The Grand Game: Ox y Moron Edition

Really nothing complicated here, folks.  Just have at it.

I do have one question, I guess.  How many pigs would there be in the world if we stopped eating them?  Answer:  very few.  They don't give milk, their skins aren't really useful, and they don't lay eggs.  Is it really obvious that it is better for pigs never even to be born, than to be raised for food?

It is possible to answer "yes," if the quality of life in industrial farming is self-evidently so bad that a reasoning pig would want to commit suicide.  (I should note that, for this reason, Angus generally selects free range meats.  I do sometimes, but Angus is pretty consistent.)  But since the pig would not exist if there were no demand for pork, it can't always be true that the pig would have been better off never being born at all.

The decision to be a vegan really comes down to (1) a choice about the environment, because raising meat uses too many resources, (2) a choice about health, because the person believes animal products are unhealthy, or (3) a choice about the morality of killing animals.  Choices (1) and (2) are at least logically coherent, and though I don't agree I honor people who make that choice.  To choose #3, you have to be profoundly solipsistic.  Your moral vegan smugness is more important than the existence of pigs.  There is no way that it would be better to kill all the pigs forever, and to never allow pigs to live, than to raise them under humane circumstances and then eat them.  Domesticated pigs exist only because humans have been eating them, for five thousand years.

And the oxen in the example above?  How could they have been more free range?  That was humane, friends.  Goodness, people are amazing.  The moral smugness of PETA-philes is more important than the actual lives of animals.

Nod to Anonyman.

Basic Logic Fail

Okay, let's review.

This guy, Dr. D.M. Berwick, was appointed to head the US gov't office of Medicaid/Medicare.

He had a history of saying that we needed a health care system more like the Brit system, run by the government, and with rationing decisions made by bureaucrats. (Note: At KPC we understand health care has to be rationed. I just don't want it done by some person who got fired at the DMV).

Now, he says 30% of the US health care expenditures on Medicare/aid are pure waste, and doctors all know it.

He continues (I quote the NYTimes reporter's set-up)

If his estimate is right, Medicare and Medicaid could save $150 billion to $250 billion a year by eliminating waste, which he defines as “activities that don’t have any value.”

Dr. Berwick sounded like a professor of political science or a visitor from a foreign country when he recounted his efforts to fathom Washington’s ways.

“Government is more complex than I had realized,” he said in an understatement. “Government decisions result from the interactions of many internal stakeholders — different agencies and parts of government that, in many cases, have their own world views.”

Um.... so, I have a question. This guy was a big fan of government-run health care. He took a government job, and now he thinks 30% of the money we spend is wasted. He thinks government is "more complex" than he realized, and...well, the article continues:

Before coming here, Dr. Berwick was president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a nonprofit group in Cambridge, Mass., that trains medical professionals. “I was used to moving very, very fast,” he said. “We could decide on Monday to start a program and have it in existence on Wednesday.”

As a federal official, Dr. Berwick was sometimes impatient with colleagues in the government and with the health care industry.

So, in this gentleman's OWN EXPERIENCE, private nonprofits are relatively fast and much more efficient and government sucks. Medicare/aid in particular is a disaster, as he knows from trying to fix it.

His solution: Let's expand Medicare until it's the entire health care system! He continues to love Obama-care like it's a religious pilgrimage.

Asked why Americans were still deeply divided over the new health care law, signed 20 months ago, Dr. Berwick said: “It’s a complex, complicated law. To explain it takes a while. To understand it takes an investment that I’m not sure the man or woman in the street wants to make or ought to make.”

But, Dr. Berwick said, just as Americans supported manned missions to the moon without knowing the details of rocket science, they ought to support the new law because of its ultimate destination.

A religious belief is one that you cling to in spite of all empirical evidence to the contrary. This guy saw, with his own expert eyes, the gigantic waste of time and money that is government-run, government-provided health care. He gave specifics, showed that he is actually a smart and honest guy.

