EclectEcon

The Moon Shots

In 1969, I was in gradskool in Ames, Iowa. I was pretty well on my way to drifting away from being an idealistic young socialist and toward becoming a small-gubmnt libertarian. That drift made me far less enamoured of the moon programme than many of my friends were. I didn't see the point of going to the moon (still don't, really; though as a stepping stone to Mars for future colonization... maybe). We (i.e. the US gubmnt) were spending billions and billions on the space race when there were so many competing "needs" on earth.

 

I was much more interested in ending the Vietnam war, in controlling and reducing pollution, and in controlling the beginnings of the horrid economic period that was emerging because the gubmnt wouldn't control its spending.

 

But we did go to a friend's place to watch it. I'm glad I did.

Confrontation, Responses, and (Bayesian) Priors

We all have reasonably strong views about the world, how it operates, and how we think it should operate. These strong views, or priors, affect how we interpret events.

So let me ask readers to pick an issue about which you have strong views. What would it take to get you to change your views?

Example:

One of my all-time favourite economics professors, the late nobel laureate Robert Fogel, was once a communist organizer. He became a Chicago-school near libertarian type economist because communism was wrong about the failures of capitalism.

Counterexample:

I have friends who are so strongly opposed to abortion, nothing would ever change their minds.

The former is a more scholarly approach; the latter is a more religious or moral approach.

So what would it take to get you to change your mind about ________?

For me:

• Minimum wages. I think they're wrong; I don't think that on average they help all the people they're intended to help; I think that in general gubmnt intrusion into markets inhibits economic growth and makes future generations of poor people much worse off than they would be if we had more economic growth. I'm nearly religious on this. I'm not sure I could be convinced to change my views (informed by the study of economics and the studies I've read about minimum wages).
• Global warming. I was skeptical about how much we're experiencing, but I'm beginning to shed that skepticism in the light of increasing data and information from some people I tend to trust. I'm still somewhat skeptical about how much is caused by humans. I'm not qualified to even try to understand the studies. I doubt that much we might do in Canada or possibly in North America will change things much. I do think we should prepare and help prepare to deal with it if, as, and to the extent we experience it.
• Coventry School and the the confrontation at the Lincoln Memorial. This incident is what prompted this post. What would prompt you to change your take on the situation? What if the boys had been from a secular school and carrying copies of Michelle Obama's book?

Seriously, for each contentious issue, I think it would be a good idea for us to ask ourselves, "Is it possible that I can be convinced otherwise?" If not, we're debating religion, which I'm willing to do in some settings [do we have a multi-verse with 11 dimensions? what caused the big bang? etc.]

and as I wrote [edited here] in a comment on my Facebook page earlier today:

I shouldn't do this, I know, but my views:
1. I'm anti-Trump, as I hope most of you know. But I'm probably anti-Trump for reasons different from those that many of you have. At the same time I know some very smart and caring people who are pro-Trump. My point? Don't use your or anyone else's views about Trump to judge a particular situation. Please.
2. I'm not anti-abortion, but I'm pro-adoption (my daughter was adopted). Colour me woefully ambivalent on the topic. My point: please don't use my or anyone else's views on abortion to judge a particular situation.
3. From what I've read and seen, the school the boys were from teaches stuff I strongly disagree with. That doesn't mean I hate these boys; that doesn't mean they were in the wrong at this confrontation.
4. I am not a fan of MAGA (I actually had to google it when the incident was first written about).
5. In this incident, no matter what you might think about the boys and their school and their hats, what did they do wrong in this confrontation? Especially I don't know what the one student did who was confronted by Phillips. He smiled or smirked, as we were taught to do in the Civil Rights movement; he reacted non-violently. 
6. If you condemn the boys for their behaviour in this instance because of their school, their hats, their parents, their politics, their views on abortion, etc. you've missed the point I was trying to make.
7. Like the writer of this Atlantic piece, I've held some wildly different, and (many would say) hateful or objectionable views over my lifetime. I have done some pretty uncaring things in my lifetime. But I hope people will not use those views or actions to judge me in any given situation. I know some do and some have, but please keep this in mind when writing about this particular situation. 

I'm sure I could write more. I probably will. I'm feeling so despondent though because of the comments I've read, both yesterday and today.😕

Addendum: Many of us can, and do, change our views on religious-type topics as well. I was once a conscientious objector to war. I think I may have been drifting away from that moral position but 9-11 sealed it for me. I was no longer a conscientious objector after that event. Also, I was once an atheist but cosmological questions turned me into a devout agnostic.

