New School Politics

Step Two: Insert foot.

In response to a survey during the primary asking, “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” Senator Obama checked “Yes.” He elaborated:

I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns…If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Clearly, John McCain’s reaction indicated that there was no effort from Barack Obama “pursuing an agreement” on public financing so to keep it in place.

The Senator has had little trouble finding spare change

But of course things have changed since February of this year–Obama discovered he hasn’t the age-old Democrat’s fundraising handicap. Nay, he’s actually got quite the knack for raising money. So much so that he expects a cash flow great enough to able him to spend more than the $84.1 million limit that public financing mandates.

Money talks. And apparently what it says is more trustworthy than what flimsy pols like Barack Obama say. David Brooks hit the nail on the head–as he often does–with his column entitled, “The Two Obamas.”

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

Senator Obama has made a career out of commanding oratory and the image of a new and different and transcending and trustworthy politician. But everywhere we look, he has not fulfilled his own prophecy.

As Brooks notes, Senator Obama could “no more disown” the derisive Reverend Jeremiah Wright than his own grandmother–so he claimed. But when political circumstances changed, he dropped Wright like a sack of potatoes after their noted 20 year history.

Obama could have accepted Senator McCain’s proposal for 10 one-on-one town hall meetings–an unprompted, candid discussion with his opponent and the American people that screams born-again politics–but he has not, and will not take such a strategic risk.

The Senator could have cast legislative votes in the same non-partisan manner that he espouses on the stump, but his voting record indicates he is one of the least, if not the least, likely to step out of the party line.

The Senator could have taken tough stances on votes in the Illinois State Senate or taken the initiative to use his keen political skills to lead on certain vital legislative issues, but he has done neither.

The issue of campaign financing is only more evidence that Barack Obama is anything but the messianic public figure that him, his campaign, and his supporters (including many in the press) have made him out to be. While I wouldn’t usually waste my time blogging about a seeming textbook flip-flop, let’s remember who is making it. This is the man who was supposed to restore public confidence to the political system. This is the man who was supposed to change the way politics is done in Washington. But it is only style, not substance, that would indicate that.

ADDENDUM: The above news came the same week that John McCain himself flopped on the issue of federal offshore drilling moratoriums. And before I get criticized for only rebuking Obama, let it be know that I am not turning a blind eye to the GOP’s nominee.

The difference as I see it however is that Barack Obama choses to ride a far higher horse, which makes his reversal more noteworthy. Moreover, now that he has gone with the wind, at least John McCain has the right position on the issue of drilling. Regardless of how much he pandered to get to his stance, what this means is that if the Arizona Senator gets his way the government will reduce its restrictions on energy production in this country, and thats a good thing.

Popularity: 66% [?]

Senator Obama has offered little, if anything, remnant of an independent streak in Congress. He has practically been toeing the Democratic Party line for the entire three weeks (or three years–I can’t remember) he’s represented Illinois. Despite cries to the contrary, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise why the National Journal ranked Senator Obama the most liberal Senator in 2007, and one of the most liberal in the body over his short career. Nor does he have any notable legislative accomplishments (to the extent of my knowledge and research), but that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with Obama being a partisan and/or left-winger if that is what he truly believes. But, if that is the case, the problem is that he is trying to mask it. He has run on the idea that he will transcend the politics of the past; that he is the reformer–the breath of fresh air who is immune to partisanship. At the same time, as a Senator he has been the Democratic Party Platform manifest, even before he started running. So while he is (incorrectly) claiming that McCain is running for Bush’s third term, he, himself, is running for little more than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s ascension to the White House.

To be sure, John McCain still shares many of George Bush’s policy stances (and has strangely–and by strangely, I mean politically conveniently–shared an increasing number of those positions at least since 2001/02), but he has also demonstrated a long-standing streak of thinking for himself. Not only has McCain dissented from his party in his career (perhaps) as many times as Barack Obama has casted votes in the Senate, but he has shown a far greater tendency to be an independently minded politician than the Jr. Senator from IL.

In light of the facts, it is clear that the rolls are the reverse of what Sen. Obama would have many think. For better or for worse, John McCain has been his own man for much of his career in DC, while, in his short time in Congress, Barack Obama has been playing something along the lines of “follow the leader” with Democratic Party Leadership.

