Disqus - Latest Comments for Swimmy

Re: What’s the Point of Civil Society When the State Can Do it Worse for More?

Swimmy — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 06:02:25 -0000

What I find funny is the suggestion that the world's most successful investor is now malinvesting his money. Something tells me Warren Buffet knows a little more about it than Chait. Another howler is when he suggests that business owners in the '60s were less greedy than they are now. They were civic-minded! No, they didn't accept regulations because they saw opportunities to manipulate the government to shut out competitors. Not at all.

What world does this guy live in?

I'll give him something, though. I saw a similar point made not too long ago by Alexander Cockburn: Buffet could indeed do more for impoverished Africans by giving his money to the government. How?

"At the moment it seems that the Gates couple's core focus is the war on AIDS and malaria, both ravaging Africa. How to improve the Dark Continent's overall well-being? America's senators and representatives can be bought for bargain-basement sums. A modest disbursement by the Gates Foundation--let us say $50,000 for each senator and $20,000 for each rep--would most certainly buy enough votes to end the current government subsidy, $4.5 billion for 2004, to cotton growers. The entire crop that year, the last for which figures are available, was worth $5.9 billion and the subsidy enables US growers to export three-quarters of their harvest and control about 40 percent of world trade, thus destroying the farm economies of countries like Mozambique, Benin and Mali....With overthrow of the cotton subsidy as a pilot program, Gates could launch a wider onslaught on the subsidies doled out to large wheat, rice and corn growers."

(Original post here: http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07032006.html)

Re: Boudreaux’s Time Machine

Swimmy — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:40:27 -0000

I regularly feel jealous of the people of future generations. They're going to be so much more wealthy, have so much neater stuff, and I'm stuck here.

Re: The Contradiction of Expelled

Swimmy — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:28:57 -0000

An excellent point. According to reports, during the interview with Dawkins in Expelled, he is asked the best argument he can imagine in favor of ID. He constructs a story about space aliens seeding life onto planet earth. Stein takes this as free reign for mockery: "Hear that? Richard Dawkins believes in aaaaaaalieeeeeens!"

But the movie's mockery emphatically reinforces the contradiction explained here. If ID is really about the science of irreducible complexity, space aliens deserve as fair a shake as God. Some biologist somewhere might give them that shake, but Ben Stein and Mark Mathis don't. Neither will the vast majority of this movie's target audience.

Re: Missing Portraits

Swimmy — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:43:16 -0000

This reminds me of an argument from Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed:

"Over the years, studies have repeatedly shown people in the mass media to be overwhelmingly of the political left but this kind of media bias may not be as important as a bias inherent in the way both broadcast and print media operate. Radio, television, and motion pictures can readily dramatize an indvidual situation, in a way in which the larger relationships and the implicit assumptions behind that situations cannot be dramatized. For example, the media cannot identify, much less dramatize, all those individuals who would have come down with some deadly disease if it were not for their being vaccinated. But nothing is easier to dramatize than the rare individual who caught the disease from the vaccine itself and is now devastated by illness, physically or mentally crippled, or dying. When the government creates some new program, nothing is easier than to show whatever benefits that program produces. Indeed, those who run the program will be more than cooperative in bringing those benefits to the attention of the media. But it is virtually impossible to trace the taxes that paid for the program back to their sources and to show the alternative uses of that same money that could have been far more beneficial."

This goes on for several more pages, and is a very convincing argument regarding media presentation and its relationship to reality. I'm not a crucify-the-media person because of this inherent bias, but every time I see a face of a person rather than a graph, I know to be wary.

Re: Protectionism Deserves an XXX Rating

Swimmy — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:40:05 -0000

"The practice was so standard in one Bangladeshi theater that, when a movie was shown there without the sex scenes, the audience rioted and burned the theater down."

Let's hear it for preserving culture.

Re: Please Do Your Job

Swimmy — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:13:21 -0000

save_the_rustbelt:

Your point seems to be that people with few employable skills should not be allowed to work because Republicans benefit from it. Am I reading that right?