Ommadawn

My latest snowstomp art. Some people wanted flowers in the spring, so I did a flower pot.

The title of this work of art is Ommadawn, named for an album by Mike Oldfield (video and some lyrics are below the photos).

Here is a photo of the work in process (thanks to Ms. Eclectic for taking the photo)

And here are two photos of the finished product. Yes, I know that particular plant doesn't grow that way. It's art.

Flower "pot" might be a good alternative title.

Ommadawn by Mike Oldfield has a song with the lyrics,

Hey, and away we go

Through the grass, across the snow.

.... I'd rather be with you than flying through space.

I honestly had no idea what the none-too-subtle implications of the words were as I walked along with my children, singing this song to them back in the late 1970s (yes, I was and still am quite naive). But I couldn't help but think of that song now as I did some snow-shuffle art on the condo lawn.

The video: 

My previous snow stomp art:

      Ommadawn (this post)

      The First Robin of Spring?

      Be My Valentine, 2018

      Curling AND the Super Bowl

      I'm No Escher... 

      Hark! the Herald Angel Sings

      Nativity Scene, 2017

      Planning an Escape

      Caught in the Net

Surf's Up 

Diagonally Warped in a Parallel Universe, Part 2

      Diagonally Warped in a Parallel Universe

      Pikachu

      Happy New Year, 2017

      O Tannenbaum

      Nativity Scene

Special Weather Statement

Think Tropics

Qubix

Valentine, 2016

Paisley'd Circles

Happy New Year, 2016

The House of the Rising Sun

Easter Eggs

A weak pattern in the blowing snow.

The same pattern after some melting

New Year's Champagne

Tiptoe Through the Tulips

Happy Valentine's Day

Cabaret

A Christmas Tree (my first effort)

Is Hugging an Unwanted Sexual Assault? Affront?

Since joining various theatre groups in London, Ontario, six years ago, I have become accustomed to LOTS more hugging than I experience in other parts of my life. Everybody hugs everybody all the time. Well... nearly everybody hugs nearly everybody nearly all the time.

In my adult lifetime, I can think of two times when I may have started to hug someone and then realized that they didn't want to be hugged. There were probably more. It's hard to stop in mid-hug, so when I sensed it, I just gave a very light, perfunctory type of hug.

In my adult lifetime, I can recall two times when I was hugged when I didn't want to be hugged. There may have been more that seemed inconsequential at the time,  but I don't remember them, and I expect the hugger in all these instances might have been unaware that I was uncomfortable with the hug or maybe, as I did, converted it into a perfunctory pretend hug.

I like the hugging, in general, especially among my theatre friends. I like the closeness, and I even like the pretense of closeness. I like both.

And yet, there are times when I'm uncomfortable with it, and I expect others are, too. Most of those times, I or we sense the situation and shake hands, if it's another guy, or avoid the situation somehow if it's a female.

But here's the question: In light of these data from The Economist, what hugging is assault or at the very least an affront?

I know that rarely, if ever, did I see or experience any hugging among my colleagues in the 40+ years that I taught economics at The University of Western Ontario. It just wasn't the done thing. And I expect that's the norm for many, if not most, academic and business environments.

And yet there have been times when a colleague with whom I felt close and I would see each other in a non-work setting and a hug sometimes seemed appropriate and we hugged. Not often, but a few times.

I just wonder how people know what is appropriate? If you feel like hugging someone and start to hug them, you can usually judge the intensity of the reciprocal feeling -- some people go into the hug with more enthusiasm than others. It's possible in these situations to have a perfunctory, polite hug that is probably not offensive. I hope it isn't anyway.

In theatre (in London, at least) hugs seem to be the default. Not always, though.

And given that different actions seem to be unwanted by the recipients at times, it is not always easy to judge.

Vitamins for Puerto Rico?

Are there any major (or non-major, for that matter) generic or big-name pharmaceutical or supplement manufacturers who are donating vitamin supplements for Puerto Rican relief. The people on that island, from what I read, will be suffering from food and water shortages for quite some time. Relief organizations are doing what they can to provide water, water purification systems, generators, fuel, food, building supplies etc.

My reaction to the Puerto Rican crisis is straight-forward: do what we can.

I have hated the fiscal irresponsibility of the Puerto Rican gubmnts and their antipathy toward balanced budgets and more market-oriented ways of promoting economic growth. I even hold those things partially responsible for the problems faced in Puerto Rico after hurricanes Irma and Maria -- those policies and the Jones Act, which bars foreign ships from carrying goods between the US and its territories.