In Economic news, a notable panel of economists, including five Nobel Laureates, were put to task discussing various, global economic policy proposals. They assessed 40 different ideas and prioritized them, in utilitarian fasion, in order of how much good they would do for the welfare of the world’s population. The top of the list included relatively cheap nutrition and immunization for third world youth (tens of millions), which would yield hundreds of millions to billions of productivity in the future.

The top also included global expansion of free trade coming out of the Doha trade talks, which, according to studies by present economists could produce as much as $113 trillion in new wealth in the 21st century at a maximum opportunity cost of $420 billion from displaced industries.

What was perhaps most notable however was that Global Warming mitigation (as well as research and development to that end) came in at 39 and 40–the very bottom of the list. The explanation was that the costs of proposed policies to economic production and growing dynamism of the world economy will be very great, while the reasons and benefits for such overhauls have been speculative, and in some cases minimal.

Also of note: an opinion piece in today’s WSJ reminds us of the daily, yet revolutionary change that the market has offered America–and the world–over the course of history as well as in modern times. This sort of change, which coincides with unprecedented growth in standard of living, in the US and around the world, is produced by innovation and free trade both within and between nations–another sobering fact to those partial to a different type of change.

Popularity: 67% [?]

In light of the Cap-and-Trade bill, recently defeated in the Senate, I thought it proper to post on a recent scientific studies on future warming trends.

First, published in early May, a study published in Nature Magazine contends that, contrary to what is supposed to be scientific consensus, there will be no global warming until at least and possibly as late as 2020. The study found that the earth’s temperature will actually drop from the present to 2015. And since we have already witnessed a global temperature decline since 1998 (again, you do not hear about this very often in the news, do you?), this means that by the end of the next decade, there will have actually been a drop in global temperatures for two whole decades.

No, you did not read that wrong. In an era of globalization, rising human greenhouse gas emissions, Inconvenient Truths, and Nobel Peace Prizes for environmentalists, we are in the midst of two decades of no global warming.

Here is a review of the study in the NYT.

What makes this finding even more amusing is that it flies in the face of the Nobel-laureate IPCC which has predicted a .3 degree centigrade increase in temperature over the next decade. As a matter of fact, in their predictions, the IPCC uses a grand total of 0 climate models that have predicted any “lull” in warming over the next 7 years, such as the above study found.

And let us also remember that even despite its model-based estimates of global warming, the IPCC still only predicts a rise in sea levels between 7 inches and (at most) 23 inches over the course of the entire 21st century.

One has to wonder if this is the sort of imminant and emminant global warming that Barack Obama thinks warrents an 80% cut in GHGs by 2050.

Popularity: 59% [?]

From the AP this morning:

Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would substantially raise gasoline and other energy prices.

Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote. The 48-36 vote failed to reach even a majority, a disappointment to the bill’s supporters.

Although few expected this bill to actually go very far, the fact that it was shot down so quickly is a good sign for now.

The Climate Security Act (co-sponsored by John Warner (R-VA) and Joe Lieberman (confused-CT)) calls for limiting emissions to 2005 levels by 2012, 30% below 2005 leves by 2030, and finally reducing emissions by 74% by 2050. With present population growth accounted for, that would mean that by 2050, per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be more than 90% less than what they are presently, which–according to one commentator who I unfortunately cannot recall in order to cite at this point–would reduce per capita emissions to a level not seen since around the time Thomas Jefferson was president.

The economic costs of the central planning will obviously be imense. Low-end estimates like that of the Energy Information Administration estimate the costs to economic output at somewhere between $1 and 2 trillion by 2030 (in 2000 dollars) while other estimates, like that of the Heritage Foundation, expect losses up to $4.8 trillion (in 2006 dollars) by 2030.

This cannot even account for the potential deadweight losses and stifled innovation that will result from the massive politicization and bureaucratization of economic planning. Its a wonder how an economy that runs on 85% fossil fuel could cope with such massive overhaul.

While it is a positive to see these massive regulations thwarted, the real battle will come in the next four years when we know we will have a president who supports a Cap-and-Trade scheme. And with a Congress that will likely have even greater Democratic majorities there should be a real worry for those who actually value the idea of economic freedom and remotely limited government. The coming years will really test whether Congressional Republicans (as few as they are) and the American people are willing to go the distance to prevent what the minority leader, I think, correctly calls “the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal.”

Popularity: 41% [?]

George Will’s latest column in Newsweek consisted of a series of questions he would like to see Senator Obama answer during this campaign. It is worth reading the whole thing, but here are a few of my favorites:

• ExxonMobil’s 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft’s and many other corporations’? And that reducing ExxonMobil’s profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?

