The reason?

A total of 75 people have died from swine flu (in a state of 18 million).

In contrast, 1,429 people died on NY roads in 2005.

What is Paterson’s purpose other than freak people out?

“The U.S. pay czar will cut in half the average compensation for 175 employees at firms receiving large sums of government aid, with the vast majority of salaries coming in under $500,000, according to people familiar with the government’s plans.

As expected, the biggest cut will be to salaries, which will drop by 90% on average. Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department’s special master for compensation, also intends to demand a host of corporate governance changes at those firms.”

The “general Welfare” clause keeps coming back to haunt us.

H/t2 Mario Rizzo

PHILADELPHIA -

The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.

It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.

But the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest.

The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.

The rules take effect Dec. 1.

1. rules being applied to the whole country by 4 unelected officials
2. ridiculously large fines
3. the people who are targeted are not informed about how they should follow the law
4. No mention of enforcement details

The FTC’s press release is here.

as Walter Block argued with great flair, in general the police shouldn’t punish blackmailers. Yes, you are arguably a moral degenerate, a huge jerk, etc. etc. if you blackmail someone, but why is it a crime?

… if some producer happens to know that David Letterman is building his own special Top Ten List (you know I had to work in some cheesy pun in this post), and if that producer has the legal right to blog about it, talk about it, even to write a book about it, then how in the world is it a crime for him to give Letterman the option of buying his silence?

The way I see it, the only true crime involved with blackmail per se, would be if Letterman paid the guy $2 million, and then the guy went ahead and spread the gossip anyway. Of course, the crime there would be violating the deal, not the offer a deal in the first place.

If its the government’s job to enforce contracts (even private, secret contracts) but the government makes those contracts illegal, than it makes it more likely that a blackmail agreement would blow up in the way that Bob describes.

This is probably why Letterman didn’t pay the blackmailer… there’s no guarantee that he would have kept his silence. If there was a court that would enforce these agreements, however, than both parties could have been happy.

I’m sure this issue is too sticky to change, though.

The US government has relaxed its control over how the internet is run.

It has signed a four-page “affirmation of commitments” with the net regulator Icann, giving the body autonomy for the first time.

Previous agreements gave the US close oversight of Icann – drawing criticism from other countries and groups.

I’m sure we’re supposed to like that the federal government is giving up some of its control (I wonder how game theory or public choice theory explains that), but does it count if they’re just handing the reigns over more fully to a different institution?

This is just some loose speculation. I’m fairly certain that Icann has some critical function for smooth operation and, more importantly, organization, of the internet.

It is essentially a forum for politicians and technocrats from around the world to put their heads together and plan the world economy.

Well… I bet they would if they could actually do that.

Nevertheless, I get a very uneasy feeling from this meeting. The decisions made there, mostly by unelected “officials” will affect everyone in the world. And we’re just supposed to take it on blind faith that they know the best outcomes for us?

That’s really asking a lot from us… and they didn’t even bother asking!

UPDATE:

“The G20 is going to be the new body counsel that will be the coordinating body for international economic cooperation,” said an unnamed US official

Needless to say, I am speechless. Meanwhile…

Near the venue, police fired rubber bullets at protesters on a march near the venue.

Maybe I’m exaggerating from the story, but the US is handing over central planning of the economy to an unelected governing body, meanwhile dissenters are getting shot (with nonlethal weapons) in the street?

Quite frequently, I hear, “How do you justify working at a state university and holding libertarian views? That’s hypocritical!”

Many libertarians and other small government-minded people deal with this question. I, myself, meet this accusation frequently because I attended a state university and working for a sector that is funded almost entirely by the federal government. I this his answer is satisfactory:

But the State is involved, and heavily. This involvement makes it artificially difficult for private schools to thrive. So should educators and researchers who oppose such involvement as a matter of principle content themselves to teach only at the very small number of schools that get no government funds? And should those libertarian educators and researchers who can find no employment at such schools find some other occupation, even if it’s likely that they can contribute more to the cause of freedom by teaching and researching than by abandoning that career?

Although my recommendations for policy would create outcomes substantially different than what we have, would critics suggest I pretend that I’m living in that world rather than the one that actually exists? If I did so, I would not be doing work that I love, neither would I be putting myself in a position where I can attempt to change it. For libertarians, our best option is to work within the system so we can transform it. We need an evolution in the role of government, not radical revolution.

