Emissions Policy

Why are 25-year (and older) automobiles exempt from emissions programs, while newer vehicles are still held “emissions accountable?” All vehicles produce emissions, whether they are new, old, small or big. However, new vehicles that have new technology are continuously improved making them run more efficient, while producing less carbon dioxide and sulfur. Older models generally produce more, and yet they are not held accountable, so why does the state government system disregard these vehicles? One possibility is that new automobiles are held at a level of “higher accountability” by the state governments, because there are more of them on the road? It could also be said that environmental groups are putting more pressure upon the automotive manufactures to improve upon the emissions control? Rumors circulate that state government has little control over there emissions control program. Many emissions control facilities have become outdated or are non-functioning. Some control stations have been caught taking bribes to make their customers vehicles pass. Today we all face a cost-benefit decision that suggests that we can buy new automobiles that are economically beneficent and are constantly being held accountable, or we can choose to keep our older vehicles that produce vastly larger amounts or carbon and sulfur. In today’s society a “green outlook” comes with a choice, whether to serve the environment or our own needs.

Liberalism

As we have dicussed throughout the entire semester, most of us agree that a liberal economy is the best way to go. With all of the interventions that the government makes it drives our economy down and is one of the main reasons that we are in such an economic turmoil right now. Why, if this is so obvious of an answer to most of us in class is it so hard for the politicians and the high ranking government officials to figure out. They should have people that are more educated than us, as undergraduate students. Why don't they see the same things we do. Could it be that we are actually wrong, or is it that with all of the interventions that have already been made that it is already too late to change what we have? Whatever the answers we need to fix this mess we have made and need to have the right people in place to be able to do the things that this country so desperately needs.

Should Government Intervene in the Automobile Industry for the Sake of Global Warming?

The automobile industry encompasses two fundamental issues at the forefront of the American society today—global warming and dependence on oil. The automobile industry uses vast amounts of oil and, thus, contributes to global warming through excessive carbon emissions. The question then arises, what should be done? Automobiles create externalities that cause environmental harm; should the government step in and regulate the industry? Or should the market be relied upon to correct for the environmental damages inflicted by cars? In his essay “How a Free Society Could Save Global Warming,” Gene Callahan advocates that corrections for global arming are more likely to result through free-market interactions, rather than government intervention. An argument against this point is whether or not the market will be able to adjust quickly enough. Environmental problems take some time to recognize and address (partially why global warming is just now becoming a public issue though it has been occurring for some time). Will the market be able to reflect the additional costs of environmental damage in a timely manner so that the problems can actually be halted and corrected?
On the other hand, if government does regulate the industry, will it be able to do so in a manner that will correct for global warming? Government intervention also takes time, and there is no guarantee that government will “get it right.” If government decides to regulate the amount of emissions cars are allowed to produce, will they be able to establish the “correct” amount? (What would this amount be? And, how would they determine it?) Government, having less-complete information about the auto industry because they are outside of it, it seems, would be less likely to set the “efficient” amount of emissions. If they allow too much carbon emissions, global warming may not be corrected, and if they allow too few, that could negatively impact the industry and consumers. However, it could still be argued that any decrease in emission is better than no decrease or an increase.
Besides regulating emissions, should government require auto producers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles or alternative-fuel vehicles to decrease oil consumption and the effects of global warming? In Chapter 13, “Conservation, Ecology, and Growth,” of For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that technological improvement will lead to a higher standard of living. Based upon his reasoning, it could be concluded that the technology of the automobile industry will improve to the point where vehicles will be more fuel-efficient or utilize alternative fuels because this would make people better-off (fuel would likely be less expensive and air pollution would decrease). The question again arises of whether or not these changes will take place through the market in a timely enough manner to preserves the environment, or whether government regulation is warranted and would be effective. Rising oil prices would increase the incentives for auto producers to develop alternative fuels and fuel-efficient vehicles, but if oil prices decline, these incentives are reduced. The development of new technology might then be delayed; meanwhile, cars continue to pollute the air and contribute to global warming. Government intervention (through regulation, or subsidies) could recreate incentives to continue the development of such technologies. Thus, the question remains, should government intervene in the automobile industry to correct for environmental damages, or should it be left to free-market interactions?

Bring on the gas guzzler!

With the economy doing so bad, we have to look at the good things that also come with it. Lower gas prices! I was driving on union down towards Platte today and I saw gas prices as low as $2.27 that's like a dollar cheaper than 6 months ago. I remembered when it cost me like over $30 to fill up my tank and now it's like $10 less so I'm happy. And since we live in a state where almost every other car is an SUV or Truck or some other kind or gas guzzler, I'm sure they are all ecstatic too. I know this helps me out alot especially since I work in the restaurant industry and not many people are willing to go out these days. And if you don't own one of these guzzlers, I'm sure you can find one cheap now seeing how the auto industry is taking a big hit like most other industries

So I'm debating whether I should fill up my tank now or wait and see if it can get any lower...

Buy Nine Fingers, Get the Tenth Free

Do you own your body?

I think the vast majority of people, at least in America, would answer yes. In fact, conceptually it’s difficult to answer in any other manner. Even the question must be phrased with the term “your body” in order to properly be understood. And yet I’m not entirely convinced our bodies are truly our own.

George Carlin once asked “Why should it be illegal to sell something, that it‘s perfectly legal to give away?” Carlin was talking about prostitution, but I think the quote remains just as valid in reference to the organs of our bodies. And the only answer I can think of, is because we don’t own the organs, and the true owner has set the rules.

The fact that you can’t legally buy transplant organs in America has created a chronic shortage of them. At the moment, unless you can get someone to donate to you directly, the method of acquiring one involves, essentially, signing up to wait in line for who knows how many years until your number is called. The entire process eerily resembles the DMV, except with hospital beds instead of 6 inch high plastic chairs.

Why such a long wait? Because the value of organs is some number greater then zero, but for the moment zero is all people are allowed to receive in exchange for those organs. Thus the system relies solely on the altruism of donors, not just in giving up something of value, but in undertaking the risk of doing so (even minor surgery, which this is not, always carries a risk, and of course there’s the long term risk of only having, say, one kidney instead of two).

If money were to be allowed into the equation, it stands to reason that many more people might be convinced that parting with an organ that could help the sick is a reasonable idea.

Among the many objections to this policy is the suggestion that allowing monetary payments for organs would restrict transplants only to the rich. This is far from the truth though. Donations haven’t been taken out of the equation, they’re just no longer the only option. Charity is still at play, just as it is in every other market in the world. And in fact, it’s conceivable that donations could increase after a fashion, because now those who either couldn’t donate organs, or were unwilling to take on the risk of doing so, may simply donate money that can be used to buy an organ from another party.

Others argue that allowing a market in organs would encourage criminals to murder fellow citizens in order to harvest and sell their organs. The fact of the matter is though, since organs are not a zero value item, this could already be occurring under the radar. In fact since the market has been restricted and a shortage created, the value of organs currently would be abnormally high. Legalizing a market here would likely reduce crime in this area by lowering the expected price, and thus reducing the incentive for criminals.

The other common argument against organ selling is that the introduction of money into the process of getting organs for sick people somehow makes the entire activity immoral and disgusting. And perhaps it does. I’ll be the first to admit, for one reason or another, my stomach seems to turn a little bit at the idea, and I can‘t keep my imagination from conjuring images of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. But there’s two key things to remember here. First off, it’s none of our business. I’m sure there’s quite a few things we all find disgusting that we allow to continue simply because it doesn’t involve us (and I‘d like to nominate any and everything Madonna does as a case study in this). And second, no matter how repulsive you find the idea of selling organs it’s far more disgusting to think of all the people suffering and dying, waiting for transplants that they can’t get because the market has been restricted.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if we don’t own the organs of our bodies can we truly be said to own the bodies themselves? I encourage you to think carefully about this, because the concept of self ownership is the most crucial element to property rights. As a general rule we tend to view property from a Lockian perspective, which says because we own our bodies the unowned elements which we mix the labor of that same body with become ours. However, if we don’t fully own those bodies the entire idea falls apart. And then, can we truly own anything at all?