• You say John McCain is content to “watch [Americans'] home prices decline.” So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator knowideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?

• Michelle, who was born in 1964, says that most Americans’ lives have “gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl.” Since 1960, real per capita income has increased 143 percent, life expectancy has increased by seven years, infant mortality has declined 74 percent, deaths from heart disease have been halved, childhood leukemia has stopped being a death sentence, depression has become a treatable disease, air and water pollution have been drastically reduced, the number of women earning a bachelor’s degree has more than doubled, the rate of homeownership has increased 10.2 percent, the size of the average American home has doubled, the percentage of homes with air conditioning has risen from 12 to 77, the portion of Americans who own shares of stock has quintupled … Has your wife perhaps missed some pertinent developments in this country that she calls “just downright mean”?

• You favor raising the capital gains tax rate to “20 percent or 25 percent.” You say this will not “distort” economic decision making. Your tax returns on your 2007 income of $4.2 million show that you and Michelle own few stocks. Are you sure you understand how investors make decisions?

• You denounce President Bush for arrogance toward other nations. Yet you vow to use a metaphorical “hammer” to force revisions of trade agreements unless certain weaker nations adjust their labor, environmental and other domestic policies to suit you. Can you define cognitive dissonance?

Most of these questions capture economic illiteracy that is commonplace in politics. It especially suggests the arrogance of a politician who think that he can make economic decisions better than individuals can in the free marketplace. The second question really gets to the heart of it–could you even imagine him trying to answer?

Popularity: 51% [?]

An article in today’s NY Times chronicles a dental clinic operating in rural Alaska, without any certified dentists and without the sanction of the dental unions.

The dental clinic in this village on the edge of the Bering Sea looks like any other, with four chairs, a well-scrubbed floor and a waiting area filled with magazines.

But to the Alaska Dental Society and the American Dental Association, the clinic is a place where the rules of dentistry are flouted daily. The dental groups object not because of any evidence that the clinic provides substandard care, but because it is run by Aurora Johnson, who is not a dentist. After two years of training in a program unique to Alaska, Ms. Johnson performs basic dental work like drilling and filling cavities.

Some dentists who specialize in public health, noting that 100 million Americans cannot afford adequate dental care, say such training programs should be offered nationwide. But professional dental groups disagree, saying that only dentists, with four years of postcollegiate education, should do work like Ms. Johnson’s. And while such arrangements are common outside the United States, only one American dental school, in Anchorage, offers such a program.

The number of dentists in the United States has been roughly flat since 1990 and is forecast to decline over the next decade. A study last year from the Centers for Disease Control showed that Americans’ dental health was worsening for the first time since statistics began to be kept …

…[T]he A.D.A. continues to oppose allowing therapists to operate anywhere in the lower 49 states. Currently, therapists are allowed to practice only in Alaska, and only on Alaska Natives.

Unions are historically ruthless and effective in pursuit of their political interests, even when they consist of dentists. Its no surprise, of course, that dentists want a closed industry especially when non PHDed dental workers earn a third to a half as much.
The obvious effect of regulations that mandate certain standards for dental servants is to limit the supply of labor in a sector where training and education is already expensive and time consuming. The consequences are manifest in the number of dentists remaining stagnant for almost two decades as well as the fact that “100 million Americans” can’t afford coverage (100 million seems to be an absurdly high amount, but upon further research it does appear that around 150 million don’t have insurance at all, so the number may be realistic).
The case-study may also tell us something about the problems in the healthcare industry, where the American Medical Association uses its weight to limit the supply of medical workers–as well as the amount that certain non-PHDed workers are allowed to do.
A review of the book Profession and Monopoly gives examples:

“…in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals, it points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA’s influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.”

While I assume that some regulations may have arisen in recent years, most have been in place for years and do not explain the overall climb in healthcare prices of late. However their rollback would still be a positive step toward making healthcare a more a affordable and more competitive industry, allowing low-priced medical practices, such as the dental practice in Alaska, to do business.