And then reverts to his religious belief: worship the state, and the state will do the right thing. These little glitches....just aberrations. Eventually, he says:

“We are a nation headed for justice, for fairness and justice in access to care,” Dr. Berwick said. “We are a nation headed for much more healing and much safer care. There is a moon shot here. But somehow we have not put together that story in a way that’s compelling.”

No, doctor, there is a big difference between going to moon, and going to justice. When you get to the moon, you can come back. When you get to "justice," which you appear to be believe to be the absence of any private enterprise, you turn into Cuba. There is no coming back from that.

ODC Food Tent

Anonyman sends this photo with the caption "food tent" from the Self-Obsessed DC protest.

Several of you have asked, "Who is Anonyman?" I can only answer by quoting from V for Vendetta: "I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is..." But, okay, here is a picture of Anonyman, hanging with his peeps in the street at Occupy DC.

The entire V speech, if you want it. And you KNOW you want it.

Shine on you crazy diamond

Did you guys catch Jared Diamond in Sunday's NY Times? Ouch.

He starts out with an ode to corporate environmental responsibility:

The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.

But somehow ends up in Thomas Friedman crazyland:

While the United States is dithering about long-distance energy transmission from our rural areas with the highest potential for wind energy generation to our urban areas with the highest need for energy, China is far ahead of us. It is developing ultra-high-voltage transmission lines from wind and solar generation sites in rural western China to cities in eastern China. If America doesn’t act to develop innovative energy technology, we will lose the green jobs competition not only to Finland and Germany (as we are now) but also to China.

Class, repeat after me:

(1). Green jobs are NOT a zero sum game where nations are competing for a fixed number of them.

(2). If China or Germany or anyone develops "innovative energy technology", that is NOT bad for us.  It is in fact *awesome* for us, as we can then adopt it and use it.

People, ideas are public goods. That is the whole basis of new growth theory. If China is now doing cutting edge R&D, that is an unmitigated blessing for everyone on the planet.

Robert Reich: you cannot be serious!

So I was looking through Mark Thoma's links and found this amazing piece by Robert Reich, which begins as follows:

"One out of four homeowners is now under water, owing more on their homes than the homes are worth. Why? The biggest single factor behind the housing crisis is rising unemployment. According to the latest ABC-Washington Post poll, one out of every three Americans has either lost their job or lives in a household with someone who has lost a job. Today it takes two and sometimes three incomes to buy the groceries and pay the mortgage or the rent. So if one of those incomes is gone, a homeowner can't make the payment."

Yikes and double Yikes!

Let me get a tad personal here.

Robert, even the dimmest of bulbs can surely recognize that it's the housing crisis that caused the unemployment, not the other way 'round! 

And even a burnt out bulb should realize that being underwater is not coming from unemployed workers being unable to pay their mortgages. While that is a bad and concerning thing, it has basically nothing to do with being underwater. 

Being underwater is owing more than your home is worth. Robert, you even give the correct definition of underwater in your first sentence but then go hideously off the rails thereafter. 

So Robert, or the typing gibbon who is writing these posts under your name, please get your shit together and try to make a little bit of sense. After all you were our nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor!

The Culture that is Thailand

A Thai man is keeping more than 4,600 scorpions as pets to atone for the years he spent cooking the arachnids to sell as snacks.

Scorpions, insects and worms are commonly eaten in Thailand, especially in the northern regions.
But after years of serving up scorpions, Suang Puangsri, a practicing Buddhist, felt it was time to befriend them instead.

"Although I was happy to have money, I felt suffering deep inside as they were being harmed by me," he told Reuters. "I felt scared that I was committing a sin."

The 38-year-old has given up the bottom floor of his two-storey home to the scorpions, who scuttle about a 6 meter by 5 meter (19 ft by 16 ft) enclosure decorated with branches and stone so that very little light and heat come in.

Suang buys up to one kg of live cicadas and other inspects daily to feed his pets, who have stung him so many times that he says he is immune to their venom.

He also spends at least an hour every day meditating inside the enclosure, often placing scorpions in his mouth.

So clearly, another title for this post could have been: Karma reparations: yer doin' them wrong.

He has stopped torturing scorpions (at least partly stopped, I doubt the scorpion enjoys being inside his mouth), only to start torturing and killing cicadas instead.

Turns out that this guy is not alone:

Suang's fixation with scorpions is unusual, but not totally unheard of in Thailand.
Earlier this year a Thai woman went into the record books for spending 33 days and nights with 5,000 live scorpions. She also held a 7-inch live scorpion in her mouth for 2 minutes and 3 seconds.

The full story is here.

Blame it on the National Health

In his vapid and wandering editorial, "Is There a Right to Health Care?", "Theodore Dalrymple" pens an amazing paragraph:

"Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so."

So, for no good reason, my boy throws an entire country under the bus! People, things are so bad in the UK that even the wretched GREEKS crawl back to their ancient hovels and witchdoctors rather than face the horror of the National Health.

I can't think of a more convincing way to argue that there is no such thing as a right to health care, can you?

The author makes another stab at the argument here:

"Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, “So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?”

When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one."

So every single Brit gives exactly the same answer? And my oh my "Theodore", what a devastating reply you have. Except that IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE OR HAVE ANY RELEVANCE TO YOUR ALLEGED POINT!!

Let me put this in terms simple enough that even a pretentious British physician with a ridiculous pen name might be able to understand:

Anecdotes about failures (or successes) of socialize medicine can never prove anything, one way or the other, about the existence of a right to health care.

Some Important Verbs

Angus and I have been having a small debate, about two verbs. But with help from Martin K., I have come up with the key distinction.

Angus claims (and rightly) that the verb "to Jess" means to make certain social commitments, perhaps only implicitly but still clearly, and then just completely blow them off. For example, if you are skiing with several people, and all make plans for going to dinner after the next run. Then one or two of the group see the route you are taking down, and with nothing more than a "I'm not going that way" take off down a much longer run, served by a different lift line. You have been "Jessed" (named after the master Jesser, Jess Yawitz. (A junior Jess master is Tom Gilligan, coming up fast through the rankings, for Jessing promised golf outings).

"To Munger" is, I would claim, somewhat different. I do have the habit of going to a party, and then when it is time to go I just leave. Not quite sneak out, but...okay, I sneak out. I don't like the whole big scene of taking leave, small talk, interrupting the conversation of other people just so I can go home. This is NOT Jessing, which involves the breaking of the promise for further social interaction. Anyway, Martin Kypta came up with the perfect short definition of Mungering: "To Munger is to waive goodbye." I wish I had thought of that.

UPDATE: Angus is going to argue that "To Munger" has at least two archaic meanings. The first is to use one's large (and possibly smelly) body to wind around plates or boxes of supposedly shared food items, thereby claiming them, much as a dog might. (And, yes, this did really happen, absolutely.)

The second is to make large (in fact, grandiose) claims about athletic skills and mastery of sports. It later turns out the actual talent level is much, MUCH less, and then the Mungerer will make some even MORE preposterous excuse. The excuse simply adds to the comedy material of John Jarosz, who retells the story four or five times each day for a month.

While I do honor Angus' position as the keeper of the flame of tradition, I think these two archaic meanings are no longer in common usage.

Words to live by

Physics? Really?

Hobbes thought law was like physics. Montesquieu thought law was like physics.

But....Lawrence Tribe?....Larry, Larry, Larry. What are we going to DO with you?

Some other views, like this, or then this.

Connecting this to Obama, however, is a bit of a stretch. MOST of the stuff published in the Harvard Law Review is crackpot science, or crackpot legal theory, or the product of crack or pot (pharmaceuticals). Don't blame BHO for this one thing. No one person can answer for Harvard.

(Nod to KL)

Clueless People: Alliterative edition

Tyler (who is definitely NOT clueless) quotes our clueless subject of the day, Bruce Bartlett, as follows:

"I think it would be a terrible mistake to simply write a check to the auto industry without demanding major, major restructuring of its labor contracts. Without that the money will simply go down a rat hole and the automakers will just be back again in a year or two asking for more money. Obama has a strong hand to play here and I hope he uses his leverage. With bankruptcy as the only alternative to federal aid, he can drive a very hard bargain with the auto workers. If he caves and just writes a blank check, everyone will know he can be rolled and he will pay a heavy political price for it. If Obama shows toughness on this issue, I think it will pay enormous dividends for him down the road. "

Um, Obama bash the unions in his first major act as president? Really Bruce? You think that's a winner for him? Really?

Yes he has "leverage" and yes he will use it, but sadly, he will use it to mandate vague and useless "green jobs" and alternative technology initiatives (I say useless because he'd be mandating this for companies that can't create conventional jobs or master existing technologies).

If we are going to do anything here, I'd say just give a lump sum payment to the workers and let nature take its course with respect to the corporate structures.

I don't think it's the union that put Detroit in their current predicament. It did not help, that's for sure but the union does not design and market the product nor undertake investments or make acquisitions.

Now THAT'S Pimpin'!

Lil Wesley K Clark has hit a new and vile low in the big 3 bailout debate. That's right people, it's a matter of national security!

"AMERICA’S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington’s intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative."

Ah yes, the lovely national security argument for economic distortion and protectionism. The last refuge, as they say.

As always, it's hard to know where to begin. First off, Ford and GM do not comprise "America's automobile industry". Second, if there was no GM, would it be impossible to use Toyota or Honda in the US to provide military vehicles? Plenty of countries IMPORT military equipment, don't they? Third, not bailing out the big 3 does not necessarily mean they will cease to exist (though that outcome is possible).

I'll say this for Wes, he is a grimly determined and wildly entertaining fleshmonger. After a bunch of paragraphs that pretty much say nothing he concludes with:

"This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security."

How can the NY Times print this moronic drivel?

Impeccable Government Logic on Display

Hey Judy Shelton: Enough already with the Gold Standard

Judy "one note" Shelton again graces the opinion page of the WSJ with an ode to the long defunct Bretton Woods system. Here is one freaky passage out of many:

"At the bottom of the world financial crisis is international monetary disorder. Ever since the post-World War II Bretton Woods system -- anchored by a gold-convertible dollar -- ended in August 1971, the cause of free trade has been compromised by sovereign monetary-policy indulgence."

Wow, people. Where to begin to parse this mess? Sentence #1 is completely false. At the bottom of the world financial crisis is a housing bubble and inadequate allowance for risk. Sentence #2 is misleading at best. Trade has exploded since 1971. Of course she could be arguing that it would have grown even faster, but that case is not being made. Further, internal politics in poor countries and rich country lobbies have compromised "the cause of free trade" by several orders of magnitude more than have any monetary shenanigans.

People, the Bretton Woods system never really worked. In the late 40s and early 50s there were massive devaluations undertaken without IMF permission. Throughout the 50s the US allowed Europe to discriminate against US goods. Full currency convertibility for trade didn't occur until the mid 60s, so the system as designed really started then, lasted well less than a decade, and was pretty much perpetually in crisis.

A world wide system of fixed exchange rates just won't work in a world of free capital flows, unless domestic government forsake all internal considerations and dedicate their monetary policies 100% to the peg. We have seen that no modern societies, whether democratic or autocratic are will to do this.

So Judy, repeat after me: (1) floating exchange rates have almost nothing to do with the current financial crisis. (2) The Bretton Woods system never worked as designed for any reasonable period of time. (3) Advocating a return to a pseudo gold standard is equivalent to howling at the moon given the political realities of our modern world.

People, a great book on all this stuff is Barry Eichengreen's "Globalizing Capital". Easily readable by non-economists and incredible informative and well written.

And so it begins

Not content to wait until January to open up shop, Nancy P and Harry R have asked Hank Paulson to find a little love for the US "big" 3 automakers in his $750 billion goody bag.

"Dear Secretary Paulson:"

"We are writing to request that you review the feasibility of invoking the authority Congress provided you under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) for the purpose of providing temporary assistance to the automobile industry during the current financial crisis...A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market stability, the overall health of our economy, and the livelihood of the automobile sector’s workforce."