Government incentives obviously work to effect behavior, even when the people have rational expectations about the outcome (I think game theory has some interesting explanations about why this may be so). From the perspective of the liberty-minded individual:

Another consideration turns on the distinction between choosing rules and choosing how to act within a given set of rules. It would be a clearer case of unethical behavior on my part if I voted for further government involvement in higher education than if I simply accepted the reality of that involvement–a reality unlikely to be changed any time soon. I can legitimately say, “I would arrange education differently, but because that power is not mine, it’s okay for me to work for a government school even though I would prefer that such things not exist. I don’t make the rules.”

This argument, too, has some merit. But it also has a weakness: Society’s rules often are changed by persons who refuse on principle to accept what seems inevitable. “Playing by the rules” is not a free ticket to violate your ethical norms.

I’m not sure if Hanson is continuing our discussion in this post in Overcoming Bias today, but he reaffirms this position, extending it pretty much all of nature:

Yes, nature would be saved if we destroy ourselves without destroying nature in the process, but hopefully we’ll avoid this scenario.  We might also somehow coordinate to prevent competitive growth.  For example, we might empower a world government to protect nature, prevent innovation, or prevent population growth.  But I honestly see little prospect of this.  We now live in a very competitive world, and even governments mainly just redirect competition, toward controlling those governments.

I find it a little odd that he would say this. It contains elements of truth… at what point will governments stop promoting ecological conservationism at the cost of economic competitiveness?

But I think he misses another element. I don’t think it will escape the attention of capitalist that they rely on the earth for natural resources and that technological advanced will decrease, not increase, our reliance and impact on nature and not the other way around.

People have been falsely predicting that we’ve reached the earth’s carrying capacity for centuries, and they’ve all been wrong. This is not because of government incentives (well, not totally) but because of market forces.

I think Hanson’s assumption of continuing population growth is also incorrect. As economic competition produces wealth throughout the globe, population levels will steady out without having to approach the earth’s physical limits. Add the technology of lessening out eco footprints and I don’t think there’s anything to worry about.

Hanson is being alarmist – some will say economic growth needs to happen anyway, so government interventions are just delaying, and worsening, the inevitable, while others will say that we need to stop “progress” to protect the natural rights of mother earth.

As an economist, I find it odd that Hanson would imply that population will keep growing but technology will reach a limit.

I find it much more likely that, in astronomical time, the human population will dwindle out into nothing because we no longer feel the drive to reproduce than we’ll reach the physical carrying capacity of the entire universe.

Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama’s health reforms and spending plans is “based on racism”.

While it seems inevitable that some portion of the right’s anti-health care rhetoric is based on racism, its a huge red herring argument that Carter is proposing. But, for whatever reason, it seems like race-baiting without evidence is an easy and popular way to try to end opposition to the president’s (or democrat’s) proposals without evidence. It dispenses with the need for intellectual argument. In fact, it makes Carter and the Dems no better than the supposedly-racism right wingers that they are attacking.

The funny thing is about racism accusations is that trying to defend yourself against charges of racism just makes you sound more racist. The more racist you are, the easier you are to discredit and so this type of charge just tends to replicate itself… all without the need to evidence.

It seems like the only way out of the cycle is to apologize, but then you might be admitting to an untruth.

Perhaps this is an exaggeration of the issue, but I don’t think its too far off and it seems to be getting more prevalent all the time.

This is just one mild example of the unintended consequences coming back to haunt us. Government uses policy to create incentives, but outcomes can be just as bad when people respond too strongly to these incentives than when they don’t respond strongly enough. The “clash for clunkers” program is another potential example.

“Following implementation of the act, the trajectory of the economy changed materially toward moderating output decline and job loss,” the president’s Council of Economic Advisers told Congress.

It looks like somebody needs a lesson in post hoc ergo propter hoc. I’m sure their statistics are all nice and tidy, though.

The blogosphere is humming (or is it a roar?) with glee and angst in regards to Obama’s speech. Honestly, I didn’t pay much attention to it, but I did appreciate Robin Hanson’s comments last night.

So he’s going to save $500+ billion over ten years by having an independent commission “encourage best practices”?  Actually doing that would require this commission to have enormous power and be willing to use it to create many politically powerful enemies.  I see no sign whatsoever that they are actually willing to do this, nor any sign that they would actually be willing to cut medical spending if “spending cuts” somewhere were required by law.  So far this still looks like the usual empty campaign promise to pay for spending deficits by “cutting waste and abuse.”

We’ve now seen this claim a hundred times, but does anybody really believe we’ll be able to finance a public option entirely by cutting costs to medicare and then have regulatory bodies keep costs under control by reducing inefficiencies?

I mean it sounds nice, but the federal government has not, in general, demonstrated an ability to improve efficiency in other areas, so why here?