Re: Please Do Your Job

Swimmy — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:20:05 -0000

"The Bush administrative is not in any real sense conservative, they are crony capitalists stacking the deck for their friends."

This is actually a valid point, though I don't think in the way you intended it to be. The Bush administration is not in any real sense conservative, and they are undoubtedly, like most politicians, guilty of handing out favors for their friends.

This hardly makes them capitalists, though. Capitalism is that thing where the government doesn't regulate / help businesses in the market. "Outsourcing" to India is not a government initiative and can not be blamed on a nebulous "we"; it is individuals and businesses voluntarily cooperating with each other for mutual gain. Were the Bush administration to support legislation to prevent this, *that* would be placating their friends, much like they did with the steel tariff.

Re: Conservative Worldview

Swimmy — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:28:38 -0000

Indeed. I like the way he closed, though, as I found the car anecdote to be rather accurate; just the other day, an internet acquaintence remarked that someone offered her a chocolate bar. Though she was cranky from hunger and would enjoy some candy, all she could think about was all the blood and pus contained in the milk used to make the chocolate, and the horrible treatment of the cow.

However, I would conjecture that conservatives do not worry enough - about threats to their liberty, for instance. The fact that so many conservatives aren't even concerned that there are no conservatives in Washington might have something to do with this happiness factor.

Re: Conservative Worldview

Swimmy — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:18:55 -0000

Julian Sanchez, of Reason, wrote an article casting the failures of modern conservatives in light of Thomas Sowell's theory of constrained vs. unconstrained visions. Using that particular guideline, Will is clearly a "constrained" visionist. Most of his modern political kin certainly aren't.

http://www.reason.com/links/links022406.shtml

It's worth a read, even if you don't buy into Sowell's thesis.

Re: Do minimum wages cause unemployment?

Swimmy — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:53:09 -0000

An important consideration in this is the *cost of living* in each state as well. My intuition is that if the cost of living in a particular state is lower than the average, the wage rates in that state will also be lower. Therefore, minimum wage will do the most damage in those states which have a lower cost of living and little in those states which have a high cost of living.

Survey says?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883960.html

It's not completely determinate, but there's certainly some evidence for this. Note that the cost of living in Hawaii is very large; wage rates are probably higher and the minimum wage doesn't matter. Note also the cost of living in some of the states with more unemployment - Mississippi, Michigan, Ohio, Louisiana - are just a little below or a little above the average.

This is hardly true universally, though. Alaska has a relatively high standard of living and unemployment. (Its minimum wage is higher than the federal). The same is true for D.C. And this isn't a scientific study in any way - I'm using the cost of living in major cities of several states, not the average for the entire state. This probably inflates it quite a bit. I was unable to find a rank of the cost of living per state or per smaller towns in states. I know it's out there, though.

So. That's something.

Re: Do minimum wages cause unemployment?

Swimmy — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:16:18 -0000

I didn't say that minimum wages are more common in higher cost states (though this seems to be the case) - I said they do the least damage there because the real wage rates are likely to be naturally higher. In lower cost states, the real wage rates are likely lower and even the federal minimum wage can cause more unemployment than a higher minimum wage in a high cost state.

In which case, you're correct. We would find industries and unions in higher cost states advocating a higher minimum wage because it will do them minimal damage, but it will force many competitors in lower cost states out.

Again, I'm not sure if the data actually supports this. Wouldn't surprise me to find there's a study or two out there.

Re: Do minimum wages cause unemployment?

Swimmy — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:28:01 -0000

And indeed there is. Though I can't find the study itself on the internet, it's called "Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Economic Activity" by Marshall Colberg. I don't know how much of it has been verified by the data. Colberg's research seems to be entirely on senator votes, not on the specific effects of the minimum wage in low and high cost cities.

GMU's own Thomas Rustici covers the argument in this paper:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj5n1/cj5n1-6.pdf

(PDF)

Re: Do minimum wages cause unemployment?

Swimmy — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:58:25 -0000

deb:

This is simply a thought experiment. No numbers have actually been crunched here. However, you are right; it is an empirical question. Just, you know. Not one that can be answered with the provided data. At all. (As several commenters and the original email already pointed out.)