-Jaeson Madison

The Mighty Dollar

If you would have told me four years ago, that economics, would have
got this interesting I wouldn’t have believed you. Yesterday the
American congress rejected a 700 billion dollar deal to bail out
failing banks. I honestly feel like the longer they wait to pass it,
the less effective it is going to be. They are going to reach a point
where is probably just better to let the market self-correct, cause
that’s what markets do. In the bigger picture, the problem is what it
is and something needs to be done. Yet the cause of this problem
should also be evaluated so it does not happen again. I feel like the
government set themselves up for failure years ago, when they decided
that they needed to force banks to give loans to individuals who other
wise could not afford to have houses cause get them. Not the housing
market is in shambles, and foreclose is an all time high. Banks where
forced to loan out money that they where not going to get back, and
now look the system at is core is falling apart. Some will arguer that
its creed and corruption at the center of the issues, granted I do
believe it has its place, I don’t believe it is the final answer to
the problem as to why the banks fail. Now congress is trying to pass a
bill to rectify the situation, but this bill goes against the very
fabric that is our American constitution. It delegates power to the
legislated and judicial that are in no way implied by our nations
highest written law. The very fundamental principles on which this
country was built are being ignored and all in name of the all mighty
dollar.

Danielle Scott

An Unrealistic Utopia

In Chapter 3 of his book Liberalism In the Classical Tradition, Ludwig von Mises writes, “The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction.” This statement paints an utopist picture of the world—all people getting along peacefully. Von Mises maintains that if this were the case, the means of production would freely move from areas less favorable suited for production to those that are more favorable suited. This goes beyond specialization and comparative advantage. This free movement of the means of production would allow humanity to be more productive than ever.

While Von Mises makes a valid point that if the means of production were employed in the environment best suited for production humanity would be more productive, this is highly unrealistic. To envision that all of humanity will be able to lay aside their differences and engage in capitalism together is to create an impracticable and out of reach utopia. Von Mises paints a nice picture of a highly productive and peaceful society, which could even be viewed as the solution to poverty, but it is virtually impossible to obtain. People are not just going to suddenly decide to forget all conflict and cooperate. Even if this did occur and the world reached its productive capacity based on the division of labor and free movement of the means of production, this might have unintended consequences. How much more production can the earth sustain? This becomes an especially prevalent issue in today’s society, with all the concerns about global warming a climate change. If increased production impacts the environment (in the form of global warming/climate change, or other ways), government would then have to intervene to establish policies to protect the environment. This intervention would interrupt the liberal, capitalist society. Because this liberal, capitalist picture of society is littered with questions and “what-ifs”, the question must be asked “is it actually attainable?” Likely, it is not, and is instead an unrealistic utopia.

Whitney Lund

An Expose of the National Park Service

From Bill Bryson's great book, A Walk in the Woods:

"The National Park Service actually has something of a tradition of making things extinct. Bryce Canyon National Park is perhaps the most interesting -- certainly the most striking -- example. It was founded in 1923 and in less than half a century under the Park Service's stewardship lost seven species of mammal... Quite an achievement when you consider that these animals had survived in Bryce Canyon for tens of millions of years before the Park Service took an interest in them. Altogether, forty-two species of mammal have disappeared from America's national parks this century.

"...The Park Service in 1957 decided to 'reclaim' Abrams Creek, a tributary of the Little Tennessee River, for rainbow trout, even though rainbow trout had never been native to Abrams Creek. To that end, biologists dumped several drums of a poison called rotenone into fifteen miles of creek. Within hours, tens of thousands of dead fish were floating on the surface like autumn leaves. Among the thirty-one species of Abrams Creek fish that were wiped out was one called the smoky madtom, which scientists had never seen before. Thus, Park Service biologists managed the wonderfully unusual accomplishment of discovering and eradication in the same instant a new species of fish.

"Today the National Park Service employs a more casual approach to endangering wildlife: neglect. It spends almost nothing -- less than 3 percent of its budget -- on research of any type...

"...consider the grassy balds -- treeless, meadowy expanses of mountaintop, up to 250 acres in extent, which are quite unique to the southern Appalachians. No one knows why the balds are there, or how long they have existed, or why they appear on some mountains and not others. Some believe they are natural features, perhaps relics of lightning fires, and some believe that they are man-made, burned or cleared to provide land for summer grazing. What is certain is that they are central to the character of the Smokies... For unknown numbers of years they were used first by Indians and then by European settlers for grazing summer livestock, but now, with graziers banished and the Park Service doing nothing, woody species are steadily reclaiming the mountaintops. Within twenty years, there may be no balds left in the Smokies. Ninety plant species have disappeared from the balds since the park was opened in the 1930s. At least twenty-five more are expected to go in the next few years.

"In constant dollars, the Park Service budget today is $200 million a year less than it was a decade ago. In consequence, even as visitor numbers have soared -- from 79 million in 1960 to almost 270 million today -- campsites and interpretation centers have been shut, warden numbers slashed, and essential maintenance deferred to a positively ludicrous degree. By 1997, the repair backlog for the national parks had reached $6 billion. All quite scandalous. But consider this. In 1991 as its trees were dying, its building crumbling, its visitors being turned away from campgrounds it could not afford to keep open, and its employees being laid off in record numbers, the National Park Service threw a seventy-fifth anniversary party for itself in Vail, Colorado. It spent $500,000 on the event. That may not be quite as moronically negligent as tipping hundreds of gallons of poison into a wilderness stream, but it is certainly in the right spirit."


Besides being interesting, I think this is a good illustration of the gross inefficiencies of government ownership. I'm sure Rothbard would enjoy reading that chapter.

Voter Suppression: Scare tactics?

Currently, both parties McCain and Obama, have been knee deep accusing the other of voter fraud according to some sources like CSPAN and other networks like Fox News. Voter supression is in the same category apparently with Voter Fraud. Voter fraud defined by wikipedia is "a form of electoral fraud and refers to the use of governmental power, political campaign strategy, and private resources aimed at suppressing (i.e. reducing) the total vote of opposition candidacies instead of attempting to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters. This method is particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important".

Even though voter supression may be considered political hoopla, voter fraud sounds familiar to our last election between Bush and Kerry. From a New York Times Ad online dated August 16th 2004, the author of this article, Bob Herb, stated that in our past election Florida was under criminal investigation of the organization of Orlando League of Voters by state officials. The only reason that I could find for this investigation during the 2004 elections was that the Orlando League of Voters must have commited a crime to convince black voters for whom they should vote for. The goal of this association which was made up of older, black volunteers, was to encourage black voters to vote by transporting voters to voting destination for those that do not have the capacity to do so ( ie. lacking income to support gas or other means of transportation). From these criminal investigations many of the blacks that were recieving assitance getting to the polls may have lost their vote because the Orlando League (that was under investigation)may have influenced their vote. The larger problem with this situation is that perhaps removing votes because of such associations helped a particular political candidate (Bush) in recieving less votes for John Kerry because blacks were thought to have voted for Kerry if their votes had counted.

Besides allegations of voter fraud during the last election of Bush and Kerry and the current election of democrat and Republican there is also speculation about the processes of voting that may also misrepresent a person's vote. Some have pointed out potential problems with the voting machines and perhaps even the people that count the votes ( even mail in ballots). The ES &S voting machines (made by John Waveright) was reported to have some issues with their touch screens. When an individual dragged their finger to their candidate it typically selected the first candidate on the list which was McCain. People in the news also had speculated about the accuracy or assurance that those that aided the voting process could intentionally or intentionally misrepresent one's vote.From all these stories of votes being misrepresented why the scare tactic(Florida in the last election?)?

More questions: Can anyone disenfranshise or suppress an individual's vote?

If a vote is considered to be part of capitalism that shouldn't voter fraud occur? Or should voting be simply considered democratic?

And is voter persuasion equal to some voters who believe that celebrity opinions are more important than their own as voter fraud?

In Defense of Quantitative Reasoning

The following is a direct quote from Friedrich von Hayek’s 1968 essay “Competition as A Discovery Procedure”:

“I should like to add a few words about the consequences of the disappointment in microeconomic theory caused by fallacious methodological criteria of scientism. The notion that we must formulate our theories so that they can be immediately applied to observable statistical or other measurable quantities seems to me to be a methodological error. It is a false epistemiological principle to adapt the theory to the available information, so that the observed variables appear directly in the theory.” (Hayek, 11-12).

It is indeed tempting to subscribe to Hayek’s opinion that to deserve a title of scientific theory, it must be formed independently and regardless of the facts and empirical data. Hayek makes a valid argument that at times data are tailored to fit the initial hypothesis and questionable, at best quasi-scientific results emerge.
To demand the opposite is admirable yet highly impractical. The entire reason why a hypothesis is formed in the first place is due to suspicion of a certain relationship existing between the observable variables. Such is the nature of analytics as a science itself: human minds perceive patterns and seek verification of their initial assumptions. It calls for a formulation of clear and unambiguous hypotheses. Once the null and the research hypotheses are defined, a scientist designs an experiment. At this stage of research, arguably the most important one, a number of independent variables is considered. An experiment can be designed to simply test the strength of a relationship between a single dependent and a single independent variable. If that is the case, a researcher might not be careful enough and might falsely conclude that the two variables will always act in a manner consistent with the outcomes of the experiment. “We might be able to notice certain regularities in the observed behavior of these variables. Often these regularities apply, but sometimes they do not. Yet using the means of macrotheory, we can never formulate the conditions under which they apply,” writes Hayek (12). I am afraid I disagree that we can literally never formulate those conditions. For if it were so, the field of macroeconomics would cease to exist. The few relationships that are firmly anchored in the minds of macroeconomists exist due to the strong empirical evidence that support those relationships in the first place. Every single one is supported by a verifiable model.
That brings me to another point. When observing a change of a dependent variable that is a function of an independent variable, a coefficient of determination between the two is of utmost importance. For if the “R squared” explains a minor portion of the dependant variable’s variation (like 20 percent), it surely calls for a more complete model. So, a model gets rebuilt and the research continues. As long as a model of a dependant variable captures a significant and sizable proportion of this variable’s variation, it does not deserve to be labeled methodologically flawed. Modern computing grants us power to split atoms with a precision of our forecasting and other econometric models. That was clearly not the case when Hayek wrote his original essay in 1968.
Hayek lived during the time when the Might and speed of modern computers would be a scientist’s wild dream. He lived in a scientific community severely constrained by the lack of any automated computational capabilities. Unable to perform any rigorous quantitative analyses, he chose to abandon all efforts to do so all together, labeling the attempts of all other economists to describe the world numerically as “fallacious methodological criteria of scientism.” Instead, he chose to practice economics in the form of political philosophy, a form that was prevalent for centuries, a form lacking quantitative rigor and precision but abundant with ideological implications.
Hayek claimed that the attempt to quantify the world around us is “a methodological error.” Such claim is severely biased and can be easily contested by one of the Forefathers of all Science, Isaac Newton himself. In his work “Rules for the Study of Natural Philosophy” Newton establishes clear provisions of the Scientific Method. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method must further include the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. That is the scholarly method a respectable scientific community follows, not rhetorical demagoguery regarding the political philosophy and the mere rhetoric of the government’s coercive powers.
Last but not least, this post is written by an author practicing a Science of Economics. This is the science concerned with an endless myriad of choices, tradeoffs, and opportunity costs. This is the science describing people’s behavior and their interactions with other individuals. This is the science aiming to accurately and precisely describe people’s welfare and fluctuations thereof. This is a Science and it deserves its quantitative rigor, and we, the growing generation of tomorrow’s scientists, will fight to preserve it.

Click-it or Ticket

I was driving down I-25 the other day and I saw one of those signs on the highway that said, "Click-it or Ticket". I started thinking about the implicatons of a law that requires drivers to wear a seatbelt. From a liberty perspective, a person should be able to do whatever he or she wants as long as it does not harm the person or property of another. Does not wearing a seatbelt pose any harm to another person or person's property? Perhpas you could get into a crash and you're body could go flying out of the car and and slam into another car. I guess in this senario, your body does cause damage to another person's property. Beyond this senario, I can not think of any cases in wear not wearing your seatbelt causes harm to another person or persons property.
I feel that wearing your seatbelt is a great idea. The addition of seatbelts in cars have saved many lives. We should all wear seatbelts while in our cars. However, I do not feel that the government should be able to fine its citizens for not wearing a seatbelt. An automobile is the private property of the person inside. The Only danger possed by a driver not wearing the seatbelt is directed toward the driver, and nobody else.
Rational people can make a value judgement as to whether or not they wear a seatbelt. If car manufactures were not required to put seatbelts in cars, we would still see them in cars, even if they cost extra as an option, because consumers would have a demand for the belts.
I feel that seatbelt laws are unnessary, and in the case of click-it or ticket, are a violation of our personal liberties.

An Unrealistic Utopia

In Chapter 3 of his book Liberalism In the Classical Tradition, Ludwig von Mises writes, “The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction.” This statement paints an utopist picture of the world—all people getting along peacefully. Von Mises maintains that if this were the case, the means of production would freely move from areas less favorable suited for production to those that are more favorable suited. This goes beyond specialization and comparative advantage. This free movement of the means of production would allow humanity to be more productive than ever.

While Von Mises makes a valid point that if the means of production were employed in the environment best suited for production humanity would be more productive, this is highly unrealistic. To envision that all of humanity will be able to lay aside their differences and engage in capitalism together is to create an impracticable and out of reach utopia. Von Mises paints a nice picture of a highly productive and peaceful society, which could even be viewed as the solution to poverty, but it is virtually impossible to obtain. People are not just going to suddenly decide to forget all conflict and cooperate. Even if this did occur and the world reached its productive capacity based on the division of labor and free movement of the means of production, this might have unintended consequences. How much more production can the earth sustain? This becomes an especially prevalent issue in today’s society, with all the concerns about global warming a climate change. If increased production impacts the environment (in the form of global warming/climate change, or other ways), government would then have to intervene to establish policies to protect the environment. This intervention would interrupt the liberal, capitalist society. Because this liberal, capitalist picture of society is littered with questions and “what-ifs”, the question must be asked “is it actually attainable?” Likely, it is not, and is instead an unrealistic utopia.

"Main Street" Economics

While I'm loathe to post about the "bailout" (or "rescue" or whatever they're calling it these days to make us feel better) the simple fact is that it is the most fitting example and practical application of the economic ideas we have been discussing in class.  That being said, I'll try to tackle an angle other than just the bailout itself: the idea that the general public has no idea what the hell it wants or needs in regards to the plan, or lack thereof, but the armchair economist is looking for someone to blame.

Anchors, pundits, analysts, and presidential hopefuls are all fond of regurgitating the "Wall Street vs. Main Street" scenario, casting the two as arch economic rivals (bourgeois and proletariats?  Socialism?), eternally locked in a duel of wits, attempting to see who can outsmart whom, and how much each can make the other pay for it.  This characterization, which Senator Obama is especially fond of using, allows those using it to create an invisible but inescapable division between we plebes on Main and the Dom Perignon quaffing, caviar guzzling, yacht sailing elites that run Wall Street.

Or so the talking heads would have you believe.

In the eyes of this admitted denizen of Main Street, the only difference between those that have been demonized and me is that they're just much, much better at what they do.  Well, and they've been at it a little longer maybe.  The idea that "rich" people are "bad" people, though comforting, is completely absurd.  Unfortunately for the more level headed, or just Eubanks educated, among us, current events lend this idiotic world view even more credence.  With a bailout plan that continues a long standing tradition of interventionalist economic policy poised to pass in the near future, it might be prudent to examine why exactly the Main Streeters are willing to get behind it rank and file.  Is it truly that we feel the only way to right the troubled ship of our economy is to turn it over in its entirety to the government?  Is it that we really do fully believe a $700,000,000,000 Band-aid placed on a gaping, gangrenous wound will make it better?  Or is it, as a class mate mentioned today, that the Main Street "economist"  is really just interested in his "bread and the circus," in a good old fashioned bloodletting where we toss those dastardly Wall Streeters into the pit and watch the lions tear them to pieces? We all like to blame people, and no one likes a parachute made of gold (how would that be of any use anyway?!) but is revenge a valid basis for happily (ignorantly?) skipping down the path to Socialism?

Interventionalist Turds

Close your eyes and listen....relaxed? Now ask yourself what happens when government has to fix a policy or a law? Many wonderful pictures of a giddy lawmaker rushes through your head and you can picture him getting passed by congress and signed by the president. And you think to yourself what a lovely picture....

But then really think what government does when they do this... The answer we have learned about in Eubank's class is that government intervenes. So lets say for example that there was a failure of governmental policy where the Fed backs up many loans from institutions with taxpayer money and reserve. Then you give those loans some time, now take into account that most of the loans are low to middle level income earners, meanwhile it has been about 15 years since the last real recession....

...then when it is time for a financial fluctuation and business cycle to hit a low. A big low...another recession. Now remember that lawmaker who passed the first law? Now he has to fix a problem in his original bill and fix it with another. OK lets use the people's money and bail out those loans? Not only bail em out, heck we'll use 700 billion dollars to bail em out. We will buy them, and appoint government hired officials to run and organize/coordinate them. And in say five or ten years from now, well see if they made any money, and if they didn't then we'll ask the corporations to pay for them then.

Now keep your eyes closed, and picture the government with 700 billion of worthless assets. Now the Bill maker has to make another law to bail out the first and second laws. Then a couple years later he has to make another and another and another??!!??!!

What?

Now the lawman has to ask himself why this all happened. And his answer could be Well maybe I should have not intervened?

In all seriousness, I have to ask why these lawmakers with a bailout plan such as this, did not think about their plan? I sure would if I were responsible for 700 million, and not have to intervene again? Wouldn't you?

Are Europeans doing any better with their financial markets?

Not only does the US have financial issues but so does England, Belgium, Germany...
Many countries like the US are creating bailouts and Darwin-like behavior to internalize overweighted companies by transferring assets to neighboring institutions.
A few examples of those companies suffering under their own type of financial difficulty have somewhat different theories of bailout... Could we impart some of these theories in the US? Or are our problems much more complex than these following examples?

-Fortis= Dutch Central Banking and Insurance Co. that according to Wikipedia is a "banking, insurance, and investment management company is the 20th largest business in the world by revenue". Fortis operations are based in the Benelux countries( the Economic Union in Western Europe) which is composed of Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxemburg. Fortis' banking operations include network (retail), commercial, and merchant banking; its insurance products include life, health, and property/casualty lines. Products are sold through independent agents and brokers, financial planners, and through Fortis Bank branches. It is listed on the Euronext Brussels, Euronext Amsterdam, and Luxembourg stock exchanges.

How the government or investors are trying to fix the companies assets from buying out smaller companies and trying to remain afloat.

- Lets other companies (A) in the market internalize risks by letting companies A ( insitutions that take some of the overbearance of assets by purchuse of companies or other banking or insurance institutions) from companies B that reduce thier load to buy less risky investments.

- When purchuses occur between seller and buyer of assets there is set policies or condtions of the ammount of risk that a company buys.
* These two theories may not work however because there is still no injection into the banking system because of uncertainty of Chinese buyer. But the idea that these institutions it appears to me can buy and sell amongst themselves before asking for bailout money from the government.

Fortis's Story from International Herald Tribune: Link- http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/30/business/EU-Netherlands-Fortis.php

Fortis NV announced a series of moves late Tuesday and early Wednesday that follow from the €11.2 billion (US$16.4 billion) government bailout it received over the weekend to ward off insolvency.
First, Fortis said Ping An, China's second-largest insurer, had pulled out of a €2.15 billion (US$3.39 billion) deal to buy a 50 percent stake in the Dutch-Belgian bank's asset management arm.
The company blamed "current severe market disruption and the ongoing uncertainty in the global capital markets."
Second, it said the Dutch central bank would not approve the sale of some ABN Amro assets in the Netherlands to Deutsche Bank AG, pending further review.
Deutsche Bank had agreed to buy the operations for €709 million (US$1.1 billion), in what was widely considered a bargain given that they had earnings of €140 million (US$221 million) in 2007.

Fortis had been ordered to sell the operations by the European Commission's antitrust regulator in order to gain approval for its €24 billion (US$38 billion) acquisition of ABN Amro's Dutch operations last year.
However, as a condition of the bailout, Fortis must now resell ABN Amro anyway.
The Dutch central bank cited "the exceptional circumstances on international financial markets, the uncertainty with regard to the future (owner of) ABN AMRO Bank and the implications of this uncertainty for all parties involved."
If the sale of the Dutch units to Deutsche Bank are scrapped, then Fortis may get a capital boost.

-Some large banks rather than buying and selling assets amongst each other, sell themselves to private owners to reduce the risk without losing the company.

- There is a financial service authority ( media doesen't seem to describe who) that checks to make sure certain financial decisions seem either sound or legotimate with past contracts (?)

Bradford and Bingley announced to their shareholders that they were to be privately owned by over 50,000 individual owners.

Bradford and Bingley's story according to Times Online: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4856317.ece

This alternative theory is still pretty risky especially since a financial service authority and state treasurer are speculating the value of the shares for its respective private owners.

Not sure if these theories would help the US with our current financial standing but they are at least theories rather than blame.
With that said, in closing I found through the internet a British spoof of their take on America's Crisis.

Below a British comedy video about the financial crisis overseas from NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2008/09/british_television_explains_th.html#c95149351

Government Intervention in the Custody of Children

Some people don't consider the economics of having kids before they commit, but it really is an economic decision. People have fewer as the opportunity costs rise when wages rise and as retirement depends less on your own adult children. Whatever changes occur in the market are reflected in how many parents will supply, but this is one area in which government intervention is common place, particularly when state governments regulate child custody and support payment laws.

When a couple splits, they theoretically have joint custody over their children, but many times the mother gets the child regardless of either parent's fitness. I know this personally, because when my parents got divorced, my father was told he could get custody if my mother had ever committed a felony, if she had been adjudged insane, or if he was willing to plant evidence. I have heard that this was not always how it is now in Colorado, but I read this: http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-refused-to-settle-for-becoming-disney.html and it looks like that's not the case in every state. As that blogger writes, "...it makes me think that if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?"

Transferring custody away from a parent who hasn't committed a crime is a violation of his (or sometimes her) right to private property. This could be settled much more efficiently and freely with contracts between the two parents, with government only enforcing their decision. Then government would not have to know what was best in every case because the people with the knowledge for it could do it for themselves. It actually seems to me that it would probably end more equally as one parent wouldn't be forced to give way to the other by coercion.

Marx's 10 Measures of Communism

Last Thursday, Professor Eubanks asked each one of us whether our government was capitalist, socialist or interventionist. We all agreed that our government practices a great deal of interventionism, but it is difficult to know if the current level of intervention still allows for unrestrained capitalism or if our government’s interventions are increasingly socialist in nature. I decided to re-read Marx’s 10 measures of communism to help me get a feel for where we rank. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
· The federal government is the largest land owner and maintains control over 650 million acres or one-third of the land in the United States (86% of Nevada is owned by the federal government). http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg1282.cfm
· Private property rights are slowly being eroded as private organizations lobby to protect the ever growing list of endangered species such as the Panamint Alligator Lizard, Brown Pelican, Giant Armadillo and the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse.
· The government’s power to seize private property for public use under eminent domain laws is being abused not only by the federal government, but also by private corporations to “provide for the public good” by building condos, restaurants and shopping malls.
· Zoning laws often prevent property owners from utilizing their personal property as they see fit.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
· The top 1% pay as much in taxes as the bottom 95% of the population combined, and the current democratic presidential nominee would widen that gap even further. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/tw-novdec2007.pdf

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
· Current laws allow the government to confiscate up to 55% of a family’s wealth if left unprotected.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
· Colorado law currently states that “whenever a police officer is permitted, with or without judicial approval, to conduct a search to investigate a potential crime, the officer may seize and keep as much property associated with the alleged criminal as the police officer considers appropriate. “ http://www.davekopel.com/CJ/IB/ForfeitureReform.htm

5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
· The government seized control over our country’s largest mortgage underwriters Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on September 7.
· The current 700 billion dollar bailout offers US taxpayers a stake in each of the firms the government bails out. The collective ownership of capital IS socialism.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
· It is illegal for anyone but a United States postal employee to place mail in mailboxes.
· The federal government has always had major control over our transportation system. Are they gaining even more with the federal takeover of airport security and the intermittent bailout of the airline and railroad industries?

7. Extension of factories and instrument of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste land, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
· Today’s labor unions are the modern-day equivalent of the industrial army. Federal and state laws have a hand in enforcing the labor unions power and control.
· Government subsidies to farmers have maintained control over the agriculture industry for years.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
· We have achieved free education for all children in public schools and abolished child labor – which, of course, are good things. But there continues to be an assault on the freedom to choose where you want your child to be educated (school vouchers and home schooling) and the things you wish for them to be taught.

Of course, we could find countless amounts of evidence to argue either side of these 10 measures – I only pointed out some of the points that were obvious to me. The current economic and financial crises will force our politicians and the American people to take a stand and show their true colors for either capitalism or socialism.

A sigh of relief and a sign of things to come or a calm before the storm

A day after the Stock Market plummeted 778 points, it has bounced back almost 500 points. This was done by bargain shoppers and others who saw the low prices as a chance to jump in and buy some stock. Maybe this trend will continue and the stock market will bounce back in no time. I mean in the middle of the page I was reading there was an advertisement for "Etrade"! Then again this could just be a fluke and our economy could fall more and more, unless some action is taken.

In response to our troubled financial situation, many have taken action to make sure they don't make the same mistake. "The benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, that banks charge to lend to one another, rose sharply Tuesday, making it more expensive and difficult for consumers and businesses to borrow money." "LIBOR for 3-month dollar loans rose to 4.05 percent from 3.88 percent on Monday. LIBOR for 3-month euro loans, meanwhile, rose to 5.27 percent, from 5.22 percent Monday." This will hopefully make it harder for banks to give out loans that can be seen as high risk and could probably fail. That's what got us into this situation in the first place...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

so what now?

The 700 billion dollar bailout plan has stalled. The idea was that this money would somehow stabilize the markets. And now it has been voted down, but not out. The idea of a bailout is still floating around in washington.
Stock prices bounced back after record losses but most analysists say it is because of the hope the bailout plan may still go through. America has gotten itself into a crisis and there does not seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. It appears the only thing holding stock prices up is the thought that a bailout may still come. Personally, I say let the stocks fall. Sense when does the government have the power to take over private businesses? And the bailout.... taking money directly from the taxpayers and giving it to a private business for the good of the economy.... um..will somebody please explain to me where exactly in the constitution it says the government has the power to take from one individual and give it to another.
I don't feel that government can fix this problem. The problem was created by the actions of governemnt in the first place by setting up federally insured loans.

The U.S economy has proven time and time again that its strength lies in its ability to be flexible and bounce back from recessions. Without the bailout, several companies will go out of business, and stock prices should fall. But as businesses go under, new companies will emerge to take their place. As Stock prices fall lower and lower, eventually people will start buying up stock and the prices will go back up. I say keep government out of it and let the market correct itself.

bailout

This blog is named policy economics, and it is very interestind(and somewhat disturbing) that the policies we are trying to use and implement to make up mfor past mistakes are going to be devestating. This is a very good example of how intervention fails. The governement and financial sectors have been making loans and insuring them to people who are not actually qualified for these loans. This has obviously been a major reason for the gigantic financial crisis and the bailout plan that was proposed. The dow stock market wenbt down 778 points in one day due to these things. Our economy is in crisis right now and its because the governement intervened when it should not. If this is not a very obvious reason that binterventionism is terrible I dont know what would be.

One Man, One Vote, One Dollar

Election season is always an interesting time for me. Whereas most people grow weary from the onslaught of campaign ads and endlessly repeated stump speeches, I’m usually more put out by the constant din reminding us all of the value of a vote. The problem is, rarely, if ever, do I find any of the candidates so much as tolerable, let alone worthy of the ultimate seal of approval, my vote. Thus that vote becomes, more or less, worthless…at least to me.

It’s this last caveat that’s important. While I may see no value in my vote I imagine quite a few other people do. Why else would they be spending unfathomable amounts of their personal time and money sending out mail flyers, calling at all hours of the night, and going around door to door to drag entire neighborhoods out of the shower one person at a time? Unfortunately it is, thus far, illegal for them to simply part with their money in a more direct manner and flat out buy my vote. Instead the only thing approaching a bribe anyone can offer is a campaign promise. And I think we all know these are far from binding contracts.

My attention was called to this sad fact again when, recently a 19 year old student in Minnesota attempted to sell his vote on eBay, and was promptly arrested.

A spokesman for the district attorney said, “There are people that have died for this country, for our right to vote, and to take something like that lightly, to say, ‘I can be bought.’ It’s a real shame.” But this comment makes no sense. To begin with, the student hasn’t said he can be bought, just his vote. Furthermore, clearly no one has died to give him that vote, otherwise he would have the right to sell it, just as he does all his other property.

But since neither that student, nor any of the rest of us can sell our votes they must not be ours. It looks, instead, like they belong to the government, and are merely given to us on loan, the way you may lend a book to a friend, expecting its eventual return.

Some people are fine with this concept of voting. It’s easy to see your vote as issued by the state, especially when looking at the giant government apparatus involved in voting. Or it could be an easy, and commonly accepted, line of defense to fall back on if one sees vote selling as somehow immoral. But there are two giant flaws with this line of reasoning.

To begin with, it flies directly in the face of how our government was instituted. The Declaration of Independence says that government derives it’s “just powers from the consent of the governed,” and the vote is the enduring legacy of this concept. The vote allows citizenry, to some degree, to control and impose it’s will upon the government rather then the other way around.

Second, and more importantly, if the government owns our votes, then surely it has the right to take them back to whenever it wants. After all, it is the government’s property. And whatever it giveth, it may also taketh way.

-Jaeson Madison

Just Theories: Swiss cheese is better than none?

As far as the banking status of our economy where is our starting point? Are we able to find this starting point just like the writers we have spoke of such as Locke and Rothbard? Who cares which politicians knew better and didn't do anything or those that should have predicted this banking status. Barney Frank, rep of house, setting aside some of his personal news in the 90's, said something that I thought was kind of dissapointing when he thought that he and others( not sure who he meant) would work on these regulations next year to banks so that this action wouldn't be repeated. 'Perhaps changing regulations shouldn't be the first priority, but I think these regulations that formed particular incentives for these CEO's and associates, should be analyzed and replaced. I think the government's first priority should be to reduce the risk by subsidies from the government to REDUCE banks burden in exchange for those banks that have advisors enabled to work with thier customers with the concequence of minmal or no funding of the government without cooperation. Now, I know that not all banks have advisors, but they still have employees that have sold patrons the arms loan to. The problem still is whether these advisors would actually take up the challange or have the ability to do so, I am not sure. The problem with government advisors stepping in to replace variable rates to fixed rates may have thier own conflict of interest even in the midst of our economic status.

Monetary Policy: Current Financial Problems

I'm suprised the "bailout plan" didn't go through. It seems like we were headed towards this plan, at least that's what we heard from house leaders. I guess we need not be so easily misled by what we hear in politics.

I'm encouraged to see that there are still some good people in the house. A couple of days ago I had very limited hope in our current acting government. There still needs to be a political revolution to change direction in our country. But I see people who can lead the revolution. Check out this speech by House Representitive Ron Paul before the vote:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/09/video-congressman-ron-paul-remarks-on-the-bailout-just-prior-to-the-vote/

All the financial problems we have now are not a suprise to people who understand economics. Many people saw them coming for a long time. I just read a speech by Ron Paul that he gave back in July. The title of the speech is "Some Big Events Are About To Occur". What we see happening in our current economy, I believe, are very much related to these events Dr. Paul talks about. You can read the article for yourself at this website.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2008/170708Paul.htm

(You can read the official version at the site below. However, I haven't been able to access the house website today for obvious reasons.)
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr070908h.htm

Here is the crucial excerpt from the speech that ties government action to the current financial problems. He shows the progression of more and more government regulation with respect to monetary supply. This has interventionalism written all over it. The government intervenes to "fix" one problem and keeps intervening to try to correct the problem they created.

"There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.
By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.
It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors. "

Our government system has contributed to world-wide financial problems. So when people start going into the blame game about the greedy corporations, capitalists, CEOs, banks, etc., don't forget about the government that created the incentives for people to act the way that they did to all these problems. The incentives for the lenders were to lend sub prime loans. The incentives for the corporations were set up for corruption.