"The economic downturn and the crisis in our financial markets further imperiled our domestic automobile industry and its workforce. On Thursday, we separately met with the leaders of the automobile industry, and its top union representative, to discuss the financial challenges confronting the industry and its workforce, and possible actions to address these challenges. We left the meetings convinced that our nation’s automobile industry - the heart of our manufacturing sector - and the jobs of tens of thousands of American workers are at risk. Friday’s news of the automobile industry’s record low sales figures only reaffirm the need for urgent action....."

"Were you to determine that the automobile industry is eligible for assistance under EESA, we would urge you to impose strong conditions on such assistance in order to protect taxpayers and maximize the potential for the industry’s recovery. An automobile industry that is forward-looking and focused on ingenuity, competitiveness, and the creation of green jobs for the future is essential to its long-term viability...."

Oh man oh man oh man. Are autos the "heart of our manufacturing sector?" are the "big" 3 really essential to the "restoration of financial market stability (and) the overall health of our economy"?? Is mandating "green jobs" even one of the top 1000 conditions that should be put on aid to automakers?

What do you think people? Who will be next to belly up to the bar?

Ask not what the building can do for you.....

....but rather what can you do for the building?

What do you do when a Moron calls you a moron?

Well if you're Tyler Cowen, you give him more airtime!

Ok people, here's the deal. The moron in question,one Greg Ransom, in a comment on a post of Tyler's writes:

Tyler,

You're a moron when it comes to the ABC theory. As Hayek explains the theory, massive new global wealth and a desire for additional risk IS ENOUGH IN ITSELF to create an ABC boom and bust cycle -- THAT IS HAYEK, as I explained to you 2 decades ago. You simply don't know your Hayek. Hayek's ABC theory is NOT dependent of central banks and central bank interest rate policies to function.

But I'm guessing you haven't read enough Hayek to know that.

OK, got that? Hayek don't need no stinkin' central bank in his business cycle theory. We clear? Good.

But then I go to Mr. Ransom's (i.e. the moron's) blog and find the following post:

"THE FED CAUSED THE CRISIS: Hayekian wisdom from the magnificent Anna Schwartz:

"If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset. The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates that induced ordinary people to say, well, it's so cheap to acquire whatever is the object of desire in an asset boom, and go ahead and acquire that object. And then of course if monetary policy tightens, the boom collapses."

Be sure to read the whole thing."


Man, that's a real "what u talkin' about Willis" moment, innit? Central Banks aren't relevant to Hayek's ABC, but the thesis that "the Fed caused the crisis" is "Hayekian wisdom".

I guess that maybe explains why Tyler has published a book on Austrian business cycles while Mr. Ransom rages in all caps on other people's blogs.


Update: People, this just keeps getting better. Mr. Ransom is the first commenter on Tyler's post (the first link at the top of this post) and he says "I am really frustrated with the low level of debate". This from a fellow whose debating strategy can be summed up succinctly: ad hominem

(Of course I am doing the same here, but I freely admit to being delighted by the level of debate)

They just don't get it

India's first (unmanned) moon mission is to lift off today. I am not making this up. People go and read "The White Tiger" and tell me if you think this is a smart use of funds for India.

Many Mexican teachers are on strike over an agreement between the government and their union to abolish the practice of buying one's job, requiring proof of literacy from all new teachers, and instituting remedial training for non literate current teachers.

Finally a bit closer to home, the totally irony-challenged President of the United States of America said this weekend: "It is essential that we preserve the foundations of Democratic capitalism, a commitment to free markets, free enterprise and free trade."

I don't get it

Suppose I was running for office and had a kid. Suppose I supported de-criminalization / legalization of drugs. Suppose during the campaign the kid dies of an overdose.

Three things would be true.

1. My support for the policy didn't kill my kid. Lots of people die of overdoses while we continue to wage "war" on drugs.

2. My kid dying doesn't make my policy position wrong. It might be wrong (I don't think it is), but my kid dying has nothing to do with the cost-benefit analysis or the morality of the position.

3. My kid dying + my policy position doesn't automatically make me a hypocrite.

Right?

Right?

Right?

So I have to ask, WTF is going on in this country???