Re: Do minimum wages cause unemployment?

Swimmy — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:11:26 -0000

Furthermore, Russell's hypothesis testing is actually quite relevant. That situation - and every other imaginable situation - proves that *demand curves slope downard*. This is unquestionable, a settled matter of science for which endless literature could be called upon.

What research of the minimum wage tells us is not whether or not it causes unemployment at all (because we know it does), but the degree to which unemployment rises relative to the degree to which the wage rises. In other words, it tells us just how steep or flat is the demand curve for labor. (And yes, the hypothesis that small increases in it don't do much damage is tenable.)

Re: Remember outsourcing?

Swimmy — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:08:32 -0000

Either way, pcs, I worry more about Indians than I do about you.

You know. Their country is poor and all.

Re: Remember outsourcing?

Swimmy — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:35:25 -0000

>Obviously you don't or you wouldn't be arguing against it.

Now be fair, Radical. Some people genuinely don't care about the future. "In the long run, we're all dead."

(Coincidentally, isn't it exactly this attitude that liberals chastise conservatives for regarding the environment?)

Re: De Tocqueville on the Intrinsic Value of Freedom

Swimmy — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:29:54 -0000

Cannot the Iraq war be justified with this belief?

Re: Hayek's Method

Swimmy — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:16:45 -0000

"We have a collective sense of fairness in the US and we give up freedoms/opportunities daily to adhere to these collective notions dont we??"

The answer, from a methodological individualistic perspective, is no. The words "we" and "collective" are essentially nonsense. You must specify what those words literally mean to understand who is making decisions. What you probably mean to say is that a *majority* of Americans believe in fairness and that *everyone* gives up (willingly or by threat of force) freedoms and opportunities to satisfy the whims of a majority, whatever their beliefs on inequality.

No comment on whether this is a good or bad thing. Democracy's democracy, after all. But humans are humans, not wes or collectives.

Re: Running out of oil?

Swimmy — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:20:15 -0000

I would say that the peak is a little closer than some imagine, if we're gonna go through price fixing nonsense again.

Re: The Entrepreneurial Side of Immigration

Swimmy — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:07:15 -0000

"Golden stream" is an unfortunate metaphor.

I don't believe the expense of crossing the Atlantic is comparable to crossing the Rio Grande. This doesn't invalidate the argument. The U.S. is still likely to attract entrepreneurs from other countries simply because of our relatively favorable legal practices.

Re: Growing Fast and Getting Nowhere

Swimmy — Mon, 01 May 2006 08:19:41 -0000

I have a copy of the paper and a picture of the big no-no in a nice table:

http://static.flickr.com/50/138370229_8140cc7bdc.jpg

As Patrick Sullivan mentioned, this isn't exactly fresh news. It's just one of those things people should see as a reminder of how not to use data.

Re: Growing Fast and Getting Nowhere

Swimmy — Mon, 01 May 2006 08:28:27 -0000

I forgot to mention what all the columns on the table mean. Sorry.

The "Max-Min Overtaking Time" is the number of years it will take the Soviet Union to outpace the U.S. economy under maximum Soviet growth expectations and minimum U.S. expectations. The "Max-Max Overtaking Time" is the same assuming maximum U.S. growth expectations. "Figure Number" is simply its location in the book; it's the very first table in two editions.

But the relevant column is the Starting Ratio. You would think that the book's editors would have caught on after three or four editions.

Re: Parasites

Swimmy — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:30:31 -0000

Why can't libertarians get elected? To quote a friend,

". . .between the pure platonic world and the one made out of brick and mortar and statists is this thing called 'reality' that makes incremental steps the only ones that count."

Re: Sowell on Scarcity

Swimmy — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:44:35 -0000

Steven Donegal:

I'm not so sure the problem of scarcity, by Sowell's definition, is so widely recognized. Everyone recognizes that there are physical limitations to production, true, but not everyone recognizes that our desires will always be greater than any possible non-infinite function of production. I often tell the story of a sociology professor who told the class that capitalism grants "freedom of choice" and socialism gives "freedom from want." But that is resoundingly untrue. We always want.

