Trump Tower of Babble

09 Sunday Aug 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Big Government, Marketplace of Ideas, Obamacare

Tags

Andrew Popkin, Bankruptcy, Brett Baier, crony capitalism, Donald Trump, eminent domain, GOP Debate, Hillary Clinton, Megyn Kelly, Obamacare, Peter Suderman, Rand Paul, single-payer plan, Vox

Here’s a post-debate follow-up on Donald Trump the Shape Shifter: I’m surprised to hear anyone praising his performance after that debacle. He came off as a dick, and that’s really The Donald. I thought so before I heard that he suggested Megyn Kelly was menstruating that evening. Megan was tough, but please…. Trump is a loud-mouthed, offensive, and often incoherent bully.

Two Trump moments that I thought were amazing were his exchange with Brett Baier about political donations and his dust-up with Rand Paul over a single-payer health care system.

On donations, Trump seemed to take satisfaction in the fact that Hillary Clinton “had no choice” but to attend his wedding after he gave to her Senate campaign. He then made the following statement, which made me laugh:

“I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that’s a broken system.“

Should I love him or hate him for that statement? He admits with no shame that he participates in crony capitalism, and he realizes that it’s corrupt. Andrew Popkin at Vox has a good analysis:

“Something Trump identifies that doesn’t always get mentioned is the way transactional politics transcend partisanship and ideology. Trump gave to Democrats and he gave to Republicans. He didn’t care what they believed. He cared what they could do for him. He wasn’t supporting them — he was buying them, and that’s completely different.“

It’s convenient for Trump to brag that he doesn’t need donations from others when campaigning. When he’s on the other side of the table, he’s happy to participate in the corruption. Did Trump buy the politicians who helped him arrange eminent domain actions against property owners who were in the way of his developments? He’s also quite proud of his use of bankruptcy laws allowing him to stiff lenders and investors in his enterprises. By the way, in comparing his four corporate bankruptcies to the many “deals” he’s executed over the years, he’d have you believe that the “deal” is always the relevant unit for a bankruptcy proceeding. That’s loose and misleading jargon.

I have said that Trump’s supporters really don’t know what their getting. Perhaps he won’t tell anyone because he’d lose “leverage”. A prime example of Trump’s shiftiness was his response to the following question on single-payer health care systems, including his attempt to embarrass Rand Paul:

Baier: “Now, 15 years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren’t you for it now?“

As Peter Suderman noted, Trump’s response to this question about health care began with his views on the war in Iraq. Donald’s rules…. But eventually, he addressed the health care question with a stream of words that thinking people might have been tempted to process logically in order to divine a coherent “Trump” position on the issue, but that would have been a mistake:

“As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you’re talking about here.

What I’d like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I’m negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid. You know why? Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage. But they have total control of the politicians. They’re making a fortune.“

This is not a great moment of clarity for Trump. We still don’t know what he has in mind. He demonstrates that he doesn’t quite understand the inherent flaws in single-payer. If his complaint is with consolidation of the health insurance industry, single-payer would imply an even greater consolidation, indeed, a monopoly. A “private system” does not rule out single-payer. While the insurance companies have undoubtedly influenced politicians, just as Trump has, why is he complaining about a lack of choice, having just asserted that single-payer could work so well? And artificial lines have to do with non-price rationing, a typical feature of government intervention in markets. Thus far, the profits of under-pricing insurers have been protected by so-called “risk corridors” built into Obamacare. Would Trump allow health care providers and insurers to reprice in order to eliminate “artificial lines”? Trump’s words did not settle any questions about his position.

The end of Trump’s response is this:

“And then we have to take care of the people that can’t take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system.“

So… was Trump still talking about single-payer or not? I forgive Rand Paul for imagining that he was. It was the only solid statement that one could cling to in Trump’s ramble.

Here is Suderman’s summary of Trump’s response with an account of the exchange with Rand Paul that followed:

“What matters is that [Trump] would be different. Different how? So very, very different—and definitely not a moron/loser/dummy/incompetent (pick one) like this other guy.

This is how Trump responds to almost everything: By not answering the question, by babbling out some at-best semi-relevant references, by promising to somehow be different and better without explaining how or why, and then by lobbing an insult.

An insult is how Trump finishes the Obamacare exchange as well. After Trump finishes answering the question, Sen. Rand Paul cuts in, saying, ‘News flash, the Republican Party’s been fighting against a single-payer system for a decade. So I think you’re on the wrong side of this if you’re still arguing for a single-payer system.’ [SCC’s bolding]

Trump’s comeback: ‘I’m not—I’m not are—I don’t think you heard me. You’re having a hard time tonight.’

The gist, as always, is that someone else—indeed, practically everyone else—is a dummy, a loser, a politician. Trump is the only one who really gets it, whatever it is.“

While I thought Rand Paul’s interjectory approach to debating was unwise, his comment to Trump was on-target, and he even qualified it. Trump responded with snark. Trump has yet to take a real position on health care in this campaign, but he has supported single-payer in the past. He doesn’t want to go to the trouble of deciding or revealing a specific plan just yet. Perhaps he’s “maintaining leverage”, keeping his options open, because he’s such a smart businessman. If you want to treat politics like a business deal, fine, but smart voters should be your partners, and they will expect you to reveal your terms.

Trump Flaunts Shape-Shifting Powers

06 Thursday Aug 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Government, Liberty, Tyranny

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Andy Kroll, Common Core, Donald Trump, eminent domain, FreedomFest, Immigration policy, Jeffrey Tucker, On the Issues, Peter Suderman, Politico, Populism, Reason, Trump campaign, Trump Policies, Trump Policy Positions, Trumpism, Wealth Tax

Donald Trump could take just about any position on any issue and defend it with conviction and blustery passion… until he changes his mind. At this point in his presidential bid, there is nothing on his campaign web site in the way of specific policy statements. Here is an “On The Issues” post showing the evolution of Trump’s positions in a number of policy areas. Just about anyone on the left or the right should be able to get a few chuckles out of this list. It’s truly astonishing.

A few of Trump’s current policy positions are discussed below, but before getting into that, it’s interesting to consider the overall tenor of his rhetoric. Most observers will happily admit that they find his bombast entertaining, and I do too. He’s outspoken and unapologetic, confronting his critics head-on, often to powerful effect. Many are drawn to this sort of candidate, and his popular image as a skilled businessman doesn’t hurt. But while all politicians are capable of disappointing supporters, Trump fans do not know, and cannot know, what they’re getting.

Trump is almost always critical but rarely suggests actual solutions, making it difficult to discern whether he really has policy positions. So much so that it’s incredible to hear praise for his “clarity”. For a more sober take, read Andy Kroll’s account of frustrated attempts to get direct responses on a few policy issues from the Trump campaign, and of Trump’s bizarre tour of Laredo, Texas. A related piece by Peter Suderman appears at Reason.com. Politico has emphasized the same point in “Will the real Donald Trump please stand up?“. Kroll says this:

“I have zero to report about Trump’s plans for actually being president—except that, from all available evidence, he hasn’t given it a moment’s thought.“

An interesting piece on Trump comes from Jeffrey Tucker in “What is Trumpism?“. A longer version appeared as “Trumpism: The Ideology“. Here is one bit from Tucker, written after hearing “The Donald” speak at FreedomFest:

“The speech lasted an hour, and my jaw was on the floor most of the time. I’ve never before witnessed such a brazen display of nativistic jingoism, along with a complete disregard for economic reality. It was an awesome experience, a perfect repudiation of all good sense and intellectual sobriety. …

His speech was like an interwar séance of once-powerful dictators who inspired multitudes, drove countries into the ground, and died grim deaths.“

Here are a few examples of Trump’s “nativism”, as described by Tucker:

“I did laugh as he denounced the existence of tech support in India that serves American companies (‘how can it be cheaper to call people there than here?’ — as if he still thinks that long-distance charges apply).

When a Hispanic man asked a question, Trump interrupted him and asked if he had been sent by the Mexican government. He took it a step further, dividing blacks from Hispanics by inviting a black man to the microphone to tell how his own son was killed by an illegal immigrant.“

Two issues on which Trump has been outspoken are international trade and immigration. As an aside, I note that he is always quick to qualify any aggressive statements he makes on these topics with a quick “I love the Chinese”, or “I love the Mexicans”. Tucker, at the link above, highlights Trump’s backward views on trade, which focus almost exclusively on U.S. producers without considering the benefits of trade to U.S. consumers. He sees big ships coming into port, and thinks only of cash flowing abroad: “What do we get?” Well, we get nice foreign goods, thank you very much. But Trump blames foreign trading partners for many ills, despite the fact that his Trump-label ties are made in China! Are we somehow being cheated on those ties? Trump says we need smarter people negotiating “these deals”. Okay… is that a policy?

We don’t need trade wars if we want to avoid a much weaker economy. Yet Trump’s trade rhetoric suggests that he would be tempted to employ trade restrictions like tariffs as a bludgeon. For example, consider one of his other big talking points: illegal immigration (despite the fact that the inflow of illegals has slowed to a trickle over the past few years). Trump wants to build a wall across the length of the U.S.-Mexican border, and he says he’ll make Mexico pay for it. To get a wall built, Trump might well decide that he can raise tariffs on Mexican goods to prohibitive levels as a way of twisting Mexican arms. That sort of action is likely to be very costly for U.S. consumers, and ultimately producers as well.

Trump’s latest pronouncements on immigration policy have been described as confusing. In a nutshell, he wants to deport “the criminals” (and not just those already doing time) and deport all other undocumented aliens; create an expedited process whereby we can let “the good ones” back into the country with legal status; “maybe” create some sort of path to citizenship (because “who knows what’s going to happen”), but not right away; and “we’re going to do something” for the “DREAMers”. Trump says he’ll know how to identify the “good ones”. If he’s so confident of that, then why would he, a smart “business guy”, allow the country to incur the expense of deporting millions of them?

Who knows what Trump will propose in terms of tax reform, health care and gun control? Ditto on welfare policy, defense, the drug war, foreign policy and energy. He wisely spoke against the drug war in 1990, but I’m not aware of any recent statements on the issue. Also in his favor, he does not accept the “consensus” on climate change and opposes Common Core. He has criticized crony capitalism but has undoubtedly benefited from cronyism, enlisting governments in the pursuit of eminent domain action. He is said to favor cuts in federal spending, but he has opposed cuts in Social Security and Medicare. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage, but he has proposed a wealth tax in the past.

Trump has not offered many specifics in this campaign, and the GOP debate this Thursday night will not provide a decent forum for articulating policy. In general, his positioning is a very mixed bag. One gets the sense that he is doing his best to appeal to a sort of populist conservatism. Unfortunately, his signature “positioning” on trade and immigration qualify him as something of a statist. He has certainly held a number of other statist views in the past, though he has disavowed at least some of those.

In closing, here are two more quotes from Jeffrey Tucker about Trump that I found both ominous and plausible:

“What’s distinct about Trumpism, and the tradition of thought it represents, is that it is not leftist in its cultural and political outlook (see how he is praised for rejecting “political correctness”), and yet still totalitarian in the sense that it seeks total control of society and economy and demands no limits on state power.“

“These people are all the same. They purport to be populists, while loathing the decisions people actually make in the marketplace (such as buying Chinese goods or hiring Mexican employees).“

Hillary’s Got Some Promises and a Rat’s Nest

03 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Big Government, Central Planning

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Andrew Napolitano, Capital Gains Tax, central planning, Clinton renewable energy plan, Friedrich Hayek, Half a billion solar panels, Hillary Clinton, Hillarycare, Ira Stoll, Jeffrey Tucker, Larry Kudlow, Obamacare employer mandate

Hillary Clinton is an advocate for governmentalizing the social order, and asks America to trust that central control, under her command, will accomplish great things such as upward mobility for the middle class, a rising standard of living, green energy for all, a “fix” for Obamacare, and much else. Jeffrey Tucker writes of Hillary’s delusions in “Hillary Clinton’s Ideological Vortex of Power and Planning” and her assurances that she’ll take measures with predictable impacts on the global climate, measures that will direct all details of energy production and use.

Tucker throws cold water on Hillary’s promises by viewing them in the context of F.A. Hayek warnings about the ruinous effects of central planning and control:

“That brilliant economist spent 50 years explaining, in book after book, that the greatest danger humanity faced, now and always, was a presumption on the part of intellectuals, politicians, and bureaucrats that they know better than the emergent and evolving wisdom of social forces.

This presumption might seem like science but it is really pretense. Civilization arises from, is protected by, and advances through the dispersed knowledge of billions of individual decision makers and the institutions that arise from them.

Hayek called the issue he was investigating the knowledge problem. Society needs to know how to use scarce resources, how to navigate a world of uncertainty, how to form rules that turn struggle into peace. It is a problem solved through freedom alone. No ruler, no scientist, no intellectual can substitute for the evolving process of decentralized decision making and trial and error.“

I discussed the fatuous presumptions of the left in an earlier SCC post entitled: “Conscious Design, the Collective Mind and Social Decline“. In that post, I used the wonderful Hayek quote:

“We flatter ourselves undeservedly if we represent human civilization as entirely the product of conscious reason or as the product of human design, or when we assume that it is necessarily in our power deliberately to re-create or to maintain what we have built without knowing what we were doing.“

More specifically, on energy policy, Clinton says she will set an agenda for the country to produce enough renewable energy within 10 years to power every American home, and to install half a billion solar panels across the country by the end of her first term. As Ira Stoll says at Reason.com, this is “central planning at its worst“.

“Clinton assumes that man-made climate change is a risk serious enough to try to mitigate, and that America should try to mitigate it by reducing its carbon emissions. These are big ‘ifs,’ but ones I will grant for argument’s sake. Even granting those assumptions, there is a humongous logical leap to the conclusion that the appropriate policy response is setting a national target for the number of solar panels installed.

For one thing, it’s a classic error of measuring inputs rather than outputs. If the goal is the reduction of dangerous emissions, why not set a goal for that, and support any energy method—solar, wind, algae, hydroelectric, nuclear, hydrofracturing—that gets America closer to that goal? Why privilege solar over all the other technologies, including some that may not even be invented yet?“

Certainly, proposals like this create tremendous opportunities for rewarding cronies. Stoll also notes that solar technology will improve over time, but rushing to install millions of panels, undoubtedly encouraged by heavy subsidies, would saddle users in the long-term with less efficient versions. With future improvements in efficiency and cost, the technology will gradually draw users in without the need for subsidies. That’s what rational economic decision-making looks like!

A specific economic proposal from the Clinton camp would increase the capital gains tax rate on asset sales held from 364 days up to six years. The rate would double if the asset was held up to two years. The increases become gradually smaller for two-to-six year holding periods. Hillary’s is somehow unaware that the government has already made it incredibly difficult for businesses to raise capital to invest in new buildings, equipment, and technology. Capital gains taxes are punitive: they represent double taxation of income to investors and they further distort rates of return by taxing assets on inflationary increases in value, which diminish their real value. Larry Kudlow wrote a good opinion piece on this proposal, called “Hillary’s Inconceivably Stupid Capital-Gains Tax Scheme“. He focuses on Hillary’s attack on the alleged “short-termism” in the economy, but this is a little odd, because her plan essentially discourages saving.

On health care, Clinton has pledged to “improve” Obamacare, but not repeal it. Too bad. It is similar to the plan she put forward as a Senator, including the individual mandate. The only piece of good news here is that she has discussed eliminating the employer mandate, which has been deferred by the Obama Administration twice already. However, some effects of the employer mandate have been felt, as it has tended to discourage employers from taking on full-time employees.

On foreign policy, Clinton is probably more hawkish than President Obama. Her stint as Obama’s Secretary of State was not marked by any noteworthy accomplishment.

Then there is the question of Clinton’s integrity. She’s been tainted by scandals before (e.g., Whitewater). She told a Brian Williams-like lie about being fired upon in Bosnia. The role of the Clinton Foundation, and whether it served as a mechanism for influence-buying, has also been in question, not to mention its seeming role as a personal slush fund for the Clintons. Her ties to Wall Street probably exceed Obama’s. And she maintained a private email server while Secretary of State, which was imprudent at best, and depending on the the classification of what went through that server, criminal at worst. Finally, her involvement in the Benghazi tragedy has been in question from the beginning. On some events related to Benghazi, including Hillary’s potential involvement in suspicious arms trading activity, Andrew Napolitano insists that “Hillary Keeps Lying“.

And here is Jeffrey Tucker waxing sarcastic about Hillary in another context: “Just trust her. Truly, just trust her …”

The Banality of Evil Is No Defense

31 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Tyranny

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adolf Eichmann, Banality of Evil, Conspiracy film, Genocide, Holocaust, Ingenuity of Evil, S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher, Tyrannical Evil

Psychology is not my usual bailiwick, but this article “questioning the banality of evil” caught my interest. A long-accepted view in the field is that ordinary people are willing to commit heinous acts under authoritative instructions or when they find themselves in certain kinds of roles. Does that view somehow imply that such a perpetrator is less accountable because they were “just following orders”, or because they were overwhelmed by the pressure imposed by their role?

The authors of the article, S. Alexander Haslam and Stephen D. Reicher, cite recent research challenging the standard view. They argue that even when individuals are tasked with doing evil, they are often fully engaged and even creative in the execution of their assignments. They discuss the case of the Nazi tyranny and especially Adolf Eichmann, who was one of the chief architects of the Holocaust. His trial on war crimes, however, originally reinforced the “banality of evil” narrative:

“… Eichmann worked hard to undermine the charge that he was a dangerous fanatic by presenting himself as an inoffensive pen-pusher. … [but] Eichmann [was] a man who identified strongly with anti-semitism and Nazi ideology; a man who did not simply follow orders but who pioneered creative new policies; a man who was well aware of what he was doing and was proud of his murderous ‘achievements’.“

This reminds me of a great film called “Conspiracy“, in which Stanley Tucci is brilliant in the role of Eichmann. The film depicts a meeting of the top echelon of the Nazi bureaucracy, based on actual meeting notes, at which the “Jewish question” is addressed. Anyone who has ever attended a fairly large corporate meeting will experience an eerie familiarity with the banality of the proceedings, at least until a certain point. These are bureaucrats. Soon enough, however, it becomes clear that the participants are discussing something horrific, despite the opaque jargon and their hesitation to give voice to the plain meaning of the agenda. First, a consensus has to be established. But like so many corporate meetings, the consensus and the outcome are preordained. There are objections, and some of the participants voice them more strongly than others. They are ultimately either cajoled or bullied into submission. But those objectors do not blindly accept the evil they are being asked to do. On the other hand, the monsters putting forward the killing agenda, including Eichmann, know exactly what they are doing and believe in it.

Haslam and Reicher insist that “ingenuity” is more descriptive of evil actions performed by individuals under tyranny than “banality”; that’s a takeaway from “Conspiracy” as well. However, Haslam and Reicher present these competing characterizations of evil-doing as if they are mutually exclusive hypotheses. In fact, it’s likely that these two “kinds” of evil coexist and are almost certainly complementary in their effects. Is there any reason to rule out the possibility that some individuals are simply “good” soldiers who faithfully follow orders? Who, like the timid Mr. Twimble in “How To Succeed…”, always play it “the company way”? They might not be the most intelligent members of society, but there are certainly those who will do as they are told, and there are others who might need motivation to act. In fact, the authors admit as much in their discussion of leadership as a catalyst for action by others:

“… people are surrounded by would-be leaders who tell them what to make of the world around them. For this reason, the study of leadership must be a central component of any analysis of tyranny and outgroup hostility. Indeed, tyrannical leaders only thrive by convincing us that we are in crisis, that we face threat and that we need their strong decisive action to surmount it.“

This is where the distinctions get muddy. I’m no psychologist, but to my way of thinking, further action and support for tyrannical evil by the members of a motivated in-group may be quite banal. Even a conscious decision to follow abhorrent orders in one’s own self-interest may qualify as an act of banality.

A group may well be convinced by their leaders that their actions are right, and that is frightening. Some will act consciously and viciously. Some will attempt to resist. Under great pressure, not all are capable of marshaling sufficient moral or intellectual resistance to the call to participate in evil acts, but none of that that offers justification. Banal or otherwise, participation in heinous acts against an out-group cannot be forgiven by mankind.

Don’t Call Leftists “Liberal”; They’re Not!

29 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Liberty

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Collectivism, Daniel Klein, Governmentalization of Social Affairs, Intercollegiate Review, Kevin Williamson, Left wing, Liberalism, Modern Age, N-Gram Viewer, Neoliberalism, New Liberalism, Progressivism, Social Democracy, Socialism, Spontaneous Social Order, statism

Nor are statists, collectivists and socialists, but I repeat myself. The simple plea above is made by Daniel Klein in an essay appearing in the Intercollegiate Review and in Modern Age. He asserts that libertarians (and conservatives) fall into a semantic trap when they use the term as a pejorative for leftists. I have touched on the mangled, modern usage of “liberalism” several times on Sacred Cow Chips, but Klein brings some interesting empiricism into consideration and makes several points worth emphasizing.

First, Klein traces the historical record of appearances of certain words related to liberalism in published literature using the “n-gram viewer” on Google. He shows that the political use of “liberal” began around 1770. For the next 110 years, liberalism referred to a philosophy and policies associated with small government and individual autonomy. In the U.S., however, the term began to be co-opted by the political left in the late 1800s. Around the turn of the twentieth century, references to “New Liberalism” and “Old Liberalism” became more frequent. So the term was subverted in that time frame, a decade or two before the term “left-wing” came into use.

“The literature of the so-called New Liberals declaimed openly against individual liberty and in favor of state collectivism and socialistic reform.“

Today, the association of “liberalism” with the left is confined mostly to the U.S. and Canada:

“…when we step outside North America, we see that, by and large, liberal still means liberal (in the UK, usage is in-between). …

Where liberal still means liberal, such as in Europe and Latin America, leftists have no reluctance in calling their imaginary bogeyman ‘neoliberalism.’“

By way of suggestion, Klein reviews a few alternative labels for the left. In doing so, he notes that in general, the left supports the “governmentalization of social affairs”. For that reason, one of my favorite labels is “statism”. Oddly, Klein never mentions this as a possibility. (Klein concedes that the left supports liberty on a few issues, which happen to be issues upon which most libertarians are in agreement.) He does refer to the old standby “collectivists” in passing.

Klein likes the label “Progressivism” for the left, despite the positive associations some might make with that term. He argues with some merit that progressivism implies activist, goal-directed policy, as opposed to non-intervention and the spontaneous social order favored by true liberals.

“That collectivists should join together for what they imagine to be progress is perfectly fitting. For them the term progressive is suitable. By contrast, conservatives and libertarians look to, not progress, but improvement. …

Another fitting term for leftism is social democracy, which is standard in Europe. Social democracy is a compromise between democratic socialism and a tepid liberalism. The socialistic penchant is foremost, but a vacillating liberalism gnaws at the social democrat’s conscience.”

I fully agree with Klein that we should never refer to leftists as liberals. They are completely undeserving of the description, and doing so concedes a glaringly false premise. Every leftist I know advocates the increasing governmentalization of social affairs and a naive acceptance of an impossible proposition: that government can ever possess the detailed knowledge necessary to successfully regulate individual actors from above. And leftists are foolishly willing to place faith in the benevolence and wisdom of political agents and central controllers. Klein mentions a recent editorial by Kevin Williamson in National Review:

“Williamson ends the piece by quoting two leftist authors writing in The Nation, one decrying ‘unbridled individualism,’ the other ‘unfettered capitalism.’ Williamson concludes: ‘A ‘liberalism’ that is chiefly concerned with the many clever uses of bridles and fetters does not deserve the name. It never has.’”

Would Heterosexuals Select For Gay Genes?

26 Sunday Jul 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Biotechnology, Progressivism

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Abortion, Bruce Carroll, Dennis Sewell, Eugenics, Friedrich Hayek, Gay Gene, genetic screening, John Maynard Keynes, Jonathan Freedland, LGBT, Progressivism, The Gay Patriot, The Guardian, The Political Gene

Economic and social planning by the state can mean many things, but a planned society is always held in some form as a progressive goal. This is at the very heart of “statism”. As Hayek noted, the fascination with planning is rooted in a belief that conscious, central direction is necessary in order for society to advance. This stands in stark contrast to the abysmal failure and monstrous cruelty of social planning historically, and the unmatched success of markets and a free, spontaneous social order at improving human welfare.

The faith in central direction has always been conjoined with a belief in the ability of scientific methods to address social issues. This line of thinking is flawed in many respects, but 80 to 100 years ago, an extremely perverse manifestation of this statist philosophy was a fascination with eugenics, or the intentional selection and rejection of various traits in offspring at the state’s direction. Sterilization of the “unfit”, and selective breeding of the most fit, were weirdly popular notions among progressives in that era. In 2012, Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian called eugenics “the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet”.

“Most alarming, many of its leading advocates were found among the luminaries of the Fabian and socialist left, men and women revered to this day. Thus George Bernard Shaw could insist that ‘the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man’, even suggesting, in a phrase that chills the blood, that defectives be dealt with by means of a ‘lethal chamber’. …

According to Dennis Sewell, whose book The Political Gene charts the impact of Darwinian ideas on politics, the eugenics movement’s definition of ‘unfit’ was not limited to the physically or mentally impaired. It held, he writes, ‘that most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class.’ It was not poverty that had to be reduced or even eliminated: it was the poor.

Hence the enthusiasm of John Maynard Keynes, director of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944, for contraception, essential because the working class was too ‘drunken and ignorant’ to keep its numbers down.“

This post on the historical allure of eugenics to progressives is also informative. Of course, the National Socialists in Germany took the idea and ran with it, which ultimately led to a rejection of eugenics in the West. Yet the idea lives on today through various mechanisms, such as sex-selective abortion and screening for certain genetic disorders. Of course there is a widespread insistence on abortion as a “woman’s right” on the progressive left, but certain questions are seldom asked. For example, does that include women who wish not to bear children with disorders such as Down’s Syndrome? There is less unanimity on that issue.

Bruce Carroll, aka, The Gay Patriot, asks a different question: “What Happens When Science Allows Us to Abort A Baby If It Has the ‘Gay Gene’?” The mapping of the human genome has advanced to the point that it might be possible to identify the precise genetics determining certain social and personality characteristics. There is some research suggesting that regions on two different chromosomes might allow geneticists to home-in on the identification of specific “gay genes”.

The first question this raises is whether a woman (or a couple) has the right to know everything predicted about a child from its pre-natal genetic testing. I assume that all test results are private. Should the information about sexual-preference genes be off-limits to a parent? Information about gender is not off-limits, and you can be certain that even in the U.S., an occasional woman or couple decides to terminate a pregnancy for reasons of gender, whatever the motive. If the sexual preference genes are off-limits, then the inescapable conclusion is that sexual preference is “protected” in the womb by society, but gender and a whole range of disabilities are not protected. Really? Carroll takes a dim view of the LGBT politics on this matter:

“I wonder if gay activists realize that their slobbering devotion to pro-abortion political organizations, and the multi-million dollar abortion industry itself, may ultimately lead to the destruction of LGBT babies before they are born within my lifetime. It truly is Sophie’s Choice for the progressive gay activists; thus far, they wave off the question with derision.“

The question can be put in less drastic terms, if genetic selection can really ever be less drastic. Technologies to create “designer babies” through genetic selection are already here. That implies both positive selection and deselection of various traits. Obviously, this is not a simple subject from a either a scientific or ethical standpoint, but to zero in on our hypothetical question, I assume for now, for the sake of argument, that parents are legally empowered “to give their children the best start possible“. That would be the “best start” in the parents’ opinion, not the state’s! One wonders how the LGBT community, and the Left in general, would react to a service allowing couples, or a mother, to select for heterosexual genes in their “designer offspring”, consequently selecting against gay genes. Should such options be “off the table” as a matter of public policy? But again, if so, then what about gender? What about disabilities?

Involving the state in these decisions will lead to either bizarre contradictions or restrictions on autonomy that both Left and Right might find unacceptable.

Government Wants To Gut Your Gig

24 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Big Government, Regulation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bill De Blasio, Economic conservatism, Erik Sherman, Gig economy, Hillary Clinton, Megan McArdle, Overtime rules, rent seeking, Sharing economy, St. Louis Metropolitan Taxi Commission, Taskrabbit, Taxi deserts, Uber

Big government is an inherently conservative enterprise when it comes to protecting the economic status quo. It frequently acts on behalf of entrenched interests by quashing innovation and competition. This is well illustrated by resistance to the “gig economy” (or “sharing economy”) and companies like Uber and Taskrabbit. The gig economy is growing rapidly because it is often more affordable than traditional channels and it offers tremendous convenience. Enabled by the internet, customized tasks or “gigs” can be performed anywhere for anyone demanding them. My son in New York City just found a talented carpenter through an on-line app, who stopped by his apartment in the evening and mounted a big-screen TV on the wall. The service he provided was not new, but the deal was facilitated and even enhanced by technology in a way that in some cases is reordering economic relationships. The competitive pressure this can create is drawing resistance with the aid of government power.

In St. Louis, there is an ongoing conflict between the Taxicab Commission and Uber, which has not yet gained entry to the market. Three of eight members of the commission own cab companies. They have succeeded in keeping Uber and Lyft out of the market for over a year. A resolution might be possible soon, but the commission is still haggling with Uber over insurance coverage levels, fingerprints and background checks.

On the national stage, the biggest issue surrounding the gig economy is the formal relationship between workers and any company they might represent. Should those workers be treated as independent contractors or employees? Companies like Uber insist that their drivers are independent, but the government would prefer that they be treated as employees. In some cases, that would oblige employers to offer certain benefits. Erik Sherman covers this issue in “How the U.S. Just Knee-Capped the ‘Gig Economy’“. According to Uber, most of its drivers are part-time and like it that way, so it’s not clear that the government can force Uber (under current rules) to pay for extra benefits, or how many of its drivers that would affect. Still, it is instructive that the government is applying pressure in this area, potentially undermining competitive forces and voluntary relationships formed between innovative businesses and their working partners.

Big government advocates are extremely uncomfortable with the gig economy, but there are a fair number of progressives who place a high value on their ability to transact with “gigsters”. Politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who “skewered” the gig economy last week, risk fracturing their own base by advocating steps that could threaten innovative enterprises like Uber. In another statist attack on Uber, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio recently proposed to “cap” the company’s growth while the city studied its impact on traffic. Fortunately, he has backed down.

Progressives should love the value that the gig economy brings to segments of society whose members otherwise can’t afford or can’t access traditional services. For example, residents of low-income neighborhoods often find themselves living in “taxi deserts” when forced to rely on the entrenched cab companies. Megan McArdle makes this point in “Uber Serves the Poor by Going Where Taxis Don’t“. Aside from the technology angle, this is basic capitalism in action. When government steps in to restrict the conditions under which services may be offered, and raises the cost, it lends a degree of monopoly power to the entrenched providers and blocks the diffusion of services to all segments of the market. This should be seen as antithetical to the progressive agenda, but politicians and cronies don’t always see it that way.

The advantages of the gig economy have been made possible by technology, but another key element is that it has unleashed a flood of voluntary activity to fill gaps that were heretofore inadequately addressed. There have been some principled objections to the business practices of Uber and other gig sponsors, which often involve details regarding the splitting of revenue. Despite these concerns, there are benefits to workers who choose to participate, including a great deal of flexibility in choosing working hours and conditions. Second guessing their motives and the opportunity costs they face is a purely speculative and presumptuous exercise. Furthermore, on other fronts, government has been engaged in a seemingly intentional effort to make only part-time work available, as with recent changes in overtime rules and Obamacare regulations; at least the gig economy fits into that framework.

Traditional service providers, some of whom enjoyed government-enforced monopolies, have reacted to new competition by calling for protection. This rent-seeking behavior is typical in the history of regulation, which has often taken root under strong pressure for protection by entrenched interests. Progressives should reject this perverse form of economic conservatism.

Pricing Wizards Baffle Public Officials

22 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in infrastructure

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Congestion pricing, e21, Highway spending, Hillary Clinton, infrastructure, Infrastructure bank, Market pricing, Mass Transit, Mis-allocation of resources, Reihan Salam, robert Krol

When government invests in physical infrastructure, voters are led to believe that the resources invested will enhance their well being and safety as well as the productivity of the nation’s economy. In any particular instance, however, there is a strong chance that confidence in such assurances is misplaced. Allocation of public monies is always subject to a high likelihood of mismanagement, not least because decision-making in this arena is highly politicized. Government efficiency is always compromised because its actions are not guided by a profit motive. And it is well known that politicians and bureaucrats often act on their own private motives, rather than as purely disinterested public servants.

Another primary shortcoming of government infrastructure investment is that it is mis-priced. Highways are a perfect example. They are often congested because they are free. A weak objection to the last statement is that “pricing” is accomplished through gas taxes, which should provide incentives for curtailing the use of automobiles, but that is true only in the most general sense. The marginal cost to a driver of using a specific route is zero all day long. This leads to greater congestion, higher maintenance costs and, invariably, calls for expanding highway infrastructure.

Robert Krol has an excellent essay on the e21 website in which he lays out the strong case for congestion pricing:

“Although current federal law prohibits charging tolls on existing interstates, states may apply for permission to charge tolls on new lanes. This has occurred on a limited basis in Southern California. Variable tolls have been used outside the United States to successfully reduce congested highways. Before we spend more on highways, we need to change how we price highways. …

… the revenues could be used for highway maintenance and construction. Most importantly, by pricing roads correctly, we may actually find that we don’t need to spend more on highways. …

Economists Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner have shown that building more highway capacity in U.S. cities results in residents driving more, greater commercial traffic, and population in-migration. Congestion remains, resulting in wasted time. A recent estimate from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute shows that these delays cost drivers $121 billion per year. Congestion also increases air pollution in neighborhoods near the congested highways.“

Public transit proposals are almost always boondoggles, including light rail. These systems usually generate fare revenue that falls short of operating costs (with zero contribution to capital costs). But at least fares are non-zero! The ability of mass transit systems to charge fares that pay for themselves is seriously undermined by the ongoing expansion of “free” urban highways.

Reihan Salam reinforces these points in a post about Hillary Clinton’s infrastructure proposals. Clinton pushes the general idea that more infrastructure spending is a must, going so far as to promote a public / private “infrastructure bank” for a wide range of projects that quite possibly are unnecessary, given more rational pricing. She doesn’t promote the latter and she probably doesn’t even think about it, or whether scarcity should be priced.

“If new infrastructure is to be financed with private capital, investors are going to expect spending discipline and, eventually, a meaningful return. Will this return be extracted from taxpayers or from users of the infrastructure service in question? The Obama administration, to its credit, supports allowing state government to collect tolls on their Interstate highway segments if they choose. Would Clinton favor giving states the freedom to make greater use of user fees? ….

I don’t think our main problem is that we’re not spending enough on highways, as Clinton seems to believe. If anything, I think our highway system is overbuilt. … The chief problem with our airports is not … that they’re not as sleek and modern as the vast white elephants you’ll find in East Asia. Rather, it is that they are congested, and the reason they are congested is that the federal government doesn’t provide for market-rate pricing for take-off and landing slots. This straightforward reform would greatly increase the productivity, not to mention the pleasantness, of our aviation system. Yet it doesn’t involve spending billions of dollars and cutting ribbons, so politicians are by and large not interested.“

Voters should not grant free points to politicians who merely utter the I-word: infrastructure. A more creative approach involves efficient, market pricing of highways and other public assets. The technology to price highways efficiently is now available. That may involve some loss of privacy, as it requires detecting the presence of individual vehicles on the roads, but privacy could be protected to some extent by using private firms to manage billing.

Leftists Propose New Ministry of Speech Approval

18 Saturday Jul 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Liberty, Marketplace of Ideas

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Andrew Gripp, Book burners, Censorship, Fact Checkers, Fox News, Kevin D. Williamson, Marketplace of ideas, Politifact, Snopes

I witness so many calls for censorship on a day-to-day basis that I find it astonishing. This in a free society, and from people who fancy themselves liberal. They prefer a form of censorship that carries criminal penalties for speech that does not meet with approval by media “fact checkers”. Which fact checkers shall we choose? Will they be fact-checking juries of our peers, or a new cadre of officials donning armbands?

Does anyone truly believe that the branch of the media engaged in “fact-checking” is objective? Andrew Gripp covers this topic, demonstrating that the assessment of “facts” often doesn’t stand the test of time. Fact checkers will call a statement false, only to rule otherwise years later, or vice versa. That’s just how it went down with President Obama’s pronouncement that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan”. True in 2008, false in 2013. Would Obama receive an exemption under this approach?

But that is just one way in which the fact checkers go wrong. More basic is the fact that the assessments they make are essentially opinions! Gripp puts his finger on the primary weakness of the fact-checking industry:

“… it is important to remember that old Enlightenment figure Giambattista Vico’s verum factum principle: the truth is made — made by people with their own biases, limitations, and subjective standards.“

As part of the same censorious narrative, I sometimes hear that Canada “bans” Fox News. This is patently false, as Snopes asserts. Another trope is that Fox News lies 50% of the time, or 82% of the time, or some such claim that should immediately set off the BS alarm of any discerning observer. I get aggravated with certain things I hear on Fox too, but as an empiricist, this just smells like BS. Kevin Williamson shreds these reports as exercises in bias in a piece entitled “How Stupid Happens“:

“The most obvious problem — though certainly not the only problem, not even close — is selection bias: PolitiFact is a readership-driven online publication, and thus it exercises a great deal of discretion about which statements it chooses to evaluate and why. The most obvious factor is that it evaluates only statements that are disputed. Specifically, it evaluates only statements that are disputed and that its editors believe will be of some interest or benefit to its readers. …

But the fact is that unsupportable, boneheaded claims … will live forever, because people are mostly interested in having their biases confirmed and their values affirmed rather than learning new things about the world and how it works. True, much as I like yelling at people on television, it is pretty hard to feel too bad for Fox News and MSNBC over an exercise in confirmation bias, but this sort of sloppy thinking and malicious manipulation does have the effect of leaving the polity a little dumber than it absolutely has to be. And that is an unforgivable sin.“

In many respects, it feels like this topic is hardly worth a blog post, because the wannabe censors exist in an impenetrable ideological bubble. But on the other hand, they are little tyrants, not merely content to seek a monopoly over the market place of ideas, which is bad enough. They also seek to criminalize statements with which they happen to disagree. There is no doubt that they would burn books. Their ideas are dangerous and should not be treated with respect in a free society.

Nice Splice: New & Old GMO Varieties Blossom

16 Thursday Jul 2015

Posted by Nuetzel in Biotechnology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bill Nye the Science Guy, Bt gene, Dan Charles, David Wolfe, GE food., genetic engineering, genetic modification, Glyphosate, GMO food, golden Rice, herbicide resistance, Lydia Ramsey, Monsanto, NPR, Ringspot virus, Roundup Ready, Slate, William Saletan

Good for Bill Nye the Science Guy! And separately, good for Slate! First, the pop “scientist” Nye has turned the corner and now understands that genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) represent wonderful technology, holding great promise for humanity. Here is what he describes as the key:

“This is what changed my mind, is being able to do [sequence genes] 10 million times faster than they used to be able to do it … and being able to eliminate the ones not suitable for farming and susceptible to diseases and so on. We’re farmers, and we want them to come out the way we want them.“

Lydia Ramsey, whose post at Business Insider is linked above, distills Nye’s position this way:

“We are a society of farmers, and for thousands of years, farmers have been doing everything in their power to get the most product from their labor. Genetically modified crops are a way to do that.“

Apparently Nye is also impressed with the lengthy selection process and careful testing that takes place before GMOs are ever brought to market. That contrasts with the nonexistent testing that is typical of conventional cross-breeding and irradiation, which can result in millions of gene mutations.

Nye, a mechanical engineer by training, probably knows enough science to recognize that there is a massive volume of literature that testifies to the safety of GMO crops (see here and here).

In Slate, William Saletan has written an excellent report entitled “Unhealthy Fixation“, and subtitled “The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer.” Saletan emphasizes that GE is not any one single “thing”, but instead is a process. He discusses the histories of four distinct GMO issues:

Overcoming the devastation of the papaya ringspot virus;
Crops with a single Bt gene inserted versus Bt insecticides used on organics;
Malnutrition, childhood blindness, and Golden Rice;
Herbicide tolerance, farm productivity and herbicide overuse;

The fourth issue is an unfortunate aspect of our experience with GMOs, even to this day: much of it has related to strains of GE crops that are resistant to herbicides, glyphosate being the most prominent (until the patent expired in 2000, Monsanto’s Roundup was the only brand). In the public imagination, GMOs are almost synonymous with “Roundup-ready” crops. Glyphosate is only one type of herbicide, however, and there are significant benefits to herbicide-resistant crops, some of which are created without the help of GE. But herbicide-resistant crops are only one type of GMO. There are many other GMO varieties, and Saletan provides a long list of varieties in the pipeline:

“… drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins [and fewer carcinogens when fried], and soybeans that produce less saturated fat. … virus-resistant beans, heat-tolerant sugarcane, salt-tolerant wheat, disease-resistant cassava, high-iron rice, and cotton that requires less nitrogen fertilizer. … high-calcium carrots, antioxidant tomatoes, nonallergenic nuts, bacteria-resistant oranges, water-conserving wheat, corn and cassava loaded with extra nutrients, and a flaxlike plant that produces the healthy oil formerly available only in fish.“

Saletan bemoans the dominance of the herbicide industry in commercial applications of GMOs. He wants the food industry and regulators to move forward with the many other promising GE applications like those listed in the quote above. He also rightly blames anti-GMO activists for holding up promising varieties:

“First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.“

There is a lot about GE technology for farmers and consumers to love. Many detractors seem unaware that life-saving products like insulin are made with GMOs, or that GMOs are in widespread use in the production of products like cheese, beer, and wine. The anti-GMO drumbeat goes on, however, promoting myths like the five discussed here by Dan Charles at NPR. This includes the fallacy that farmers saved their own seeds for planting until Monsanto came along. A particularly egregious piece of recent propaganda was a video promoted by the huckster David Wolfe. It involved a family who ate only organic food for two weeks and saw the trace levels of pesticides in their urine vanish. Of course, the researchers did not test for organic pesticides, such as Bt, but that escapes the notice of Wolfe’s uncritical acolytes.

You’ll find eight earlier posts related to GMOs on Sacred Cow Chips at this link.