Usually I take this argument with a grain of salt – we can’t assume that the “clash for clunkers” program will tell us anything the public care program (very different infrastructure will be set up) – but there’s something to be said about the central planner problem in cases like these.

How will it be possible to cut waste and not reduce care? I don’t think this is possible, because patients will have a very different idea about what constitutes waste than bureaucrats (even doctors are involved in making decisions).

What I suspect, is that if the public option gets passed, we will realize that the studies comparing American to European health care weren’t telling us the whole story. Health indicators depend on a lot more than complete health insurance coverage. I suspect we’ll see wider coverage, but higher costs (until price controls are legislated, of course) but no significant improvements in general health statistics.

It seems like they are going to game the system with incentives to promote treatment (rather than healthy prevention; diet and exercise, etc) – things that keep people from dying, but not necessarily healthy. Unless price information is introduced, I can’t see how the system – public or private – will be improved.

That being said though, I wouldn’t necessarily say “no” to a public plan that was able to use pricing incentives to encourage consumers to make choices about health care options and introduce real competition between providers. I believe that only a market system can keep costs under control.

Dan Davis, MP says that this creates:

…a huge intrusion on privacy, yet … little or no improvement in security.

But what’s the evidence of the latter. If Freakonomics is also correct in reporting that there are over a million cameras in London, then over 1000 crimes in London have been solved in London this year by cameras. The obvious question that nobody seems to be asking is whether the money could have been spent more efficiently elsewhere.

Robert Murphy links to some comments in a Matt Yglesias blog post.

Brad:

I love it when liberals characterize not confiscating wealth from taxpayers as a “cost.” By that logic, failing to confiscate the entire GDP “costs” the government $13 trillion every year. Those bastards! Blowing a hole in the budget! Liberals really do see every dollar in the US economy as belonging to the US government first.

Commenter2:

Liberals really do see every dollar in the US economy as belonging to the US government first.”

Yes, Brad, I for one, do. Who prints the dollar in the first place? Who issues it? And whose collective will imbues the dollar with its value?

This is pointing at a deeper issue (which I will return to again): where does the economic value behind a dollar come from? From the labor that represents it’s earnings or by its physical existance? Dollars circulate and GDP grows, but how do people become richer?

Obviously, commenter2 is wrong: wealth can be built without governments printing money – you can be sure the free market would take care of this problem – but is there a vital role that government plays in basic economic activity?

Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

An otherwise interesting BBC article on the Google book scanning deal ends with this:

Many believe the issue of rights over out-of-print books would best be solved by legislation and not the courts.

“It is never a good thing for private parties to make deals for the public good,” said Martin Manley, the founder of Alibris.com, an online store which sells used, rare and out-of-print books.

“The public good is meant to be solved by regulators who are somewhat accountable and by legislators who are wholly accountable,” Mr Manley told BBC News.

Now, I’m not a big fan of copy right law and I support Google in their efforts, but Mr. Manley has this completely wrong. The enforcement of private contracts is certainly within the realm of the judicial system. Google is not trying, nor should be expected to, make deals for the “public good.”  They are simply trying to provide a service that consumers find desirable – and working around stone age copyright law in trying to do so. But don’t think for a second that just because Google doesn’t charge internet users directly for their services that Google is acting for the purposes of the “public good.”

Make no mistake, this is a private deal for private interests.

And as for his second quote… yes, copyright law needs to be reworked by legislatures, but it doesn’t sound like this is what he’s saying. It sounds like Manley wants congress to pass some bill that would erase private contracts and copyrights to “protect the public good” of having free books online (which, incidentally, I don’t think one of the rights protected by the constitution).

I hope this quote was taken out of context. Imagine what kind of precedent it would set if congressman could just erase copyrights or patents when deemed to violate the “public good”? Manley claims that legislators are more accountable that judges, but was it judges that were trying to interfere with private contracts during the financial bailouts?

What Manley is suggesting, using erroneous assumptions, is that judges are trying to legislate from the bench via private interests (which is false, they’re just trying to uphold bad laws) in a way which violates the public good (also false: he confuses Google and google customers for the general public). His claimed solution, if I’ve interpreted correctly: give legislators even more power to uphold subjective public good.

Hint – what legislators claim is the public good is more often than not special deals for private interests. In this case, what Manley wants is a deal that works out for Google. What happens when the next special deal is struck for some pharmaceutical company that Manley doesn’t like so much?

There is a good reason why we have checks and balances and that political power is divided the way it is. I would say this recommendation is borderline unconstitutional.