And this wasn't a novel concept brought up in one class. Hundreds of socialist writers have presupposed that some fundamental change in human nature will take place if we only switch economic systems. For many, capitalism creates greed: the collective goal of MAKING MONEY, above all else, is both less noble and more harmful than, say, a collective goal of taking care of people.

But to presuppose that a person will want, say, a big-screen TV when he's in a capitalist society but won't want it under socialism is absurd.

Murray Rothbard, not one of my favorite economists but certainly an entertaining writer, chronicles a few instances of the idea that the problem of scarcity will disappear under socialism:

'As Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring, communism would give "each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions." And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the "abolition of the division of labor among people...the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it."

. . .

William Godwin thought that, once private property was abolished, man would become immortal. The Marxist theoretician Karl Kautsky asserted that in the future communist society, "a new type of man will arise...a superman...an exalted man." And Leon Trotsky prophesied that under communism:

"man will become incomparably stronger, wiser, finer. His body more harmonious, his movements more rhythmical, his voice more musical.... The human average will rise to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, a Marx. Above these other heights new peaks will arise."'

(Original essay here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.... )

Re: Sowell on Scarcity

Swimmy — Fri, 12 May 2006 01:58:14 -0000

Trumpit:

You should keep in mind that knowledge is a scarce resource too. Maybe the scarcest.

A lot follows from that. Might I suggest some essays by Friedrich von Hayek?

Re: A Not-So-Timely Proposal

Swimmy — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:24:54 -0000

Those pointing out that there are non-fuel considerations to a lower speed limit are missing the point. Clinton has noted that "The 55-mile speed limit really does lower gas usage." Boudreaux was simply saying that this is irrelevant.

Perhaps the nicest thing about blogs is that they're handy for calling people out on very specific issues. It's frustrating that people expect these mini-arguments to address every aspect of whatever question.

Re: Tyler's Superman Question

Swimmy — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:38:43 -0000

I highly recommend reading the DC Elseworld "Superman: Red Son" which explores a universe in which Superman landed in the Soviet Union rather than the United States. The author intended some of the plot points to criticize the Bush administration but he actually addresses many of the Austrian critiques of socialism.

Re: Fake Science on Rage

Swimmy — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:52:46 -0000

"Are you saying that laissez faire competition in the phramceuticals industry is producing BAD RESULTS that HARM SOCIETY?"

People should be free to waste their money on medicine that quack scientists have sold them on, certainly. And libertarian bloggers should feel welcome to criticize said quacks. What should not happen is a change to our legal structure or penal system because a doctor has waved his moneymaking wand.

Re: Tyler's Superman Question

Swimmy — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:27:12 -0000

As for Macroeconomic Superman, the greatest thing he can do to promote the prosperity of the greatest number of the world's citizens is promote globalization in every country.

I guess by beating up its opponents? I don't know.

Re: Tyler's Superman Question

Swimmy — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:40:13 -0000

Roy Stogner: I imagine a Randian would argue the two are largely the same.

Re: Motives

Swimmy — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:39:26 -0000

"Diagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left, and he is likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil."

-Joseph Epstein

I'm not sure that accusation can be divided along party lines so easily, especially since the W era, but I've witnessed it firsthand several times.

Re: Motives

Swimmy — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:54:26 -0000

99:

I think you're overanalyzing. People on the right makes just as many judgements based on personal morality as those on the left, and they condemn just as many lefties as evil. See: abortion. By reducing any number of nuanced views into pro-or-anti X, where X is your favorite moral subject, everyone can quickly become good or evil. Therefore, people who are not "pro-life" are "anti-life" or "pro-death." People who oppose the welfare state or government regulations must be "anti-poor" or "pro-rich" (hence, selfish or greedy.) Those who oppose the Patriot Act or the Iraq War are "un-American" or "pro-terrorist."

