock Selloff Deepens.

The headline is misleading. One cannot sell something without a buyer. The headline could just as easily read read “Stock Buyup Deepens,” but that would also be misleading. It should simply note that trading volume is above average today. And despite a 415 point drop, the Dow is still over 12,000, not too far from its record high.

My hunch is that the story’s ominous tone is intentional, even though it is false. A scare-prone investor would be more likely to click on the story if it forecasts impending doom than if it said, “everything’s fine, nothing to see here.”

One could take an anti-corporate stance here. CNN, after all, is trumping up a non-story and scaring people for no reason other than to boost their traffic – and their ad revenues.

Such a stance is too shallow to be correct, though. Going a level deeper, the blame here lies on the human condition itself. As a survival mechanism, people pay attention to things they perceive to be threatening, and they tend to ignore non-threats.

Add to this Say’s Law, which in simplified form, says that where there is a demand, someone will supply it. CNN sees demand for doom-and-gloom, and caters to it. A company that did not do this would go out of business. Natural selection processes would ensure that mostly doom-and-gloom news is supplied, since there is less demand for sunshine and happiness.

The real world, which is neither all doom nor all sunshine, is given short shrift.

In other words, I’m afraid we’re doomed to lousy news coverage forever. And this is just one reason why I don’t watch cable news.

I’m sure this Human Nature + Say’s Law + Darwin framework could be applied to other areas, but I’ll save that for another time.

What Makes Someone Right or Wrong?

The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036

To the Editor:

Much as I enjoy conservative-bashing, I was disappointed in Paul Krugman’s October 5 column, “Conservatives Are Such Jokers.” He almost reflexively assumes that people who disagree with him have checkered motives. He comes off as reluctant to argue policies on their merits, in this case the SCHIP children’s health insurance program.

Why so quick to question his opponents’ motives? SCHIP opponents have put forward arguments that are either right or wrong. Motives have nothing to do with whether those arguments are right or wrong.

SCHIP opponents don’t like the program because they don’t think it will improve childrens’ health outcomes. The disagreement is a question of means, not ends. Does anyone actually favor having sicker children?

While Mr. Krugman clearly favors expanding the SCHIP program, he doesn’t really say why. I invite him to make his case – on the merits.

Ryan Young
Arlington, VA