Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture media and media people

Dead Economists Walking?

Zombies don’t exist. Not like in the movies.

Or like in the pages of The New York Times.

The Times’s economist Paul Krugman has a new book out, Arguing with Zombies, and, if I ever had the tiniest margin of utility nudging me towards reading it, John Goodman’s review in Forbes has dissuaded me. For Krugman doesn’t argue with anyone — he argues against economists whom he mischaracterizes.

No, that’s apparently too kind. He argues against, says Goodman, economists who don’t exist. “Zombies are economists who believe that every tax cut pays for itself with increased revenue,” Goodman explains. “They hate the poor. They are closet racists. They do the bidding of billionaire puppet masters who pay their salaries and fund their research. Their goal in life is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.”

Goodman concludes by noting that Krugman knows better, for “if you are thinking that Krugman has never met a Republican, you might be inclined to cut him some slack.” But no, “it turns out Krugman actually worked in the White House during the Reagan administration. That means he knows the tax cuts weren’t devised by economists whose motivation was to make the rich richer. He knows his fellow economic advisors to the president weren’t puppets, doing the bidding of billionaires. He knows they weren’t closet racists. He knows they didn’t hate the poor.”

Krugman — a Nobel Laureate — calls his enemies the worst names imaginable. Yet, Krugman the Zombie Hunter is one reason our political culture is so monstrous right now.

Not zombie-monstrous, partisan-monstrous. 

Meanwhile, the two sides that hate each other are united at least in one way, in creating another monster: the $2.2 trillion bailout, and the record new deficit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Paul Krugman, economist, propaganda,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

The Exceptions Disprove the Rules

“I’ve instructed my prosecutors not to charge certain low-level nonviolent offenses to avoid people being held in jail unnecessarily,” Maryland’s Attorney General Marilyn Mosby informed the state’s Republican governor. She also urged the governor “to release all inmates in state prisons who are over 60,” explains The Washington Times, “approved for parole or scheduled to complete their sentences within the next year.”

This is all to avoid a prison pandemic. Meanwhile, the “Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Monday that it would permit states to create laboratories for designing COVID-19 tests,” Reason magazine tells us, adding that the FDA “has also decided to permit pharmacists to make their own alcohol-based hand sanitizers.”

Reason’s Robby Soave asks the obvious question: “Why do the people who are working hardest to fight the coronavirus have to ask a slow federal bureaucracy for permission to save lives?”

The New York Times reports that Dr. Helen Y. Chu, an infectious disease expert in Seattle, tried mightily to perform tests on subjects, early in the epidemic, to track how the virus was spreading. She was stymied every which way.

By bureaucracies.

The kludge of bad regulations and laws merely adds cost and annoyance during normal times; during emergencies they present major stumbling blocks to public health.

So, when our leaders make special exceptions, they demonstrate that the regulations were always bad — now just worse.

Real leadership would nix these rules, permanently.

And, for that matter, end the war on drugs — and prostitution and other victimless crimes.

One of the infractions Maryland’s AG decided to go lax on, however, is public urination. That crime has victims and ought to remain a public health violation.

Though perhaps not worth imprisonment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

freedom, prohibition, rules, regulations, red tape, bureaucracy,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Gouging vs. Kicking

New crisis, old reactions.

The market has failed, we are told, to handle the coronavirus pandemic . . . even though it has just begun.

We hear demands for vast public takings (California Gov. Gavin Newsom commandeering hotels to add quarantine stations and hospital beds), huge transfer programs (including gargantuan Federal Reserve quantitative easing), and even war socialism (an old staple courtesy of John Dewey in 1918 — oops, John Cassidy, 2020, in The New Yorker).

But most galling?

Complaints of medical supply shortages while cracking down on “price gouging.”

The most astounding case is of the man who scoured the countryside to hoard a truckload of hand sanitizer to sell later at higher prices — moving goods from a period of low, normal value to a time of higher value — only to discover that he was not allowed to sell them, by Amazon and eBay, not government.* The big Internet trading platforms object to normal entrepreneurial action, buying low and selling high, in times of crisis.

But how scandalous is it? In buying up a supply he sent a signal quicker to producers to ramp up production. And he took goods away — very temporarily — from early panicky buyers (who seized the same opportunity in a near-future scarcity but to hoard for personal use) to offer to truly needy people who would value the product enough to buy at higher prices.

Foolish enough to prohibit crisis pricing — or, here, kum-bah-yah prohibitions in solidarity. But then to castigate markets for being inefficient!

Banning “price gouging” and blaming the market is like taunting your victim on the ground as you kick him.

You’re the bully, not a noble savior.

And all that hand sanitizer goes unused.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* There are numerous anti-gouging laws around the country, too. The online market companies are merely mimicking very old political tropes.

PDF for printing

price gouging, price freeze, scalping,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets international affairs

Albion, Weak or Strong?

The European Union is an anti-democratic, quasi-tyrannical mess. And Great Britain, having Brexited over the weekend, has a chance at a clean-up job. But that doesn’t mean that Britain won’t go down a very dark path, creating an even bigger mess.