Not everybody establishes dualities like this. There are many intelligent people, with any number of varying political stances, who consider the totality of their opponent's arguments and respond in kind. The problem is not confined to the left. It's no different than constructing straw-men, and I'd hope few are naïve enough to confine the straw-man fallacy to one end of the political spectrum.

Re: Challenging a Depressing Myth

Swimmy — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:09:36 -0000

I recently had a chance to read GMU professor Thomas Rustici's dissertation about the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff on farm exports and, therefore, farm banks. Indeed, Friedman and Schwartz's explanation is insufficient. This, too, adds to our understanding. To me, it all points to a very unstable banking system. But there's clearly something to be said for constitutional uncertainty; it's the same problem that many Sub-Saharan African countries share.

Re: Motives

Swimmy — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:28:38 -0000

people will always oppose capitalism so long as they think that its fundamental base, rational self-interest, is evil

The economist doesn't see rational self-interest as the basis for capitalism, but the very nature of human beings. Even if we abandoned all our current institutions and adopted a socialist government, people would still be rationally self-interested. (And that very nature would undermine whatever socialism we'd tried to establish.) I feel no need to convince people that it's moral to use their reason to attain their desired ends (whether selfish or altruistic). Only to convince them that they and others do so.

Re: Challenging a Depressing Myth

Swimmy — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:04:40 -0000

"Just for the fun of it, go fix yourself a lard sandwich, if you can find any bread or lard. While you're munching your lunch (there won't be any dinner) ask yourself, how did things get this bad?"

And the answer would be, at least during the Great Depression, "The Agricultural Adjustment Act jacked up the price of food at my expense to help a few small farmers."

Now ask yourself, "How can the government, a body made up of several branches and departments across different geographic areas, made up of numerous officials, both elected and appointed, often with opposing ideologies, goals, constituents, and interests to serve be capable of an emotion such as empathy?"

The government does not care. Individuals in the government may care, just the same as individuals in the private sector may care. The question is which, when enabled to act upon that empathy, will do the most good and the least damage.

Re: Challenging a Depressing Myth

Swimmy — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:18:50 -0000

If you're asking for the cause of the depression, look no further than Smoot-Hawley. The trade war it initiated reduced agricultural exports immensely by 1933. Combined with the Fed's ridiculous monetary contraction, this meant devastation for farm banks. (If you examine the countries hit hardest by the depression, the bank failures almost always began at farm banks.)

Hoover's fault? Partially, and I consider him a bastard. But that is insufficient to explain the length of the Depression.

You argue that unemployment "was a product of strong productivity," but we actually have a theory that explains both high productivity and high unemployment--unionization and minimum wages encourage employment of only high-productivity workers. And Higgs presents us with a theory to explain the duration of low investor confidence--a theory which clearly builds upon the institutional explanations for economic growth which have gained increasing popularity in the last 25 years. Combined, we have an explanation for the cause and duration of the Depression, including rising production but varying unemployment during the recovery period. I find this much more convincing than the idea that aggregate demand and/or consumer confidence were too low for that entire period.

Re: Testing the Logic of Minimum-Wage Legislation

Swimmy — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:16:10 -0000

Hayek would 1) Be wary of the word "abusive" and 2) Ask what ill effects--both on the economy and human liberty--"fixing" the problem would have. Of course, in the spirit of classical liberalism, he would focus on negative rather than positive liberties.

Re: Kelo Turns One

Swimmy — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:46:32 -0000

Re: The "Federalism at work" argument

The court is meant to defer to the states those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Those that are enumerated in the Constitution must be upheld by every branch of government. The natural right to own property protected from the hand of the state except for public use and with just compensation has effectively been eliminated. There is nothing in the doctrine of Constitutional Federalism that condones this.

Re: Kelo Turns One

Swimmy — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:49:05 -0000

Sure, sure. But the 14th amendment arose to deal with the failings of the original doctrine. And, though there's some controversy over its ratification, I believe it strengthens the case for Federalism.

Re: Kelo Turns One

Swimmy — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:06:47 -0000

Hmm. All right, you've got me. I'm obviously no law scholar.

