Author: Redactor

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

He Should Have Pleaded the Fifth

Economists tell tales. 

The best are those that make it easier for us to understand very complicated ideas. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate, wrote one such tale years ago, an essay called “Ricardo’s Difficult Idea.” It explains something economist David Ricardo discovered nearly 200 years ago: When nations trade they both become better off even when some people seem to suffer.

Since that essay Krugman has been telling tales for the New York Times. Not all have been as wholesome. 

Krugman appears to be one of those court wizard economists who believe they — that is, the government — can fine-​tune the economy. In his August 2, 2002 column he says that “[t]o fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that … Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

Yes, back in 2002 Krugman supported the Fed’s super-​low interest rates, and predicted the outcome: A housing bubble.

Which has burst.

Since then, Krugman’s readers have looked for someone to blame. Well, Krugman’s own words give us all we need to incriminate his own very self … and his fellow court wizards.

Familiar story: Self-​aggrandizing experts aim to fix things, and put us all in a fix. The case against government management of the economy just got even stronger. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

Fast Lanes for Everybody, at a Price

Tolls on bridges and roads used to be common. Before the federal government began writing  humungous checks for infrastructure, the rule was to loan localities money. The feds would get paid back from tolls collected.

Earlier, private toll roads and bridges built our first good infrastructures.

There’s increasing talk, now, about congestion pricing of roads — charging more at peak hours, or for fast lane access. 

Tim Rutten argues against this. In a Los Angeles Times op-​ed called “Congestion pricing — a slippery slope to toll roads,” Rutten says that congestion pricing “discriminates against the working poor.” 

Rutten imagines a low-​level worker rushing from work to go to the day care center to retrieve her sick child. Driving the jammed lanes would be too slow, so she turns into the fast lane and pays money to get her child faster. Rutten says “A society that can rationalize the imposition of such pain doesn’t need to worry over how to define equity; it needs to worry about its soul.” 

Yeah, right. There are costs and choices everywhere. In an emergency, spending a few bucks to help your child is reasonable. Even if you are poor.

But preventing the option from even being available?

Mr. Rutten should rethink his all-​or-​nothing approach. And maybe even the fantasies that jam up his own soul. Without faster lanes that cost money, the mother would have no choice at all but to sit in traffic.

Solutions that work are better than solutions merely dreamt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

Border Guards Confiscate Prescription Drugs

A few years ago, stories of Americans going to Canada to buy cheaper drugs were all the rage. Here’s a twist on that: Canadians going to Mexico to get cheaper drugs.

The Canadian government has been intercepting shipments and travelers at the border and confiscating the drugs.

The drug in question is Thalidomide.

You no doubt remember this drug for its horrific side-​effects, in babies.

But it is still used — by people who won’t get pregnant — to treat a rare form of cancer. It turns out that it’s one of the better drugs on the market, extending the lives of sufferers from myeloma.

Trouble is, only one province pays for one version of the drug. Other versions are illegal. Canada’s socialized health care system does not approve of cheaper versions of the drug hailing from Mexican factories. Those factories haven’t gone out of their way to deal with side-effects.

So Canada confiscates Thalidomide as if it were cocaine.

Do you ever get frustrated hearing these tales? I do. I don’t know about your frustration, but it seems to me that if someone’s going to take the trouble to go out of the country to buy a drug to treat themselves, the full weight of responsibility for safety and side-​effects — as well as the choice — should fall on his or her shoulders.

Not the government’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability too much government

So Let It Be Read

It’s a laugh a minute on Capitol Hill, where folks who supposedly represent us fritter away our freedom with giddy abandon. And without a glance at the fine print.

Well, it’s all fine print when you’ve got a cap-​and-​trade bill 900-​plus pages long. This bill would tax businesses that need to produce more “greenhouse gases” than the new law would allow according to a formula so congested that, well, it takes 932 pages to spell it out. If the bill passes, it’s another punch to the gut of the American economy.

For a while, it seemed that Republicans on the energy committee might obstruct things, might insist that the bill be read. Aloud!

So the Democrats hired a speed reader. No reading was ever demanded. But since the guy had been hired, he was asked to zip through just a bit of the bill. His incredible machine-​gun delivery cracked everybody up.

Well, DownsizeDC​.org isn’t laughing. The activist group notes that the cap-​capitalism bill was rushed through committee so fast that it could not possibly have been read, publicly or privately.

The group supports a Read the Bills Act to require every bill to be read in full before the House and Senate … and require all lawmakers to sign an affidavit affirming that they have read any bill they vote on. A sensible rule, long overdue. Seriously.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Oregon’s $10,000 Innocent-​Bystander Fine

In Oregon, it is now a crime to be both an innocent bystander and a leading participant in democracy. 

Or it soon will be, if Oregon’s Governor Kulongoski signs a bill that has just emerged from the state legislature. The bilious bill would fine leaders of a citizen initiative campaign $10,000 if anybody working for the campaign is found to have committed fraud in the process of gathering signatures.

The alleged wrongdoing is not being complicit in fraud but “failing to prevent” it. Do you see the problem? No screening process, no matter how careful, can eliminate the free will of campaign workers. A chief petitioner on a campaign cannot be everywhere watching everyone as more than a hundred thousand people sign the petition. Under this law, an opponent could bankrupt the  leader of a ballot measure by joining the effort and committing fraudulent acts.

This and other less zany — but still burdensome — provisions are designed, presumably, to “cut down on fraud and abuse.” Tough job for a bill that is itself inherently fraudulent and abusive. 

It’s real purpose, of course, is to hamper and obstruct the petition process.

The only Senate Democrat to vote no to the bill, state Senator Vicki Walker, notes that some activists will be more reluctant now to be lead a ballot initiative if they can be socked with a huge fine for a violation committed by somebody else.

Well, that’s obvious. It’s also, sadly, the point.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom

Something Fishy in Seattle

The organization known as PETA — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — routinely goes so overboard in its pronouncements as to cast their cause in the most goofy light.

Last week, PETA sent a public letter to the American Veterinary Medical Association urging the group to cancel an upcoming event at their Seattle convention. The event would feature the world-​famous fishmongers of Pike Place Market, folks who throw fish.

Not live fish. Dead fish. Fish intended for eating. The practice of throwing seafood began as a way to increase efficiency. It’s fun to watch, and it’s grown into a ritual attraction.

PETA says it’s bad enough that fish are eaten, but throwing them “adds insult to injury.”

The fishmongers say they “love fish.” They “respect fish.” Fish make their business thrive.

But of course, the way a fishmonger respects fish is different from a member of PETA. In a television interview, one PETA spokesperson argued that we wouldn’t throw around dead kittens.

Well, no. But we might if kittens were part of our diets, instead of our homes and families.

There’s a big difference. It’s lost on PETA.

To most of us, demanding the hyper-​respectful concern for the mortal remains of fish by those tasked with preparing those remains for our meals is, well, not a position on the moral high ground. It’s fishy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.