Freedom provides opportunities to fail as well as to succeed.

On page 17 of the latest issue of The Economist, we get a hint at what can go wrong.

In a word: too much government. Too much regulation, taxation, etc.

“No longer such a smooth ride” reads the headline, with a tag just below it: “A weakened Britain hopes to draw strength from its alliance with the United States. Good luck with that.”

Snark aside, there is a lot wrong here. Post-Brexit Britain is not obviously weaker — indeed, actually following through on the Brexit issue itself is a sign of strength. Admittedly, Theresa May was weak. And the nearly destroyed communists of the Labor Party are weaker yet. 

But Britain has great opportunity to strengthen itself, now.

The first issue that The Economist notes throws cold water on Brexit ebullience is trade. “If the British government persists with plans for a digital-services tax that would hit tech giants, America has said it will retaliate with punitive tariffs on British car exports.” Well, yeah.

Britain would harm itself by not embracing a free trade agreement with the United States, post haste. The model should be the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty of 1860, which set Britain on a major upward course — and France, too. A similar treaty could be a bounty for both Britain and America.

But the usual ardor for taxes, regulation, and intrusive government could transform Brexit from boon to bust.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

British Liberty, British Flag, Brexit,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

The Anti-Worker Ism

Progressives who lean socialist used to hide their worst intentions. Now they are letting it all hang out.

There have always been overt socialists in the U.S., of course. They would sometimes protest the reluctance of fellow travelers to fully embrace socialism’s moniker. But the sentiment “Ah, screw it, let’s just admit we want to destroy everything currently in existence” seems on the ascendance. Even a few major Democratic candidates for president are on board.

Exhibit 112 is the new nationwide push to stomp the gig economy.

Especially freelancing.

This follows Exhibit 111, the recent and so far successful push to stop independent contractors from engaging in voluntary transactions in California. (Many lawsuits are underway.)

After scanning the coiled legalese of 111 — I mean AB5, California’s law — many companies decided that ending relationships with California-based freelancers was prudence with a capital P. And that rhymes with G, and that stands for Golden. Which the Golden State used to, uh, B.

Not every self-employed person has been thrown out onto the street. There are carve-outs. Actually, the only known victims are taxi drivers, cleaners, nurses, comedians, writers, editors, musicians, transcriptionists, citizen initiative petitioners, etc., etc.

The crackdown on non-9-to-5 work arrangements has also resulted in much gnashing of teeth by gig-seekers of all ideological stripes. 

Obviously, then, such massive destruction of economic freedom must be inflicted on the federal level too. So House Democrats put AB5’s gig-killing provisions into Exhibit 112, that is, into HR2474, pending legislation.

Democratic candidates for president Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders have endorsed the California statute, a national version, or both.

Ludwig von Mises had a word for this. He called socialism “destructionist.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

California, socialism, labor, progressivism, Democrats

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Served and Disserved, New York Style

“Jacking up your prices on people trying to celebrate the holidays? Classy, @dominos,” tweeted former presidential aspirant and current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“To the thousands who came to Times Square last night to ring in 2020,” continued  Hizzoner’s New Year’s Day message from his official city Twitter account, “I’m sorry this corporate chain exploited you — stick it to them by patronizing one of our fantastic LOCAL pizzerias.”

Were you standing there in the Big Apple on New Year’s Eve getting “exploited”?

For the last 15 years, a Midtown Manhattan Domino’s franchise has been delivering hot pepperoni, cheese and onion pizzas for $30 each — “more than twice the regular $14.49 price of a large cheese pie” — to the “hungry tourists waiting in holding pens for the ball drop,” The New York Post reported.

“I have a lot of orders. I’m very busy,” remarked Ratan Banik, the Domino’s delivery man. The paper explained that he was “mobbed by starving tourists . . . many having camped out overnight.”

“He is our Santa,” offered one New Jersey man, who had not thought to bring any food with him into the city. “It’s absolutely worth it. It was hot. It seems like it just came out of the oven.

“If he comes back,” he added. “I will buy some more.”

“How is this different to a million other things? Airlines, Uber, property,” noted one of many tweets mocking the mayor’s. “It’s called supply and demand.”

If this be exploitation, make the most of it — with or without the extra toppings. 

Just hold the snipes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Pizza, DeBlasio, New York, New Year,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Plunger Politics

President Donald Trump may win re-election because he dares speak the truth about toilets.

A Washington Post tweet presents the president talking about the insanity of American plumbing: “People are flushing toilets ten times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water.”

Jeffrey Tucker, in a terrific piece for the American Institute for Economic Research, focuses on our national disgrace: “I know a man — a proxy for tens of millions — who came from a foreign country, threw down $500 per night at a New York hotel, and was astonished to find himself plunging the toilet within the hour of checking in. 

“Not surprising,” Tucker writes. “Not unusual. American toilets don’t work right. This is why there are plungers next to every toilet.”

And Tucker suggests that Trump may beat whoever ends up as his Democratic challenger for no better reason than because, every now and then, Trump sides with common sense against bureaucrats, regulators, and politicians. And, in this case, seeks to do something about it.