Re: Nature's Embrace?

Swimmy — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:02:38 -0000

I don't see anything particularly wrong with this woman enjoying nature, or wanting others to enjoy nature. That's just a personal preference that she'd like to share. So long as she can also accept that I hate nature and would rather sit in an air-conditioned room while playing videogames and talking to my friends on the internet, we can all get along.

Re: Stationary Bandits, Plunder, and Trade Negotiations

Swimmy — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:17:53 -0000

I read a phrase in a review not too long ago that stuck with me: "even the most cynical public choice economist. . ."

I thought it was redundant.

I've developed a tendency to immediately turn my ears off when I hear the phrase "public interest."

Re: Morality vs. Reality

Swimmy — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:02:03 -0000

Randy: Politicians are excellent at spin and voters are often too busy with their lives / own politics / dogmas / whatever to investigate economic cause-and-effect. It's doubtful that the myriad consequences arising from wage-fixes will even be tied to the laws. Politicians, of course, will just blame the retailers if anything goes screwy.

Re: Everything is Relative

Swimmy — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:38:13 -0000

"As Adam Smith wrote over 200 years ago, in the economic market people who intend to serve only their own private interests are led by an invisible hand to serve public interests where there was no part of their intention to promote. In the political market, there is an invisible hand operating as well. But unfortunately it operates in the opposite direction. People who intend only to serve the public interest are led by an invisible hand to serve private interests that was not part of their intention to promote."

-Milton Friedman, of course.

Re: Democracy & Irresponsibility

Swimmy — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:43:47 -0000

Ivan: I'd say the public-choice critique of democracy and the argument for limited government go hand-in-hand. We have no good alternative to democracy per se, but pure Rousseauian democracy is very undesirable and worth opposing. To advocate further constitutional limits we must establish the problems with majority rule.

Re: Most Depressing Fact Encountered Today

Swimmy — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:47:21 -0000

Gavin Kennedy: Adam and Smith being two of the most common names in the english language and all, you might want try try putting both names in quotes. (Which, of course, returns Marx as the winner.)

Re: Seeing the Light

Swimmy — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:27:26 -0000

Even this veto is pandering to Wal-Mart and its supporters. Though I agree with the decision, it is political and therefore by nature nothing but pandering.

Re: Balanced Reporting

Swimmy — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:35:53 -0000

I believe embargoes can be useful depending on context. As Eric Hanneken and Ivan note, the embargo probably does increase Cuban misery by some degree. The hope seems to be that the Cuban people will become miserable enough to turn on their government, but I imagine the real effect is that they just hate America more. However, in the case of South Africa, where not only the standard of living for the average Joe but that of the power elites was threatened by trade embargoes, the pressure was high to end apartheid. Unless the embargo can do some direct damage to Castro's regime (and judging by his reported net worth, it doesn't), I don't see any reason to continue it.

Re: They Should Have Gotten the Prize (Again)

Swimmy — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:46:01 -0000

Don't forget that Knight essentially beat Coase to the Coase Theorem.

Re: Phelps wins Nobel

Swimmy — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:11:03 -0000

My roommate, looking over my shoulder:

"Phelps wins Nobel? This must be a joke website."

I had to explain it was Edmund, not Fred. But can you imagine? "For his scientific discovery that God hates fags. . ."

Sorry. Just trying to make the pick less boring. Phelps (Edmund!) probably deserves it though. Along with a few others I hope will manage the feat before too long.

Re: The Society of Real Economists

Swimmy — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:59:13 -0000

James Wells: Krugman isn't a laureate. He's seen as all-knowing because he postures as all-knowing. Have you noticed how often his columns posit his view as that of "well-informed economist"s or so on? It's almost argument by bullying, and I respect him as an economist, but his articles for the general public are an eyesore.

Re: Protect Us from Protectionism

Swimmy — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:04:32 -0000

ydkmwayne: It's excellent that you're willing to spend more of your money to support something that you value. Of course, protectionism is about forcing others to do the same, no matter their values.

I found Lou Dobbs on the Daily Show last night especially amusing. He proposed that if politicians and the like are so worried about our "dependence on foreign oil," they should also be worried about our dependence on foreign steel and other goods. That should be laugh-out-loud funny for someone with an economics degree, but such are the times.

Re: Cheapness and Trade

Swimmy — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:14:44 -0000

"To say one group of people is better than another group of people is prejudicial. Saying that we have to take care of our own is more than a little biased."

It's true that this view is biased, and it's interesting that its holders take any oppositional stance as an argument for preference the other way around. On the other hand, it's something I can somewhat understand; most Americans probably felt worse about 9/11 than the east-asian tsunami.

My problem is with the "we." When protectionists declare that "we" must take care of our own, they mean that all Americans should share the same values they do, and follow particular spending patterns accordingly. It seems to fluster protectionists that, though I am an American, I prize my status as a freely-associating individual more. I do not take issue with any protectionists' personal values, only their urge to force those values on me.

(I realize how cliche it is for a libertarian to accuse those he disagrees with of collectivism, but what can I say? How else can I describe the thought that I should share an opinion and according buying habits because I am part of a particular group?)

Re: Cheapness and Trade

Swimmy — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 06:12:59 -0000

Martin, you'll have to excuse the accusations of racism from us free-traders, but do me a favor and google the name "faultolerant." Notice how on this board he claims that he wouldn't care if 1.3 billion Chinese people died, then accuses anyone who would of sino-worship. Notice how on other boards ( http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/09/m... ) he advocates the execution of Mexicans who illegally cross the border. Notice how he. . . pretty much hates people from other countries. It may be unfair to assign the same motivations to U.S. politicians throughout history, but it's not too long a leap.

Re: Economic Nationalism and War

Swimmy — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:51:19 -0000

The unfortunate thing about economic nationalism is that it fails as nationalism. The rhetoric is there, certainly: the foreigners are taking our jobs, we have to strengthen our country, etc. But the fact is, most Americans are damaged by protectionism, both consumers and businesses that use foreign imports. It is not even beneficial to the nation--only to a particular subset of interest groups and businesses within the nation, at the expense of the others. I'll never understand what makes Americans in the steel industry more important than Americans in the car industry.

Re: Milton has passed away

Swimmy — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:27:06 -0000

I don't even have the words to describe his effect on my life. He was a great man to say the least. It's a somber day, but he's the reason I am where I am, and I'll always be thankful. What a wonderful legacy he left behind.

Re: Does the Trade Deficit Destroy American Jobs?

Swimmy — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:13:14 -0000

Prof. Roberts, this is an excellent presentation. It actually reminds me of a quote from a Krugman essay on comparative advantage ( http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm ):

"During the NAFTA debates I shared a podium with an experienced, highly regarded U.S. trade negotiator, a strong NAFTA suppporter. At one point a member of the audience asked me what I thought the effect of NAFTA would be on the number of jobs in the United States; when I replied 'none', based on the standard arguments, the trade official exploded in anger: 'It's remarks like that which explain why people hate economists!'"

Re: Hope for Lou Dobbs?

Swimmy — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:43:36 -0000

faultolerant,

You name-drop companies that have had to scale back on outsourcing because of quality issues. You seem to miss that this is *exactly the point* your friendly internet economists are making. Contrary to what Bruce Hall suggests, companies must take into account these costs if they care about their bottom lines. If consumers are so angry about poor customer service that they will spend more dollars on another producer, the outsourcing company will lose profits.

As you noted, several companies have lost money because they ignored quality issues in their original estimates. In other words, the quality costs that Bruce Hall so worries about have been accounted for.

In the world you imagine, companies are so worried about labor costs that they will pursue low labor costs to whatever degree possible, even if it costs them all their money. Fortunately, this contradicts the very world you describe, in which companies like Citicorp realize their mistakes and correct them according to consumer desires.

Rather than criticizing free trade, you are emphasising the very point. Note furthermore that jobs which remain outsourced despite quality issues must be efficient. That is, consumers must prefer that situation to the alternative.

Re: Hope for Lou Dobbs?