But now is not the time to withhold aid because of these views. Now is the time for people who care to do something. Ms. Eclectic and I have already donated to several organizations and will likely donate to more as we winnow the chaff from the effective ones.

Is it silly of me to ask about vitamins? I'd hate for a charitable organization to undercut the vitamin shops there, but for the intermediate-term, nutrition might be important. At the same time, I am concerned about the health and welfare of the people, especially the young children, who might suffer from malnutrition over the next year or so. Is this misplaced? Impossible to do anything about?

Cookie Frosting

You know what frosts my cookies? That some Trump-like clown like Ross Perot kept George H. W. Bush from winning re-election, and yet a sensible third-party option like Gary Johnson can't even appear in the debates and public fora because the major parties rewrote the rules after the inroads made by Perot and Nader.

No, I won't defend every position and statement by Gary Johnson. But when I consider the alternatives, I'm aghast. When I think of Trump, I begin to wonder if maybe Clinton wouldn't be so bad after all; and then when I think of Clinton, I begin to wonder if maybe Trump wouldn't be so bad after all. And vice versa.

They are both big gubmnt demagogues who cater to cronyism. Both are bullies (albeit in different ways). Both appeal to unenlightened, naive views about economics. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are SO much better.

It is both sad and maddening.

Morton's Fork and/or the Horns of a Dilemma

The current US election presents voters with two major candidates, neither of whom is even slightly desirable as a President of the US.

And so voters are faced with a difficult choice between two evils. In some respects, this choice might be viewed by some as Morton's Fork, but really the voters are caught between the horns of dilemma.

If I were still voting in the US, I'd reject the choice. I'd reject the dilemma as false. I'd vote for Gary Johnson. I think I'd like him as a president. And to all his detractors, I know I would prefer him to the other options.

For reference, from Wikipaedia,

A Hobson's choice [EE: only one option is offered] is different from:

• Dilemma: a choice between two or more options, none of which is attractive.
• False dilemma: only two choices are considered, when in fact there are others.
• Catch-22: a logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired by not being in that very situation.
• Morton's fork, and a double bind: choices yield equivalent, and often undesirable, results.
• Blackmail and extortion: the choice between paying money (or some non-monetary good or deed) or risk suffering an unpleasant action.

 

Who Didn't Think Trump Was/Is Like That?

I am disgusted by Trump's abuse of power and position... actually, I always have been. And the recent revelations of his abuse of women, not to mention his abuse of suppliers and others with whom he had financial dealings, just confirms my dis-ease with having that man as president of the US.

But given his history, his bullying tactics in the early primaries, his blatant lying, and his use of sexual innuendo and machismo so often during the past year and a half, who didn't expect it? This is a man who seeks more power and who will surely abuse it... blatantly.

Did the republican voters not see this early on? Why not? Because he would be "our bully" and would stand up to the rest of the world on behalf of us? I think they saw it and applauded it. Fortunately at least some are having second thoughts.

That's the voters I'm talking about. But what about the politicians and other people who publicly supported Trump? Does it take tapes of confessions of sex abuse to get them to see what a scary man he is?

There is no excuse for their continued support of Trump, and there is no excuse for their having supported him before the sex-abuse interview was disseminated.

Here's to people like Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, et alia, who refused to support Trump early on. As for the others? okay, they saw some virtue in party loyalty.... but that betrays a serious lack of integrity on their part --- a serious lack of integrity coupled with a serious blindness to what the man is like. Phhhht.

That having been said, Clinton scares me, too. She's a power-hungry person who will continue to sell favours and will continue to increase the size of gubmnt, with the effect of distorting incentives toward the seeking of gubmnt benefits and away from productive activity.

My choice: Vote for Johnson and Weld.

My Pebble Watch Burned My Wrist

I was awakened at 5am this morning by a burning sensation on my wrist. I felt my wrist and my Pebble watch was burning hot. I took the watch off as fast as I could, but it left burn marks and blisters on my wrist:

I had had the watch for about two months and was really enjoying it. This is disappointing.

I have loved my Pebble watch. I love the information it gives me, I love the contact with my iPhone. But this watch is dead.

I'm wondering if the battery in this watch has the same problems that have been identified with the Samsung smartphone recently..... or if the new iOS10 for my phone has done something to sabotage my Pebble watch (I really doubt this).... or if the Pebble firmware upgrade was flawed.

It turns out, though, that I'm not the only person to have experienced this problem [see this]. It is apparently a rare event. But of course I'll be a bit wary of using my Pebble watch again. And yet I don't really want any different watch, like an Apple or any other watch that needs recharging on a daily basis (my Pebble held its charge for about 5 days).

Meanwhile, here's hoping Pebble makes the replacement/exchange go as smoothly as possible.

Medical Marijuana

From an article in last year's JAMA [Jl of the Amer Med Assoc]: (via Jack)

Results.... Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response ..., reduction in pain ..., a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment ..., and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale... . There was an increased risk of short-term AEs  [adverse events] with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination.

Conclusions and RelevanceThere was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

 It's time to let consumers decide whether they want to try marijuana to treat some of the symptoms.

To All My Smug Friends In Saskatchewan (and Elsewhere) Who Don't Go on Daylight Savings Time

Today was the traumatic spring day for me when we move from Daylight-Wasting-Time to Daylight-Savings-Time [DST]. Traumatic because we have to change the time on so many clocks and watches, and for some clocks it's a pain.

My friends in Saskatchewan tend to sit back smugly and point out that they don't have to change their clocks.

They're right. But they have what I consider a worse problem....... adjusting their television watching habits because everyone else goes onto DST. Let's see, now, Big Bang used to come on at 7pm but now does it come on at 8pm or 6pm? This process of adjustment was worse for me in the fall when I was there as everyone else went onto Daylight-Wasting-Time. It took me several days to figure out when various football games and pre-game shows would be on television.

I honestly don't mind DST. What I mind is switching away from it for a few months and then switching back. I'd be happy to stay on DST year 'round. Yes, I know it would mean going to work and school in the dark in the mornings for many people for a month or two. But staying on DST would also mean fewer health issues, too, that result from the time switches [see this].

I've written about this before. See this.

Related articles

Switch to Daylight-Wasting Time

Are the Clocks Going to be Set Forward or Backward on Tuesday Night?

5 Myths about Daylight Savings Time

Does Being a Pothead Have Long-Term Consequences?

According to this post at the Washington Post, people who smoked pot regularly for at least five years had some (slight?) short-term memory problems in middle age, compared with those who didn't. But the posting also notes some caveats concerning the study:

One important caveat is that a study like this can't determine causality. It could be the case that heavy pot use makes your short-term memory bad, or it could be that people who operate at a lower level of cognitive function are more inclined to use marijuana heavily.

It's also worth noting that the other cognitive abilities researchers tested -- focus and processing speed -- did not seem to be significantly impacted by heavy marijuana use.

The association between short-term memory declines -- potentially permanent ones -- and heavy pot use is very real, according to this study, and shouldn't be discounted. On the other hand, it's also quite surprising that you can smoke weed literally every single day for five years, and not have it impact your problem-solving abilities or your ability to focus at all. [emphasis added] These findings also need to be understood in relation to what we know about the severe cognitive effects of persistent, heavy alcohol use, which include irreversible brain damage.

I would add another caveat: The presumption in the article is that the heavy marijuana users smoked it. What if, instead, people ingested it? There would be less damage to the lungs and less direct effect from shortages of oxygen to the brain.

Now, if only recreational use of marijuana were completely legalized, ....

The Importance of " 'No' Means 'No' "

When I see kids rewarded for throwing tantrums as parents give in to them, it bugs me. The parents who give in are teaching the kids that "no" doesn't mean "no".

It turns out there's a multicultural problem with understanding "no", too.

Hoping to combat the disproportionate number of rapes committed by immigrants and their descendants, a number of political parties are pushing for sexual education to be included in the Danish language courses provided to foreigners, Metroxpress reported. 

Between 2013 and 2014, 34.5 percent of all individuals convicted of rape were immigrants or their descendants despite those groups only accounting for roughly 12 percent of Denmark’s total population. ...

 

“It’s difficult if you come from a country where women never go out,” she said. “When you see a girl with a short skirt dancing at a party late in the evening, what kind of message will it give you?” 

 

“It’s important to tell them that this kind of behaviour or clothing doesn’t mean that it’s allowed for you to go the whole way. If a girl says ‘no’, it’s a ‘no’.”

 

Search, Information, and Signaling

I give a pretty kick-ass lecture on the economics of search, love, and one-night stands. [See this, this, and this.]

Clearly one aspect of that lecture needing work is the importance of signalling: how does one signal effectively and efficiently that one is a good employer/employee, lover, provider, good-time partner, or long-time partner? And what signals should one consider in the evaluation?

One possibility: broadcast your credit score. [See this from WaPoWonkbook] but make sure to show this article to whomever you are trying to signal, too.

A new working paper from the Federal Reserve Board that looks at what role credit scores play in committed relationships suggests that daters might want to start using the metric as well. The researchers found that credit scores -- or whatever personal qualities credit scores might represent -- actually play a pretty big role in whether people form and stay in committed relationships. People with higher credit scores are more likely to form committed relationships and marriages and then stay in them. In addition, how well matched the couple's credit scores are initially is a good predictor of whether they stay together in the long term.

Makes sense to me. If you're in it for a good time, credit scores probably don't matter so much, but if you're in it for a long time, the ability to make credible commitments is likely much more important.

 

 

Supply Management Restriction

Canadian agriculture has what is known as "Supply Management". This horrific system limits production and generates quota values worth millions to the farmers who own them.

The problem with supply management is twofold:

1. As Jack Mintz writes in the Financial Post,
   
   

   In my view, the worst moment during the French debate was listening to five political leaders grovelling over supply management policies in agriculture. Supply management was one of the worst policies brought in during Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s era to support dairy, eggs and poultry farmers by restricting supply. Quotas limit production, leading to higher prices for consumers, especially hitting hardest low income Canadians.

2. And once the quota values are created, it is very hard to get rid of them. Farmers who own (or who have borrowed to purchase) quota worth millions of dollars will use every conceivable argument to justify their quasi-monopoly positions. My take: too bad. You gambled on gubmnt policy and you deserve to lose. ... for the sake of consumers.

John Lott on Gun Control

Earlier today, I received this message from John Lott:

Dear John --  

With the horrible shooting at the Oregon community college, we have been very busy doing media.  We haven't had a chance to post any of the radio interviews that we have been doing, but I have been on such shows as CNN and NewsMax TV in the US, Al Jazeera's international news broadcast, and Spanish news TV that covers South and Central America.  Within hours after the attack, President Obama pushed hard for more gun controls in his talks on Thursday and Friday, but the expanded background checks (requiring private gun sales to go through licensed dealers) that he pushed would not have stopped the attack in Oregon (all the guns were purchased through federally licensed firearm dealers) nor would they have stopped any of the other mass public shootings during his administration.  

At some point it would be nice if a reporter would eventually ask the president to point to a single example that his proposed laws would have stopped. [emphasis added]

Racially Motivated?

What is it with those NY cops? Check this out. The headline says she is black.

The NYPD is facing a lawsuit from a woman who claims she was mistakenly put into a mental hospital, simply because police didn't believe she owned her own BMW.

Kamilah Brock, a 32-year-old banker from Long Island, was pulled over in Harlem for allegedly driving without her hands on the wheel. She was arrested, then released without charges.

"I was confused and did not know what was going on, why I was being taken into custody," Brock said to PIX11. “The officer said, 'why are you driving without your hands on the wheel?' I said I was dancing, I am at a light, he asked me to get out of the car.”

From there, things got weirder. Brock says police told her to come back for her BMW the next day, but when she arrived back at the station she claims they tricked her into being cuffed, telling her they were bringing her to get her vehicle.

Next thing she knew, paramedics were putting her in an ambulance bound for a mental health facility. The police apparently believed that Brock, whose lawyer says she has zero history of mental health problems, was delusional and did not actually have a BMW.

The lawsuit claims that Brock was held at the hospital for eight days, where she was given lithium and injected with powerful sedatives.

“He held onto me and then the doctor stuck me in the arm and I was on a stretcher and I woke up to them taking my clothes off, specifically my underwear,” Brock said in her interview with PIX11. 

According to the Huffington Post:

Medical records also show that over the course of her eight-day stay, personnel at the hospital repeatedly tried to get Brock to deny three things before she could be released: that she owned the BMW, that she was a professional banker, and that President Barack Obama followed her on Twitter. 

But all three of those things happened be true, he lawyer says.

To add insult to injury, Brock says she later received a $13,000 bill from the hospital.

Whether she was black or not, she should sue for a bundle.

Kim Jung Harper

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is far from perfect; he is, after all, a politician.

At the same time, so many of the attacks and criticisms that I see from my left-leaning friends fall into the category of "Harper Derangement Syndrome [HDS]". Peter Foster addresses the syndrome and a recent manifestation of it here. Excerpts:

Seems strange to be talking about entering recession when we’re already moving out of it. But only if you don’t understand the real point of recession talk, which is that: STEPHEN HARPER IS A WICKED, INCOMPETENT, EVIL LIAR AND IT’S TIME FOR HIM TO GO. ...

Certainly Harper has been a disappointment to many on the right, even driving some, such as John Robson, to HDS. But Uniting the Right involved a Big Tent that had to contain social conservatives and libertarians. Also, reaching, and staying in, power inevitably involves compromise. We should remember that compromise for free marketers involves kowtowing to populism while controlling the damage. Compromise for the left involves ignoring economic reality until it bites them in the rear. See Greece. ...

 

 

Related articles

Economic Outlook

Politicians Hate You

I Wonder If the Editors Had It Right the First Time

I subscribe to the Washington Post online. Imagine my shock (with a touch of mirth) when I saw this headline in this afternoon's edition:

Obama secures votes to clinch Iran victory in Congress

When I clicked through to the article, I saw that the headline there was a bit different. [Note: headlines are typically written by editors, not by the journalists or reporters.]

What Is It about London, Ontario?

There are two things that have been noted in the news recently about London, Ontario, that are intriguing. Because of the time lapse between the two, however, I doubt if they are related.

1. London was at one time the serial murder capital of the world.
   
   This: "...the city became the "serial killer capital of the world" from 1959 to 1984, according to Michael Arntfield, a criminology professor at the University of Western Ontario. With only a population of roughly 200,000 people at the time, the city may have had as many as six serial killers, more per capita than everywhere else on the planet."
   
   
2. London had the highest percentage of its population as members of Ashley Madison. Roughly 10.5% of Londoners were members of the website, higher than for any other major city in Canada (where roughly 6.6% of the apopulation were members). [Note that these numbers are percentages of the entire population; percentages of the adult population would be even higher!]

My Prediction for the Canadian Election Outcome

I predict that Justin Trudeau will be the next Prime Minister of Canada. Whether he and the Liberals will form a majority or minority gubmnt, though, is up for grabs. I have a bet in this regard with my friend and colleague Salim Mansur.

I also predict the Progressive Conservatives will be lucky to win 50 seats in the October election. I agree with much of what Stephen Harper says, but at the same time I don't think he has been very persuasive or convincing. In all his pronouncements and election-year hand-outs, he sounds more like a desperate Paul Martin (who was a losing Liberal leader) than a confident Stephen Harper.

I've come to these predictions because I'm impressed with the way Mulcair (leader of the New Democratic Party) has been handling himself and with his continued growth in the polls (see this), and I see a large number of people who are impressed with the views and leadership potential of Justin Trudeau (leader of the Liberal Party).

Right now the NDP seem to be leading in the polls, but I doubt that lead will translated in to a majority gubmnt. The major question I have about my prediction is whether the NDP or the Liberals will form the next gubmnt, especially if neither party wins a strong plurality of the seats.

Either way, look for more disastrous gubmnt intervention in the economy, distorting incentives and inhibiting economic growth.

Politicians Hate You

Wise words from P.J. O'Rourke:

All politicians hate people. Politics is a way to gain power over people without justification for having that power. Nothing in the 11,000-year history of politics—going back to the governing elites of Mesopotamia—indicates that politicians are wiser, smarter, kinder, more moral, or better skilled at any craft (aside from politics) than we are.

But political rulers need the acquiescence of the ruled to slake the craving for power. Politicians hate you the way a junkie hates junk.

Related articles

P.J. O'Rourke on Mike Huckabee

Dear voters: Democrats hate your guts

"Politics Is a Scam"

Amazon Prime Day!!!!

So it's a trumped up shopping holiday. So what if there are good sales and good prices? And even if you aren't a member of Amazon Prime, this might be a good time to try out their 30-day free trial.

 

 

Seven Things about Greece

If you want to catch up on what is happening in Greece, what led to the financial debacle, and what some possible implications are, this is a pretty good piece. It is long, but then the situation is not all that straight-forward either.

One fascinating point that I often try to make about bailouts is that it is usually the lenders, not the borrowers, who are bailed out from bail-outs.

This last part is the original sin of Europe's bailouts. See, back in 2010, policymakers were petrified that the euro zone was like a line of dominoes just waiting to get knocked over by the weakest link. If Greece defaulted on its debt, the French and German banks that had lent it money might go bust, and the banks that had lent them money might, too, and, well, you get the idea.

 

Related articles

Where Was the "Due Diligence"?

Let's Face it: Greece IS Bankrupt

Greece, a Brief Explanation

Greece and Puerto Rico: Speculating on Bailouts

Greece Again, My Predictions

Where Was the "Due Diligence"?

This chart from the BBC shows who owns how much of Greece's debt.

 

No wonder Germans are concerned about the size of their loans to Greece and about Greece's inability to even meet the interest payments on those loans.

Repaying the loans is not the issue. So long as a borrower can obtain new financing, the loans can be rolled over in perpetuity.

But when lenders begin to suspect/fear the borrower cannot or will not be able to obtain new financing to re-fund the debt, when borrowers reach a point at which they can no longer service the debt (i.e. meet the interest payments on the debt), default is inevitable.

Now let's see if, like some major financial institutions in 2007, Greece is too big to fail. Will Greece be treated like Bear Sterns or like Lehman Brothers? My guess is Lehman Brothers. The major lenders fear that if they bail out Greece, that will create incentives for Portugal, Italy, and Spain also to resist austerity programmes.

The rosiest possible scenario is one that I tried out on Facebook last evening:

Prime Minister Tsipras will use the "No" vote as a bargaining tool. Greece will end up re-negotiating a deal that is nominally less austere but not much less. Tsipras will hail it as a new beginning for Greece, and Greek voters will hail him as a new hero. Meanwhile creditors will get most of what they offered last week.

The trouble with this scenario is that Tsipras and his gubmnt are basically and fundamentally redistributionist interventionist socialists. They will not cut pensions; they will not reform labour legislation; they will not implement supply-side reforms that will permit and encourage economic growth. And in the end, they will renege on their financial commitments.

And possibly seeing this problems, the lenders will not strike a deal with them.

Related articles

Let's Face it: Greece IS Bankrupt

Greece and Puerto Rico: Speculating on Bailouts

Let's Face it: Greece IS Bankrupt

Bankruptcy doesn't "Loom" as The Washington Post alleges. It isn't just "a real possibility". It has happened, and it happened some time ago.

The negotiations for the past several months, or years really, have been about how to handle the bankruptcy.

Greece has been unable to pay its debts for years, and so they did what happens in many bankruptcies -- they negotiated a repayment scheme that would allow the creditors to receive some fraction of what is owed them.

This is the same thing that happens with many bankrupt firms that have some promise for "reorganizing" and "restructuring" their debt. This is what happens if the firms have some promise for the future. Otherwise they go into liquidation.

I don't see liquidation as a viable option for Greece ;-) , but something akin to it might well happen as the major powers vie to see who can win and buy favour with the Greek voters.

More importantly, people both inside and outside Greece must accept the fact that Greece is bankrupt and has been for a long time. They are merely arguing about what to do for the future.

The outcome will determine not whether, but how the residents of Greece will have to deal with austerity. They cannot continue to live beyond their means.

Look for Greece to repudiate its debt and go off the Euro. That might not happen, but it seems the most likely possible outcome. Look for the Greek gubmnt to print more drachmas, then, to finance itself as lenders shy away from buying Greek debt.

And if it doesn't get pensions, tax evasion, and other fiscal problems solved domestically, Greece's printing of more and more drachmas will create ever-increasing inflation.

What is even more worrying for me, though, is that if the inflationary scenario unfolds, the gubmnt in Greece could then impose price controls, leading to Soviet-Union-Venezuelan-type shortages, massive queuing, and even more social unrest.

Whether through austerity required by the creditors through restructured loans, or through an inflation and devaluation implicit tax, Greece's residents will have to tighten their belts.

Related articles

Greece and Puerto Rico: Speculating on Bailouts

This Is What Freedom of Religion Should Mean

I love this statement, quoted in part by Steve Horwitz on Facebook with his introductory sentence:

Hey other traditionalist religious groups, this is how you do it in a pluralist liberal democracy (it's also why I'd never be an Orthodox Jew, but...):

"“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the issue of legal recognition of same sex marriage, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

We are grateful that we live in a democratic society, in which all religions are free to express their opinions about social issues and to advocate vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics, has long had a place in American law and jurisprudence.

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect." [EE: emphasis added]

Now let's hope the processes they have given so much respect to give that respect back and allow them to have, in their words "appropriate accommodations and exemptions for institutions and individuals who abide by religious teachings that limit their ability to support same-sex relationships."