The bottom line is that the Fed has made the value of the dollar unstable which leads to all of these speculative bubbles. This is the reason we are seeing different markets fail now. We need to demand Economic Freedom which is our right to liberty! Economic Freedom means free markets! The Fed has regulated the monetary supply causing a build up of negative effects that we are now experiencing. The Fed needs to be viewed as a public enemy.

Re: Government Should Provide Healthcare

In regard to my previous post, all I am hearing is how government-run healthcare is not the best form of healthcare. I never argued that is was. I simply said that it is our best bet to improve the current situation. I am waiting for someone to argue to me why either 1) we are better off in the current in-between system, or 2) that it would be easier and more practical to switch to a privatized system. Here are my arguments why government healthcare is the most feasible.

Politicians in general do not understand economics. We all scratch our heads as to why politicians just don’t implement sound economic policy that, if modeled, is very clear that it’s the right way to go. Well, politicians are, obviously, elected by the people. The population at large doesn’t understand economics. For the public to be convinced that privatized healthcare is the best, they must have some basic understanding of economic principles. A lot of economic policy, when first glanced at, seems to be backwards and contrary to its ends. We, as economic students, all know that even though it seems strange, free market economics can work. For instance, most people don’t understand that by instituting a minimum wage, the demand for labor decreases, and thus, people are laid off. People don’t get that by instituting a policy that is designed to help people, you are actually hurting them. When economists argue against minimum wage, the people interpret that to mean economists (or politicians) are arguing against giving people more money, or in essence, keeping more money for themselves. The public asks, how can anybody be against giving people more money? Thus, sound economic policy is not implemented.

My point is that even though privatized healthcare is clearly the best option, it is not realistic because people don’t understand it. What they do understand is government. A politician advocating for government healthcare is something people can wrap their heads around. Therefore, it has a chance of gaining a foothold and is much more likely to be put into practice. So even though privatized healthcare is better than government healthcare, they are both better than the current system we have now. And since privatized healthcare is unrealistic because the people will never follow the politicians there (and the politicians will never lead the people there), our best option for improving our current situation is by giving responsibility for providing healthcare over to our government.

Of course, if I could build a country from scratch, from the ground up, I would institute a private system of healthcare. But one almost has to start from the very beginning. Given our current political makeup, it would be virtually impossible to switch to a completely privatized system. It is hard to change a foundation without destroying the house. So what I am waiting for is for someone to argue to me that we could institute privatized healthcare given our current political climate. I am not asking for theory, or what could happen in a utopia. I am asking for someone to face reality and present a sound argument for a feasible switch to private healthcare. Or, argue to me that our current system of somewhere-in-between-private-and-government is better than government-run healthcare, therefore we shouldn’t switch.

Aggression: The opiate of the masses and the cornerstone of libertarianism

Murray N. Rothbard notes that the libertarianism or the libertarian creed, “rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” If no man can aggress against any other, then all violence, all devolution of rights and liberties ceases to exist. This ideal creates a perfect world in which all violence, physical or mental, fades into the socially unacceptable act. 

Just because one believes that aggression or violence (for the sake of simplicity and brevity these terms will often be interchangeable in this context) may not be okay, or may not be accepted does not mean that it will not happen. Violence in inherent to all of mankind; it is a tenant of our predisposed position, a law of nature if you will. Abraham Maslow hypothesized that all humankind followed a sort of hierarchy in which basic needs have to be fulfilled before more complex desires can be met. Let us look at man in nature or in the wild to see that his or her physiological needs will be met by the self with an inherent inclination towards aggression. Seeking shelter, the man or woman will destroy a tree or evict an animal from a cave. Then they will need to satisfy their need for food by slaughtering an animal of destroying another plant.  Violence is going to be the central tendency for humans. 

If “no man or group of man may aggress against the person or property of anyone else” and yet man is inclined towards aggression as a tool then there is an ideological and pragmatic impasse. Thus another solution exists. All people may aggress against any other person and their property. This violent sounding ideology immediately conjures a world in which violence rules and the strong dominate the weak, a world in which the only rule is the rule of violence and aggression. However, just because people may aggress against one another does not mean that they should or they will. Rothbard’s first principle of non-aggression is, in his eyes, the only way to justify the rest of libertarianism and the tenants on which it lies. The aggression principle also allows the other tenants to stand, albeit with a different logical progression. 

Because all people are aggressive and may aggress against one another, all people are essentially equal. Thomas Hobbes said that all men were equal because all men had the same susceptibility and fear of painful death. While the brute may be physically superior, the mentally inclined will create a weapon or work in social group to counteract the brute’s aggression with their own. It is that the fear and that equality which has lead humankind to its current state. Aggression is acceptable and people may aggress against other people, but in turn will be aggressed upon. This deterrence has lead humankind to its current state. Libertarianism (in its simplest form) is the idea that the government should be severely restricted in its ability to interfere with the individual’s rights and liberties. A person or group of people may be able to aggress even though they shouldn’t.

Why shouldn’t’ they? For fear of more aggression. If the individual is left alone and given safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self actualization they tend to not aggress others. Aggression begets aggression and the fear of it can lead to a libertarian society in which aggression between people is minimalized to the greatest possible extent.

Government Should Provide Healthcare

Some things transcend politics.

I am a believer in limited government and I am a believer in a free market. I believe in privatizing education and I even believe in privatizing health care. If I believe in privatizing health care, why did I just say that the government should provide it? The fact is, privatized health care is a dream. We have had well-meaning politicians and economists spouting its benefits for generations. Every election cycle we hear about how candidate X is going to reform health care, either by privatizing it, or turning it over to the government. Instead of either, America's health care system is caught somewhere in between and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.

While I truly believe a private health care system would be ideal, I also believe that it is just never going to happen. A government-run health care system is much more realistic, and for that reason alone, I believe we should adopt it. As I mentioned earlier, we are caught in between private and government-run health care. Of the three options- private, government, or in-between,- in-between is by far the worst. Since our best option of privatized health care is not very realistic, it only makes sense to upgrade to the next best option: government-run health care.

As I led off with, some things simply transcend politics. When the dollar is the bottom line in health care instead of, well, health care, nobody wins. We will let a child die from cancer simply because his parents cannot afford to pay. Thankfully, I don't think this situation plays out as often as it otherwise would thanks to generous public support. If the public finds out about a tragic situation like this, they will either put so much pressure on the insurance company so it becomes their best interest to go-ahead with the coverage, or the public raises funds and simply pays for it themselves. But if it were left to our current health care system alone, let us make no bones about it, we would let a child die simply because he cannot pay.

Only government can provide the means to ensure that all citizens are covered, no matter what their ailment, no matter what their financial situation, and no matter their age. It will not matter whether the condition is pre-existing or not. Government can and should provide health care to everybody. Politics and economics aside, it is just the right thing to do.

More Open Space...

Real estate prices have affected many different aspects of the economy, and they are now impacting the environment in a positive way. In an article from The Wall Street Journal, Jim Carlton points out the impact that the real-estate crunch has had on the environment. It is because of the recent real-estate crisis many people are unable to afford the land that they had previously purchased to build on. This is good news for those conversationalists who would prefer not to see the land ever built on. The land is being snatched up from places in Hawaii all the way to places in Georgia. Although some people may be happy with this change others are concerned about what selling this land will do to the availability of private land in the future. “Not everyone is a fan of these conservation deals. Private property advocates, for example, complain that taking prime land out of circulation near cities pushed development even farther away, as well as driving up land prices.”

The consideration that needs to be taken into account as well is the impact on the economy in the long run. Although the long run has much uncertainty, it is possible that by removing the land from possible development now, people will be loosing out on a substantial amount of potential income that they could have had if they had been able to build commercial buildings on their property. Nothing can really be done to change the situation now, but this issue may come back up at a later time, when some people are looking for places to build and it has all been deemed open space.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121028811193679127.html

Doesn't the Governemnt Own the Seals?

What luck for me! We were learning about the government's protected animals and what was on the news yesterday and today? A baby seal was on the California coast caught in a fishing net. Looked pretty easy to solve- go up to the seal, cut the net from it and the the seal and evryone watching would be happy. But wait!!! It seems that the seal is federaly protected and the law states that if the seal is within so many feet (I think it was 50) no one can go neat the seal to help it. So, according to the law, all we can do (and the world watching) is watch that poor seal flip and flop in a fish net.

Are you kidding me?!?! This shows how completly ignorant the ESA really is. To protect the seal, we have to let it suffer? I am completly at a loss for words as to the stupidity that is unreported.

Here is the end to the story. It seems that while the cameras were not rolling, someone BROKE THE LAW and went to the seal and cut off the net. No word yet as to whether or not there will be an arrest. I think it is interesting that NO ONE so far captured the person saving the seal on camera. Shouldn't there be a federal investigation now to catch this heathen for breaking the law? Maybe there is some Olson here with group colusion? I will take a stretch and offer this thought: maybe the governmnet will rethink the ESA?

The myth of global warming?

I have been harping on sustainability this whole semester, but never attacking weather or not the science that supports that view is found-less and unreasonable. An article appeared on the BBC website a few days ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm. This site shows evidence that the earth will at least maintain present and past temperatures over the next decade. What? Until recently we have these models that predict the earth warming and continuing to warm; however, the warmest year on record (since records started being kept only a few hundred years ago) was in 1998. Hang on we are to experience cooler temperatures over the next decade and this last decade has been lower than the high? This makes me skeptical over the idea of global warming. It could be perfectly alright for instead saw that the increased carbon in the atmosphere could lead to higher rates of skin cancer; then one could go out take the test and decide whether the statement was false or not. But with global warming we have no evidence and in fact we have evidence to the contrary to its existence. This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf; the sustainability crowd may have cried wolf to push their agenda, and this action may lead to a back lash against the movement, and possibly allow a more liberal (classic definition) government to emerge.
This doesn’t leave sustainability totally dead, just mostly. Endangered species maybe an area where the sustainability folks may have ground to regroup. There is evidence that some species are dying out (not all, cats, dogs, cows are all doing fine). The evidence suggests that human action is causing the, at least the acceleration, of various species around the world. Sustainability would then need to make the argument that endangered species, no all species, are public goods and therefore the role of the government to provide and limit human population and human consumption levels. Unless I have missed something if global warming doesn’t happen, or happen in near the way as predicted, then I believe a backlash against the enivornmental/global climate/sustainability crowd is likely and this may, indeed, hurt our level of life because certain causes, like clean water, air, and endangered species may be sacrificed to the backlash.

Nuclear Reactors and the Carbon Crisis

According to sustainability the world cannot sustain the current levels of economic activity and development. The ship of mother earth is sinking or will be sinking so enough. This then leads to how to slow the activity and reduce the consumption factor. This then leads people to worry about climate change because, as far as I can tell, it is an indication of our ship sinking. Currently the hype is on about Carbon emissions from vehicles, livestock, and factories. Carbon emission, for now, are being ignored from humans (breathing). Nuclear power seemed to be a way out for countries worried about carbon emissions. The thought was the actual power station to produce nuclear energy doesn’t cause any carbon emissions and is therefore only emission producing to get the fuel. Now a report is out which states that there is a rise in carbon emission from producing nuclear fuel. The cheap and easy fuel is gone (or going) which leaves the fuel in places were a lot of mining and transportation will have to be used. This leads the scientist publishing this work to conclude that the nuclear option isn’t going to lead to as low a carbon foot print as previously thought.
Why worry? Energy production is a large contributor to carbon emissions so its reduction would be paramount to the sustainability supports. Transportation is also critical, especially in developed/wealthy countries were personal vehicles are used more. This then leads me to conclude that vehicles will come under this carbon emission problem as well. Vehicles will have to be more carbon friendly in the future (if the world is going to a sustainability). This then means that the carbon foot print of transportation of nuclear fuel will fall and nuclear fuel mining is the only area where carbon production is not guarantee to fall. However, if another method was used, as opposed to government mandate and regulation, then the nuclear option may in fact be viable, according to sustainability. If we tax carbon emissions this will bring the economic efficient outcome of nuclear power stations and lower carbon foot prints to the desired level with the efficient level of carbon and nuclear power. This leads this economist to suggest that instead of looking at all the faults of a particular alternative tax consumption of energy and tax carbon emission from all carbon producing sources (with the possible exception of breath, unless one believes that the population isn’t sustainable either.)

LEED Restaurant

Public consciousness of environmental issues seems to have increased substantially in recent years. An article from the Associated Press describes one entrepreneur in Minneapolis whose restaurant received LEED certification. Many would then ask, what does LEED stand for and how can a business receive this type of certification?

Leadership in Energy and Environmental design or LEED is related to sustainability of the environment through the way that businesses and restaurants are run. Behind this certification businesses have to change the way they might ordinarily do things. Restaurateur Kim Bartmann took steps to make her restaurant more environmentally friendly from the day they started building to they day she opened the doors for business.

It was designed and built to use about half the gas and electricity and 30 percent of the water of a typical restaurant its size. In addition, major elements of its interior were made from existing materials. Tables came from doors that were discarded from a nearby condo project, and the bar is made of Italian marble salvaged from a local hotel.

Not only did the construction of the restaurant take a sustainability approach, but the way that Bartmann continues to run the business follows the model of sustainability. Bartmann gets much of the food supplied in the restaurant from local vendors who are within a close proximity to the restaurant which seems to be a key element in sustainability. By getting the food locally and close to where it is produced, Bartmann will keep not just costs down, but also the restaurant’s impact on the environment surrounding it.

Could this type of restaurant become the new standard for growth and fro new businesses? It certainly seems possible if it can be supported by a market of eager entrepreneurs. If the bottom line is affected positively by running a business in this manner, then more people will do it.

Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RECYCLED_RESTAURANT?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT#

Just Another Case Where I’m Right, and Everyone Else is Wrong

We often talk about externality abuse in the various classes Professor Eubanks teaches. But not once have I heard mention of Public Good abuse, something we perhaps need a primer on, because, in my opinion, we’ve stumbled into just such a mistake with endangered species.

In terms of externalities we attempt to frame the debate in two ways. First we provide a very explicit and very stringent definition in order to expel many things right off the bat. If it doesn’t fit the definition it can be dismissed out of hand, and a great many popular “externalities” are not non-market, unintentional interdependences that affect an unthought of third party.

Second, we’ve deemed it necessary to confine externalities to something that has recognizable and actionable physical consequences. In other words car exhaust can be an externality because it causes actual harm to those breathing it by polluting the air and damaging their lungs. By the same token attractive people display no externalities, because while it may give joy to some to see them, and disappoint others (under the logic “I’ll never be that good looking,” or what have you), there is no physical harm or benefits being bestowed. If we didn’t confine externalities in this manner, and allowed things such as feelings to play a part, we would end up handing out subsides and levying corrective taxes every which way you turned, and often times the same thing would be getting subsidized and taxed simultaneously.

Now returning to public goods, the definition requiring them to be both non-rival and non-excludible is appropriately limiting, it’s in the follow up where we’ve failed. Unlike with externalities we seem perfectly okay with undefinable values based on feelings. Endangered species are the perfect example of this. We’ve allowed them as a public good because many have expressed some sort of existence value for them. In other words, the mere knowledge that various species exist has a particular value to some people, and in some cases they’re even willing to pay in order to maintain that value. However, there’s no true market driven method to provide these species because the knowledge of their existence is both non-rival and non-excludible, inviting a free rider problem, and suggesting that, perhaps, government has a role to play. However, in making this assessment we’ve forgotten to attach our feelings filter, because that’s all this value is based on, a particular feeling that various people experience. I ask then, what if there are people experiencing exactly the opposite feeling? Is it so hard to imagine there are those with anti-existence values? I, for one, would actually be happier knowing there are no more snakes on the entire planet. And knowledge such as that is non-rival and non-excludible. Should we tax everyone to provide this “public good” and make myself and others like me happy? Of course not.

The entire idea of taxing in order to provide a public good or limit or expand an externality (depending on whether it’s positive or negative) is based on an efficiency ethic. Taxing everyone to provide endangered species fails to meet the standards of efficiency. Aside from the obvious debate between those with existence values and those with anti-existence values there are clearly those who are existence neutral. If we take from everyone to provide for the feelings of a few, we’ve caused discernible harm in order to make others better off. This is the antithesis of the entire basis for our model.

Now I'm Worried

Uh oh!! I may want to rethink this global warming thing.

New Environmentalism

In response to Michael DeAlessi's article:

"Conservation Through Private Initiative: Harnessing American Ingenuity to Preserve Our Nation's Resources"

I loved this article!

I haven't discussed it yet in my class with the knowlegable and expressive members yet, but I felt it was a perfect example of what a blog should be written on.

Growing up somewhat fearful of private ownership of things like land and open spaces, it's been a journey for me to come around to the level-headed thinking that suggests privatization may actually do MORE for the land than would the socialization of 'public lands' would.

DeAlessi wrote, “On public lands, land-use decisions inevitably wind up in the court of politics, where rhetoric and extremism trump substance and tradeoffs.”

It's like when I was a kid, when a bundle of toys were given to 'us' (my two brothers and me), we invariably fought over who got to play with what and when. When things were specifically designated to one of us (or to another), it was crystal clear amongst us who was allowed to play with what and when, and it gave us a sort of independence in determining what we'd share and with whom. As well, when we played with something that wasn't ours, we knew EXACTLY why we were in trouble or that we were doing something that could be construed as wrong.

When the 'bundles' were given to 'us,' we would feel like we had a right to whatever IT was and when someone else was using it, even though I wasn't, I'd feel like I was being wronged. The thing is, though, that all of 'us' thought the same way!

DeAlessi also writes that in “…the marketplace, where by definition voluntary trade makes everyone involved better off, politics is a zero-sum game, where gains to one group are made at the expense of another.”

What would happen regarding the toy or bundle, is that one person would try to take the toy or bundle and if he would fail, then he would go to mom and dad (government) to settle the dispute. I, being the oldest, rarely got his way because I was always out-whined.

I now see bickering over 'public resources' as whining and it bothers me to have to compete with, interact with, or even hear whining!

I also learned of the Audobon Society and how they fight so hard to preserve the oil reserves in ANWR, yet have access to reserves and DRILL on land that they (members of the group) own!

Suspect, I tell ya!

Hypocracy, I tell ya!

Of course, had there been a clear case of property rights of the toy/bundle, then the answer would be simple... "it's his, you are going to have to ask nicely to play with it, so stop crying!" Then, it would still be up to the person who owned the item.

The tragedy of the commons (Garret Hardin):
“ruin is the destination toward which all men rush.”

I may have wound up a huge whiner, had whining actually been the determining element of dispute-resolution.

Michael DeAlessi also wrote:

“Doing more with less is one of the most important aspects of conservation, and is also one of the prime directives of the profit motive.”

I believe this truly!

“No one questions the impetus for a cleaner, healthier, species-rich environment. How we get there, however, is another question.” (DeAlessi)

Perhaps the way to get there is through privatization of resources. Examples of the Alaska fisheries and Washington oysteries are certainly compelling. Not to mention, attaching a specific value to things that actually are considered harmful, such as trash/refuse, may also be a means to better conservation. DeAlessi gave the axample that in some circumstances, “pay as you throw” programs garnered as much as a 17% reduction in total waste.

Perhaps the way that doesn't lead to a better, cleaner environment is exactly what we're doing, allowing government to act as mom and day over 'bundles' of resources that we all feel like we have a right to and thus whine as a means to determine management over said resources.

It, in some wierd place in our souls, may seem like a good thing to allow public access to everything, but there comes the unavoidable question of what harm are we doing, how do we fix it, and how do we even measure the effects of harm or improvement for that matter?

“In many cases, success has been measured by permits issued or violations cited rather than by specific, targeted improvement in environmental quality.”

Sounds like my parents would have measured their successes by how many spankings or groundings they dished out, or how successful they were at specific conflict resolutions as opposed to whether or not they contributed to the world a good son... or 3 good sons, accountable for their own actions, respectful of others' property and ambitious to work for what they want.

So, my hat off to...

‘New Environmentalism’

What Tools are in Your Water Shed?

Colorado Springs hosts quite the spectrum of potential water problems. On one hand, we can experience great droughts which in turn can result in fire hazards, expensive water access, even illness and death. If people can’t keep cool, their bodies may overheat; if they can’t fight off diseases because of dehydration, or if they don’t have access to clean water, they can take a serious toll on the community in various forms. Water shortages may even lead to economic hardships. On the other hand, because Colorado Springs is at the foot of large mountains, flooding can be just as much of an issue. Homes built on flood-planes may slide down the hill with slope movement, or even be ruined from within because of water movement. Flooding can damage roads which could cause an economic impact, as well as damage property; it may even cause reservoirs for drinking to be contaminated with waters from external sources. In this regard, the water shed is of vital importance; how it’s taken care of, how it’s cleaned, and how it’s utilized are details that must be considered, especially in places like Colorado Springs!

According to the article by the Water Environment Federation (WEF),[1] pollution is a major contributor to the expenses that arise at water treatment plants. Water that runs off of highways, and are polluting waterways, flow into the treatment centers. The expenses of treating the (polluted) water are high, which WEF says could be curbed to some manner through taking care of how the water flows into the treatment center, as opposed to simply treating the water that will flow out of the center. Their idea on protecting the watershed en masse is to delegate the responsibility of water pollution prevention to the public. Individuals are asked, in the article, to contribute.

How You Can HelpWatershed management requires everyone's cooperation. You can help by:
· Educating yourself about water resources and uses in your watershed
· Talking to your elected officials about watershed management
· Making sure your area schools are teaching about watersheds
· Ensuring that hazardous materials are not disposed or dumped on your property
· Removing or replacing any leaking underground storage tanks on your property
· Reaching out to other communities and crossing political boundaries in the interest of watershed management

All of which seem to be fairly basic recommendations to ask of people in the city. But, how will they actually succeed at making these suggestions come into action?

One way that can be successful is through government administration and enforcement of rules that would function to protect watersheds and thus decrease the expenses of water treatment, as well, make impacts on the entirety of a community, city, state, even nation! According to a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[2], there are some specific areas of water treatment that are focused on, but still need improvement.

If EPA is committed to the watershed approach, it needs to make improvements in four key elements:
• Integrating watershed activities into its core water programs.
• Addressing stakeholder concerns to increase their participation.
• Refining and improving key aspects of its strategic planning process.
• Improving the watershed performance measurement system.

EPA adopted the watershed approach to help focus existing, traditional water pollution control programs in a more comprehensive manner and address emerging problems.

Similarly to the WEF, the EPA seems to be advocating watershed focused policy that would address and improve existing programs, as well, consider likely problems that may arise in the future.

Watersheds are what flow into the treatment plants that then flow through our pipes at home and give us drinking/cooking water. Watersheds are also how flooding can be destructive; depending on how water sheds over the surface of land, and how maximized the water table below the surface is, floods may have nowhere to go but into destructive lanes such as our home, or into our treated water reserves, bringing pollution with it! Even though water pollution is of great importance, which we attempt to remedy through water treatment means, how water moves is of greater importance. Water movement, if not worked with in a harmonious way, can cause landslides beneath homes, floods through industrious areas, and deterioration of architectural structures. So, water not only needs to be cleaned for our purposes of consumption, but also managed in a manner that allows us to progress as a community, city, state, nation, even as civilization. And the way to bring together the handling of water for consumption, as well, the issue of water as a force of nature, the solution lies more in understanding and working with the watershed than in trying to control it.

Unlike water conservation, which even if the use of private consumption was fully minimized, the overall impact is relatively small, individual contributions to the issue of watershed management could make for larger marginal social benefits. Contractors could design developments with watershed in mind, cities could zone according to geological and hydrological phenomena, and people on an individual level could be mindful of the waste they disperse through community-policing of such behavior. Government could offer disincentives, such as fines, to people who do harm to watersheds; as well, they could offer incentives, such as tax relief, to companies that successfully develop in accordance to watershed tendencies of a region. Individuals can simply read the two web pages and learn about ways they can positively impact the watershed in their area. The tools of government, as well as the resources for individuals can make those positive impacts.

Though flooding and droughts occur, understanding the tools we possess could lead to fewer and smaller impacts they have on us. In the tools we possess, understanding and protecting watersheds can be the key.
[1] http://www.wef.org/AboutWater/ForThePublic/FactSheets/FactSheetDocuments/HowtoProtectYourWatershed.htm

[2] http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2005/20050921-2005-P-00025-Gcopy.pdf