Swimmy — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:15:13 -0000

"The difference, as I perceive it, is that the Scott Kirwins are caught in the experiment. If Dell's Scott Kirwins are "outsourced", they suffer significant economic harm... at least for a while. Dell, on the other hand, suffers a minor setback and regroups handily."

This is probably true. At the same time, a more protectionist policy will create Scott Kirwins in other countries, as well as increasing costs to consumers and company stockholders, all average joes themselves.

There are always negative effects. We're not talking about Pareto efficiency here--quite often we're talking about processes that may be painful for various individuals for lengths of time, through no fault of their own.

The problem, as I view it, is that those concerned for these individuals always jump for extreme policies. In Tim Harford's words, the economy is truth: it reveals the true preferences of millions of individuals interacting with each other. Sometimes this truth is ugly. His example: Elderly people in England going without heat in the winter because they cannot afford high gas prices, and subsequently freezing to death.

So what, when we don't like the truth, should we do? If it is our plan to lie, to fool the market into producing a lie, it is always better to tell little white lies than big whoppers. It's better to subsidize English elderly than to establish a price cap. It's better to expand the EITC or institute a negative income tax than to raise the minimum wage. It's better to provide free job retraining to unemployed individuals than to establish protectionist tariffs.

As a libertarian I may disagree that little white lies are necessary, but I can certainly admit that they're superior, that the misallocations they result in are less inefficient, less unjust. Unfortunately they are not what make it through as policy proposals, quite often because the inefficiency they cut off is the very profit that special interests seek.

Re: Neologism

Swimmy — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:14:38 -0000

I dislike "neo-mercantilists" because it suggests there is some substantial difference between the modern position and the original mercantilists.

In defense of protectionism (the word, not the ideology): The question, "Who's against being protected?" is easy enough to answer. I am! Especially since we're discussing protection from competition. It would be better to find a word which conveys this sense of protection from a good thing, but protectionist is literally appropriate.

"Comprotectionist"? "Wall-builder" is interesting, conjures a few images of Berlin. "Laissez-phobe" has a really nice ring.

Re: Facts Vs. Faith

Swimmy — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:57:58 -0000

I rather prefer Julian Sanchez's take on the article, found <a href="http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2007/04/progressives_for_exploitation.php
.

I'll quote at length. It's a long buildup, but oh-so worth it:

"On Grieder's account, the nut of the idea is as follows: Trade really is a mutually welfare-enhancing 'win-win' between rich industrialized countries and poor developing ones. But over time, this means that wages and productivity in these poorer countries rise, raising the cost of imports, while infrastructure improves, making them more attractive investment targets for corporations. The gains from trade to the majority in the richer country, so the theory goes, therefore begin to drop off.

If you buy all this, what's the upshot? It seems to be that trade with poor developing countries is dandy, and trade with wealthier ones is what ought to be limited. More to the point, that trade with the poorer countries needs to be explicitly designed to depress wages and deter infrastructure improvements so that workers and consumers can reap a larger long-term share of the gains from trade. Does this sound familiar? It should: It's the old Marxist-Leninist horror story about how capitalism and international trade supposedly worked already, giving workers just enough to subsist upon and continue producing, but never enough to permit them to get in the game themselves as competitors. So, to recap, now that we know capitalism doesn't actually function in the way described in Marx's dire predictions, The Nation demands a national industrial policy to make it work that way."

Re: Why I Don't Fear Predatory Pricing

Swimmy — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:29:10 -0000

It's kind of funny how one of the most beneficial acts of competition--the lowering of prices--looks to a non-economist. Indeed, sellers try to undercut each other all the time, but not to the outcome your reader thinks.

Re: A Grab Bag with Munger

Swimmy — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:59:16 -0000

This is one of the most entertaining podcasts yet, just for the back-and-forth with someone who's more obviously your friend than most guests.

Re: The virtues of liberty

Swimmy — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:24:36 -0000

For a second, I thought the link to "Gates of Hell" would be Lucio Fulci's classic 1982 horror film City of the Living Dead.

Oh well.