Would any Democrat dare mention that it is Congress that ruined our commodes? 

Of course, Republicans let it happen. 

Our toilets, I have long insisted, provide a perfect object lesson for what is wrong with government today. Early in the history of this Common Sense commentary, I explored the theme: it has been over 20 years ago since I wrote of “A Congressman in Your Bowl”; a few years later, when I started writing columns for Townhall.com, I offered “Flush Congress.”

I don’t know precisely what Trump can do regarding either the plumbing issue or the clogged-up Congress issue, but I — plunger in hand — salute him for trying to do something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

plunger, flag, regulations, laws, Trump, flush,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Location, Location, Dislocation

“While Lower Manhattan is desperately in need of affordable housing,” writes Yuh-Line Niou in an official statement of her re-election campaign for New York State Assembly, “we cannot pit the need for housing against the need for green space, especially when so many good alternatives are available. . . .”

Assemblywoman Niou (D-Lower Manhattan) is making the case against a housing project in her district. What she is really trying to do is save the Elizabeth Street Garden, a one-acre sculpture garden.

Uh, OK.

I have nothing against sculptures or gardens, but it seems like a strange sort of public space to exist in a high-demand real estate locale like Manhattan.

But you know what is stranger? 

Ms. Niou also supports the notion that “housing is a right.”

Christian Britschgi, of Reason, notes her pickle, drawing our attention to the similar predicament of a socialist city councilwoman on the other side of the continent, in Seattle. “Now, one can reasonably argue that open space is a precious commodity in a city, one that needs to be balanced against the need for shelter,” Britschgi writes. “But it’s hard to argue that while also asserting that housing is also a right that needs to be guaranteed by the government.”

Niou insists that “both need to be protected and expanded,” and somehow thinks the “best way to achieve this is by engaging the community from the start so decisions are made with a full knowledge of community sentiment and impact.” 

Not mentioned? Rent control.

It is almost as if pols have no idea that goals they promote might be exacerbated by existing policies they dare not criticize.

Or even bring up.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Yuh-Line Niou, housing, regulations,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies

The 79¢ Lie

Sen. Kamala Harris successfully bears aloft the banner of Barack Obama.

As “a person of color”? Yeah, sure — but mainly by pandering to ignorant ideologues.

“Look, women are still not paid equal for equal work in America,” she said recently at a campaign stop.

The Daily Wire notes that a few months ago she dug herself deeper:

“The law says that men and women should be paid equally for equal work, but what we know is that in America today, women on average are paid 80 cents on the dollar of what men are paid for the same work. African American women, 61 cents on the dollar, Latinas 53 cents on the dollar. And these are actually not debatable points.”

Well, these points are not debatable . . . in the sense that they have no merit, and everyone who has studied this objectively knows this. Politifact titles its article covering her statement: “On Colbert, Kamala Harris flubs wage gap statistic.”

“Flubs” puts it lightly.

Lies is more like it.

Former President Obama surely fibbed, too, when, in 2016, he said, “[t]oday, the typical woman who works full-time earns 79 cents for every dollar that a typical man makes.”

He knew that he was misusing statistics. He has been made aware of the debunkings of the 79¢ myth. And he understood; he’s no dummy.

The stat is not about “equal pay for equal work.” It aggregates incomes. There is no job-for-job equality and no consideration of real wages (with benefits, for instance). It is just that women-as-a-class take home less pay than men-as-a-class, per capita.

“It is known,” as was said on Game of Thrones.

The lie continues because of America’s “game of thrones.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Kamala Harris, pay gap, lie

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets

Negative Logic

“The idea that negative interest rates will produce loans and generate growth,” concludes Richard Rahn in a Washington Times op-ed, “is not supported by the evidence to date.”

Citing current markets for Danish and Swiss bonds, Rahn states that “approximately 30 percent of the global government bond issues are now trading in negative territory.”

Bonds used to seem the best investment. Government is the biggest, most reliable consumer, as J.B. Say and Destutt de Tracy (the latter being Thomas Jefferson’s favorite economist) argued, making the bond market the surest form of consumer credit. Governments last, weathering storms. So people loan them money not merely to earn interest, but to not risk their principal investment. 

Government bonds during America’s Great Depression were about the only form of investing going on: everything else was shaky. 

Which seems to be happening again. 

“In theory, as the interest rate falls, businesses and individuals should borrow and invest more,” Rahn explains. “In fact, as can be easily seen in Japan, as the interest rate falls, many save more — increasing the supply of savings and putting downward pressure on interest rates — in order to ensure they will have adequate funds for retirement. So, a low or negative interest rate policy becomes self-defeating.”

Could the logic of modern economic policy be . . . illogical?

Keynesian fiscal policy has always struck me as based on . . . evasions, the most obvious being that actual, real-world Keynesian politicians somehow never insist that deficits be turned into surpluses in good times, as John Maynard Keynes’ original program stated. 

Modern monetary policy also seems . . . well, if not evasive, at least . . . desperate.

Which I would be, too, were I riding on a growing debt as big as the federal government’s. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

savings bond, family, interest rates, economics, savings,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts