Minor Thoughts from me to you

Don Boudreaux quotes Indur Goklany, on climate change (emphasis added by your kindly editor).

Here’s part of the conclusion of a recent, data-rich paper by Indur Goklany; this paper is Chapter 6 in Climate Coup (Patrick J. Michaels, ed., 2011):

Despite claims that global warming will reduce human well-being in developing countries, there is no evidence that this is actually happening. Empirical trends show that by any objective climate-sensitive measure, human well-being has, in fact, improved remarkably over the last several decades. Specifically, agricultural productivity has increased; the proportion of population suffering from chronic hunger has declined; the rate of extreme poverty has been more than halved; rates of death and disease from malaria, other vector-borne diseases, and extreme weather events have declined; and, consequently, life-expectancy has more than doubled since 1900.

And while economic growth and technological development fueled mainly by fossil fuels are responsible for some portion of the warming experienced this century, they are largely responsible for the above-noted improvements in human well-being in developing countries (and elsewhere). The fact that these improvements occurred despite any global warming indicates that economic and technological development has been, overall, a benefit to developing countries [pp. 181-182].

This is why I don't think we should be engaging in any crash programs to reduce carbon emissions or restrict fossil fuel usage.

∞

Another common formulation of the “libertarianism is selfishness” argument is the claim that libertarians are narrow “individualists” who deny the importance of social cooperation. In reality, however, libertarian thinkers from John Locke to F.A. Hayek and beyond have repeatedly stressed the importance of voluntary social cooperation, which they argue is superior to state-mandated coercion. As Hayek (probably the most influential libertarian thinker of the last 100 years) put it:

[T]rue individualism affirms the value of the family and all the common efforts of the small community and group . . . [and] believes in local autonomy and voluntary associations . . [I]ndeed, its case rest largely on the contention that much for which the coercive action of the state is usually invoked can be done better by voluntary collaboration.

... In reality, however, the available evidence does not support the view that libertarians are, on average, more selfish than advocates of other ideologies. For example, Arthur Brooks’ research shows that supporters of free markets donate a higher percentage of their income to charity, even after controlling for both income levels and a wide range of demographic background variables. ...

Some leftists claim that opposition to taxation or other forms of government intervention necessarily implies selfishness and indifference to the welfare of others. But that assumption simply ignores the possibility that anyone might sincerely believe that imposing tight limits on government power actually benefits the poor.

∞

Michael Totten is one of the most intrepid reporters that you've never heard of. He (mostly) travels alone, he stays independent, he talks to the people on the street and he reports exactly what he sees and hears. He's seemingly unafraid of Islamic radicals or anyone else.

The Road to Fatima Gate is his first book.

The Road to Fatima Gate is a first-person narrative account of revolution, terrorism, and war during history's violent return to Lebanon after fifteen years of quiet. Michael J. Totten's version of events in one of the most volatile countries in the world's most volatile region is one part war correspondence, one part memoir, and one part road movie.

He sets up camp in a tent city built in downtown Beirut by anti-Syrian dissidents, is bullied and menaced by Hezbollah's supposedly friendly "media relations" department, crouches under fire on the Lebanese-Israeli border during the six-week war in 2006, witnesses an Israeli ground invasion from behind a line of Merkava tanks, sneaks into Hezbollah's post-war rubblescape without authorization, and is attacked in Beirut by militiamen who enforce obedience to the "resistance" at the point of a gun.

The Near East Report interviewed Michael Totten about his book and about Fatima Gate.

Sol Stern wrote a review for the City Journal.

And Peter Robinson, from the Hoover Institute, did a video interview with Michael Totten about the book.

I think the book is worth a read.

International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was ordered held without bail Monday after Manhattan prosecutors charged him with seven counts stemming from allegations he sexually assaulted a hotel housekeeper—a decision that sends one of the towering figures of international finance and French politics to a jail cell on New York's Rikers Island.

I like that very much.

∞

A new academic article in Real Estate Economics turns this conventional wisdom on its head. Using data from 1979 to 2009, the authors demonstrate that renting was the superior investment strategy for most of the past 30 years. Counterintuitive as the finding may be to some, it is actually quite logical. Unless someone possesses the cash necessary to buy a residence, he or she will be renting one way or another. The choice is between renting the property directly or instead renting the capital necessary to buy the property. The amount of capital to be rented is a function of house prices, while the bulk of a mortgage payment is interest, which is the rental payment on this capital. After 2 years, the typical 30-year amortizing mortgage balance has been reduced by less than 3%. This means that a household that took out a $300,000 mortgage with a 5% interest rate to buy a home has only reduced its mortgage balance by $8,600 after two years despite spending nearly $39,000 in total over this period.

... Importantly, the authors make clear that in general, renting is only the superior financial choice if the renting household has the discipline to invest its marginal savings into financial assets. Renting generates residual savings because the cash outlays tied to housing consumption (or purchase) are lower. But if renting households, or the individuals themselves lack the discipline to save this money, and instead increase non-housing consumption, any wealth gains will clearly disappear. The basic intuition is that the principal portion of mortgages is what usually leads to more wealth. But as this article shows, that’s because it represents incremental savings not because of anything intrinsic to the mortgage itself. Viewed in this light, the economic gains come not from “owning” a home but rather the forced savings generated by the principal portion of the monthly mortgage payment.

It is instructive that at the end of the analysis, the much-touted economic gains from homeownership really come from the forced savings of an amortizing mortgage. And this benefit only accrues to myopic households that would not otherwise save.

∞

I'm with Jonah.

Meanwhile, while Bernard-Henri is scandalized that a mere chambermaid can get a “great” man like Strauss-Kahn in trouble with the law merely by credibly accusing him of sexual assault, I am proud to live in a country where a housekeeper can get a world leader pulled off a plane bound for Paris.

The U.S. may not always live up to its ideals but it's always a rousing sight when it does.

∞

This is a great profile of the SEALs by a former SEAL. I have an absolutely incredible respect for these men.

What kind of man makes it through Hell Week? That's hard to say. But I do know — generally — who won't make it. There are a dozen types that fail: the weight-lifting meatheads who think that the size of their biceps is an indication of their strength, the kids covered in tattoos announcing to the world how tough they are, the preening leaders who don't want to get dirty, and the look-at-me former athletes who have always been told they are stars but have never have been pushed beyond the envelope of their talent to the core of their character. In short, those who fail are the ones who focus on show. The vicious beauty of Hell Week is that you either survive or fail, you endure or you quit, you do—or you do not.

Some men who seemed impossibly weak at the beginning of SEAL training—men who puked on runs and had trouble with pull-ups—made it. Some men who were skinny and short and whose teeth chattered just looking at the ocean also made it. Some men who were visibly afraid, sometimes to the point of shaking, made it too.

Almost all the men who survived possessed one common quality. Even in great pain, faced with the test of their lives, they had the ability to step outside of their own pain, put aside their own fear and ask: How can I help the guy next to me? They had more than the "fist" of courage and physical strength. They also had a heart large enough to think about others, to dedicate themselves to a higher purpose.

SEALs are capable of great violence, but that's not what makes them truly special. Given two weeks of training and a bunch of rifles, any reasonably fit group of 16 athletes (the size of a SEAL platoon) can be trained to do harm. What distinguishes SEALs is that they can be thoughtful, disciplined and proportional in the use of force.

∞

Brown was living in Berlin, Germany back in 2007, dealing with HIV and leukemia, when scientists there gave him a bone marrow stem cell transplant that had astounding results.

“I quit taking my HIV medication the day that I got the transplant and haven’t had to take any since,” said Brown, who has been dubbed “The Berlin Patient” by the medical community.

... Both doctors stressed that Brown’s radical procedure may not be applicable to many other people with HIV, because of the difficulty in doing stem cell transplants, and finding the right donor.

“You don’t want to go out and get a bone marrow transplant because transplants themselves carry a real risk of mortality,” Volberding said.

He explained that scientists also still have many unanswered questions involving the success of Brown’s treatment.

“One element of his treatment, and we don’t know which, allowed apparently the virus to be purged from his body,” he observed. “So it’s going to be an interesting, I think productive area to study.”

∞

A few days ago, tens of thousands of Mexicans in scores of Mexican cities participated in public protests against the War on Drugs and the use of the Mexican army as anti-drug warriors. The violence that has accompanied the Mexican government’s attempts to defeat the drug dealers during the past several years has claimed perhaps as many as 40,000 lives. Some cities, especially Ciudad Juarez, across the river from El Paso, Texas, have become virtual battlefields.

All of this would be sufficiently dreadful if it had accompanied legitimate efforts to suppress real criminals. But although the drug dealers have committed murders, robberies, and other genuine crimes, to be sure, the foundation of this entire “war” is the U.S. government’s attempts to suppress actions — possessing, buying, and selling certain substances — that violate no one’s natural rights. Not to mince words, the War on Drugs is completely evil, from alpha to omega. No one who believes in human liberty can coherently support it. That its prosecution should have resulted in death and human suffering on such a vast scale constitutes an indictment of every person who has conducted or supported this wicked undertaking from its outset.

∞

"If you have democracy, people will vote for washing machines".

Hans Rosling talks about the magic of the washing machine — a device that turns drudgery into books.

This is a popular topic around our house: our washing machine and our dishwasher free up hours each day and many more hours each week, allowing us to do more things together as a family.

It's only 9 minutes long, so do yourself a favor and watch it.

(Or, avoid Flash and watch the video directly.)

∞

Victor Davis Hanson elucidates why conservatives oppose the "non-war" that President Obama is "not fighting" in Libya.

2) Approval: To start a third war in the Middle East, the president should have first gone to Congress, especially since he and Vice President Biden have compiled an entire corpus of past speeches, some quite incendiary, equating presidential military intervention without congressional approval with illegality to the point of an impeachable offense (cf. Biden’s warning to Bush over a possible Iran strike). And why boast of U.N. and Arab League approval but not seek the sanction of the U.S. Congress?

3) Consistency: Why is meddling okay in Libya but was not okay in Iran when dissidents there were likewise making headway? Is there any rationale that determines our response to unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, or Libya? It seems we are making it up ad hoc, always in reaction to the perceived pulse of popular demonstrations — always a hit-and-miss, day-late-dollar-short proposition.

4) Aims and Objectives: Fact: We are now and then bombing Libyan ground targets in order to enhance the chances of rebel success in removing or killing Qaddafi. Fiction: We are not offering ground support but only establishing a no-fly zone, and have no desire to force by military means Qaddafi to leave. Questions: Is our aim, then, a reformed Qaddafi? A permanently revolutionary landscape? A partitioned, bisected nation? What is the model? Afghanistan? Mogadishu? The 12-year no-fly-zone in Iraq? A Mubarak-like forced exile? Who are the rebels? Westernized reformers? Muslim Brotherhood types? A mix? Who knows? Who cares?

∞

"I’ll never forget the expression on the face of our car mechanic when I asked him to draw me a picture of what engine part to break so my mother’s car wouldn’t start"

∞

Roughly half of our oil imports come from politically unstable Middle Eastern nations.

By increasing U.S. oil production (from off shore drilling, from natural gas fields, and from shale oil fields) we could cut our oil imports roughly in half.

By using U.S. resources, and creating U.S. jobs, we could end our dependence on oil imported from unstable, risky regimes. What's not to like? Why is this such a hard thing to approve?

∞

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) says that Tennessee attracted thousands of auto industry jobs because of its right-to-work laws. This

This reminds me of a White House state dinner in February 1979, when I was governor of Tennessee. President Jimmy Carter said, "Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make here what they sell here."

"Make here what they sell here" was then the union battle cry, part of an effort to slow the tide of Japanese cars and trucks entering the U.S. market.

Off I flew to Tokyo to meet with Nissan executives who were deciding where to put their first U.S. manufacturing plant.

... In 1980 Nissan chose Tennessee, a state with almost no auto jobs. Today auto assembly plants and suppliers provide one-third of our state's manufacturing jobs. Tennessee is the home for production of the Leaf, Nissan's all-electric vehicle, and the batteries that power it. Recently Nissan announced that 85% of the cars and trucks it sells in the U.S. will be made in the U.S.— making it one of the largest "American" auto companies and nearly fulfilling Mr. Carter's request of 30 years ago.

This is directly applicable to today's battle between the NLRB and Boeing, over whether or not Boeing can open a production line in a right-to-work state.

∞

1. You’ve got the curves to supply my demand!

2. Let’s go to bed and try to disprove the law of diminishing marginal utility.

3. You’re my very favorite kind of moral hazard.

4. I have a feeling you really understand the “nature of the firm.”

5. Baby, I love you so much I’m willing to forgo my exit option.

6. Wanna talk about our private goods?

7. You’re an economist. I’m an economist. How about a little horizontal integration?

8. Now those are some tangible assets!

9. I’ll reveal my preferences if you will.

And the very best pick up line to catch your own economist, as well as the filthiest thing ever said in public by an economist (and I include various jokes I’ve heard at cocktail parties) is brought to us by the dynamic duo of Roberts and Papola, and comes straight from their new Hayek/Keynes rap video.

1. Bottom up or top down?

∞

Jeremy Shown does his part to "explain to the kids" what Governor Walker's education cuts are and how students will be affected by them.

The student/teacher ratio here in Wisconsin is about 15 students for every teacher.  I suspect your class may have more than 15 students because this ratio probably includes teachers who specialize in small groups of students that need extra help.  Regardless, a ratio of 15 is right at the national average.  A political ad that is running on TV here in Green Bay alleges that the Governor's cuts to education could increase class size to "35 to 40 kids in a class."  Again, this sound like it is intended to scare people into opposing the governor.  It's too bad that so many people will be convinced by an accusation that is almost certainly untrue.

Worth a read and something I agree with.

∞

I thought clear cutting the forests was a Republican idea. And, yet, this is what I saw in Herb Kohl's latest email newsletter:

It also reiterates the need to increase our use of energy that will never run out. Wisconsin has many great natural resources, but deposits of oil, natural gas and coal are not among them. While there is no doubt that we need these energy sources to fuel our economy, a dollar spent on oil drilling or coal mining undoubtedly benefits other states and other countries. But a dollar spent on renewable energy can support new jobs for Wisconsin.

We don’t have oil, but we do have forest resources that can be turned into biomass for our power plants, and one day into fuel for our cars and trucks.

Because clearly, cutting down Wisconsin's forests is the path to sustainability, prosperity, and responsible environmentalism.

Also, what's with the idea that Wisconsin is made worse off by sending money to other states for oil or coal? I'm currently paying $3.89/gallon for gasoline. If increased drilling in California, Louisiana, and Texas means that I'm buying gas $2.50/gallon or $1.25/gallon, I'm going to be a lot better off. That price cut will save me money on commuting, on buying packages online, on food (reduced shipping costs for supermarkets), and even on my new kitchen. (We had to pay for a fuel surcharge for getting our new refrigerator delivered, may have to pay one for getting new kitchen cabinets delivered, and may have to pay one to the guy installing our kitchen cabinets.)

Multiply my savings by all 5 million residents in the state of Wisconsin and it begins to appear that Senator Kohl is pretty wrong about the idea that money spent drilling or coal mining only benefits other states. It'd have a pretty large benefit to Wisconsin too.

Is Senator Kohl just not that bright?

Many people opposed the Wisconsin "union busting" bill because it was (so they believed) aimed solely at depriving the state Democrats of funding.

Question: using the same reasoning, do you oppose President Obama's planned executive order? Or is it only wrong when Republicans do it?

(Note: I still disagree with that characterization of Governor Walker's budget repair bill. But I'm interested in the thinking of those that disagree with me.)

∞

This is a terrific program to cut.

Because, despite all the good intentions behind Head Start, the program is not working. It is failing to make any significant difference in the educational advancement of low-income children.

And that’s not based on a study from a partisan group or an ideological think tank. That’s the conclusion drawn by a 2010 study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, which reported that “by the end of 1st grade, there were few significant differences between the Head Start group as a whole and the control group as a whole for either cohort.”

∞

The grand total of the combined net worth of every single one of America's billionaires is roughly $1.3 trillion. It does indeed sound like a "ton of cash" until one considers that the 2011 deficit alone is $1.6 trillion. So, if the government were to simply confiscate the entire net worth of all of America's billionaires, we'd still be $300 billion short of making up this year’s deficit.

That's before we even get to dealing with the long-term debt of $14 trillion, which if you're keeping score at home, is between 10 to 14 times the entire net worth of all of the country's billionaires, combined. That includes the all-powerful Koch brothers ($40 billion between them), the all-powerful George Soros ($14.5 billion), all the Walton family (of the Wal-Mart fortune), Steve Jobs, Oprah (at a paltry $2.7 billion), the Google Founders, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mars family (of the candy bar empire).

∞