What I propose is neither dangerous nor radical really–all it is is an opportunity for the price system to operate. When prices rise, demand falls, which is impetus for supply to surge and bring prices back toward equilibrium. But because supply of health service is relatively inelastic (especially because of how expensive and capital intensive it is in both the human-educational sense, and the physical-technological sense), and various policies disable lower priced service to compete, a price floor is essentially created.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of the Greenwich Time regarding administrative regulation of student media at my high school, but especially of the student newspaper. Here’s a fraction of it:

The systematic, bureaucratic censorship of The Beak (the name of the paper), as well as all other student media at GHS, severely hamstrings the intellectual and informational quality of its product. A myriad of regulations are enforced on a whim by a single faculty adviser who has the pressure of school administration on his shoulders. Similarly, other publications, such as the satirical Weekling, and any organization wishing to disseminate information are unilaterally censored by the overbearing student activities office.

In the three years that I have written for the paper I have had three editorials censored–one on abortion, one on Islam, and one criticizing a myriad of invasive laws including bans on steroids, prostitution, marijuana, and the drinking age. In addition, I have witnessed a list of columns not published because of the whimsical regulations on what is “appropriate” for young adults.

The case I am trying to make is not one a moralistic, first amendment one. To the contrary, I do not think that the first amendment holds much weight in this situation. Thus, I am not disputing the Supreme Court decision from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which essentially says that because the school is essentially the property of the government, the school administration has the right to regulate student speech to their liking.

However, whether the school can and whether the school should regulate speech are two different issues. Call me a romantic, but I thought that the goal of a school was to maximize the body of knowledge and curiosity of students (although I think that makes me more rational than romantic). I do not see how schools could at once be promoting an intellectual environment when they are systematically stifling various issues and opinions.

Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for instance, which was the disputed topic in the Hazelwood case. Few would dispute that it is a touchy subject. But what audience better to address it with than teens? The article in question contained primary sources discussing the reality of the issue. I don’t see how talking about the matter in an open and honest manner could hurt students. To the contrary, I can only imagine that talking about it would inform students and prevent pregnancy for those who are informed by the newspaper article.

Similarly, one of my censored columns was a critical examination of certain aspects of Islam. While conventional wisdom tells us not to discuss religion in public, not discussing religion freely and in a philosophical manner does nothing to reduce “intolerance” (which is what my editorial was labeled). The more informed and rational people are and the more they understand that it is okay to disagree even on matters as fundamental as religion, the more rounded and tolerant our educational institutions will be.

The saddest part about the censorship, which I should also mention is not practiced nearly as much as it is practiced in colleges, is that it muffles the creativity of students. While schools should be attempting to teach their kids as much about the world as possible, they only have so much time. The greatest reflection on educators is when they can foster the creativity and passion of individual students. Such initiative is manifest in students who examine fringe and risque issues in a scholarly manner. And while these cases are rare, the last thing that should be done by in response is censor them.

Popularity: 43% [?]

Not unexpectedly, there has been a sufficient amount of crowing from the left about the need for more financial regulation in light of the credit crunch. Their reasoning seems to encompass little more than the idea that deregulation or underregulation was the source of our current problems (which makes even less sense when you consider that there is no significant repeal in mortgage or lending laws to my knowlege).

This essay, however, directly refutes that idea:

The most striking fact about the ongoing financial mayhem is that it is concentrated not in lightly regulated hedge funds but in more heavily regulated commercial and investment banks. It is banks that created subprime mortgage securities. It is banks that mispriced them. And it is banks that filled their own coffers with this toxic paper, losing hundreds of billions of dollars. A somewhat breathless March 31Financial Times article proclaimed the closing of the worst month for hedge funds since the collapse of the infamous Long Term Capital Management in 1998. But the average fund tracked by the Chicago-based firm Hedge Fund Research declined by a mere 2.4 percent in March, bringing the cumulative fall for the first quarter of 2008 to 2.7 percent. By contrast, the bank-heavy financial services component of the S&P 500 fell 12.3 percent in the first quarter.

Hedge funds, for the most part, have weathered the storm remarkably well.

Simply put, if underregulation was the problem we would logically see worse performance from hedge funds than investment banks seeing that hedge funds are relatively unregulated financial vehicles.

While I blame the present problem on years of overly exuberant credit expansion by the Fed, I think it is an economic mystery why loose credit disproportionately funded a bubble in the mortgage market versus any other area of the economy (in the same way that it is mysterious why technology was overextended in the late ’90s). Put simply, we do not know why the mortgage markets bore the brunt of the Fed’s policy, but hopefully we can at least be resolved to do two things: a) not let the central banks devalue our money to the extent they have been doing this decade and b) avoid government bail-outs participants in these financial markets, which will create the same incentives to make bad investments that cause the problem in the first place.

Popularity: 31% [?]

One of the reasons Steven Landsburg, a professor of economics from the University of Rochester, is one of my favorite economists around today is because he writes articles like the one he wrote this week called, The Case for Foreclosures. Here is part of his explanation:

I predict with great confidence that when I say that foreclosures create new homeowners, a sizable chunk of my readers will scoff that “the people who can afford them would have been able to afford nice homes anyway.” I could use economics to explain why those readers are mistaken (a glut of homes on the market leads to falling prices, etc.), but that’s unnecessarily complicated. All it takes is the simple observation that there cannot be more homeowners than there are homes, and if one home becomes vacant, then there can be one new homeowner. Call it the law of conservation of homes.

Its nothing more than a logical consequence of the price system that as people cannot pay their mortgages and demand goes down, prices will also go down to compensate and reestablish equilibrium in the housing market. The alternative, such as a freeze in foreclosures or interest rates as proposed by Hilary Clinton, could not change the fact that many residents cannot afford to pay their mortgages under the presently readjusted, the peril of which would be that more lenders would go bankrupt and less lenders would be able to initiate new mortgages for buyers looking to purchase homes on the market at reduced market prices.

Indeed it is contrarian to encourage foreclosures, but that’s not exactly what Landsburg is doing; Landsburg is, in reality, encouraging market forces and the price system as a means of achieving the optimal outcome in a below-average situation and warning against the unintended and unseen consequences of manipulating those natural forces. Indeed, much of my blogging on economics aspires to have the same effect whereby it defeats anti-market conventional wisdom by enumerating all the possibly hidden or misunderstood effects of anti-market policies.

Hahvahd professor Greg Mankiw also pointed out that it should come as no surprise that such an economist would be making a case for something as indefensible and callous as home foreclosure, considering he has also praised Ebenezer Scrooge. Of course this too sounds unfathomable considering the way the very name has become a household admonishment on any individual accused of selfishness.

In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser—the man who could deplete the world’s resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide.

In many ways his approbation of the miser is not only a approbation of the classical principles of savings and thrift, but also a rebuke of consumptionist-Keynsian thought. Either way, it is particularly brilliant in the tradition of “pop economics,” which dates back to Fredric Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt, for looking at “that which is seen, and that which is unseen.”

Today, popular economics has reached its apex, namely in the fame of the book Freakonomics. But what most don’t recall is that in modern times, before there was Steven Levitt–or anyone else for that matter–there was Steven Landsburg who wrote The Armchair Economist written in the late ’80s with a greater emphasis on logic, incentives, and larger economic trends, compared with Levitt’s nuanced microeconomic empiricism.

Finally, I found this video of Professor Landsburg on John Gibson’s Fox News show from a couple of years ago. He was brought on to talk about trade and a rising protectionist inclination among the American people, and in the face of those sentiments he makes the case that protectionism is xenophobic, irrational, and not dissimilar to racism. The exchange is heated but Landsburg sufficiently owns Gibson on his own show. And with trade and NAFTA emerging as a leading issue in this campaign cycle, the video is particularly relevant.

You can watch it by clicking the link directly below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 25% [?]

The candidate who manages the economy least.

At least that is the theme of John Stossel’s newest article, which hits the proverbial nail on the head. So often the question regarding the economy in presidential elections is who will best “manage” it. But that question, especially the term “manage” really implies that inevitably the president will be exerting a great deal of control over the economy, and the issue is relates more to how the president will then allocate spending and taxation and regulation–how he or she will “man the controls.”

But in reality, the question should be more open-ended and have more choices. Rather than ask, how the president will manage the economy, we should first ask, will the president manage the economy, and if so, how much.

By addressing the basic issues of government’s place in the economy, which voters systematically ignore in favor of the same amount of executive control year after year, Stossel is able to put into perspective the economic nonsense that Congress or the president is directly responsible for growth.

He writes:

Sen. Hillary Clinton told The New York Times recently, “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market. … You try to find common ground, insofar as possible. But if you really believe you have to manage the economy, you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it.”

Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. “Power” in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people.

Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone. When politicians propose regulations to fix some problem, they should ask if some earlier intervention created the problem and if the new regulations will make things worse. The answer to both questions is usually yes.

The economy is far too complex for any president — no matter how smart — to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources?

They can’t. That’s why free people are more prosperous than unfree people.

Presidential candidates should promise to keep their hands off the economy.

Popularity: 21% [?]