I do have some difficulties with the last paragraph, however. If a religious organization had discrimination against blacks or Jews as one of its tenets, on the one hand I would argue the state should dominate; on the other I would favour freedom of association. And that leaves me in a state of limbo. I expect the same might well be true in the case of religions that discriminate against LGBTs, or religious orders that admit only one sex into membership, etc.

Confederate Flags and NASCAR

This is all a very rough impression, but I have long had the impression that NASCAR is dominated by crackers with southern accents, many of whom would be happy to fly a confederate flag. I may be wrong, and I acknowledge this is just an impression.

How many confederate flags used to be sold at NASCAR events? How many will be sold in the future?

And finally, let me ask: What is the racial makeup of people working in NASCAR? I googled the question, but wasn't happy with or informed by any of the links that emerged.

Update: My friend Chris posted this link on Facebook in response to this post. Some relevant snips:

"As our industry works collectively to ensure that all fans are welcome at our races, NASCAR will continue our long-standing policy to disallow the use of the Confederate Flag symbol in any official NASCAR capacity. While NASCAR recognizes that freedom of expression is an inherent right of all citizens, we will continue to strive for an inclusive environment at our events.” ...

This is not the first time NASCAR has stood up in protest of the Confederate Flag in recent years. Bubba Watson, a two-time winner of the U.S. Masters, was set to drive the famous 'Dukes of Hazard' General Lee at Phoenix in early 2012.

But because of the large Confederate Flag on the Dodge Charger's roof, the plans were trashed with NASCAR saying then, "The image of the Confederate flag is not something that should play an official role in our sport as we continue to reach out to new fans and make NASCAR more inclusive."

 And see what Josh wrote in the comments:

Among the top 15 drivers in the NASCAR points standings, there are only two southerners (Dale Earnhardt, Jr. (NC) and Denny Hamlin (born in FL, but grew up in VA)). There is one Cuban-American (Aric Almirola). California - 3 Wisconsin - 2 Michigan - 1 Washington - 1 Connecticut - 1 New Jersey - 1 Missouri - 2 Nevada - 1 North Carolina - 1 Virginia - 1 Florida - 1

Feedback on Gun Control and John Lott

After I posted this piece late last night, there were numerous comments and discussion points raised here on the blog, in email, and on Facebook. As I wrote on Facebook after the Charleston SC shootings, I wonder if churches, synagogues, schools, etc. should post signs like these:

Note to all crackers: more than a few members of our congregation have conceal-carry licenses. How do you rate your chances?

Here are some further thoughts:

Addendum: Even if John Lott receives no direct support from pro-gun lobbyists, I would be very surprised if he does not receive at least indirect support from them via those who do provide financial support for his work. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make with my previous post. The important point is that most of his work has stood up to near-rabid criticism.

Nearly 10 years ago, I lobbied long and hard for UWO to hire John Lott, but was unable to persuade my colleagues that he would be a valuable, interesting, stimulating colleague. He is a challenging person. I told him at the time, I knew that if he were hired by UWO, I would have to work harder than I had worked in a long time.

When I was President of the Canadian Law and Economics Association, I tried to persuade others that John Lott would be an interesting keynote speaker for one of our annual sessions. Again, I was unsuccessful. My vague recollection is that the general feeling was that he would be too controversial. My reaction was that if he's wrong, show it. Let's encourage more research in the area.

Keep in mind that I had been pro-gun-control most of my life. John Lott's work made me re-think my views on guns and gun control. And at the very least his work challenges the pollyanna-isms and nirvana fallacies of "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if the bad guys had no guns."

If You Favour Gun Control....

Please, if you favour gun control, read some of the work by John Lott.

I favoured gun control until I began reading his studies. Recently I posted something about this on Facebook, making the point that now, given the extent of gun ownership in the US, Lott's points and his evidence make good sense. States with conceal-carry permits have less gun violence and fewer gun deaths than states that do not allow conceal-carry permits.

After I posted this, a Facebook friend posted a series of accusations and ad hominems about John Lott. Let's get a few things straight:

• Yes, John Lott was dishonest in using sock puppets to praise his work.
• Yes, John Lott receives support from the pro-gun lobbyists, but most of that support came as a result of his academic research, after his initial results were published.

But most importantly, his research had stood up (I use the past-perfect tense because I have not followed recent developments).

Here is what I wrote about Lott (and the false accusations against him by Steve Levitt and that are unfairly repeated by too many people) many years ago:

Lott v. Levitt

August 17, 2006 — eclectecon

When I first heard about the defamation suit John Lott launched against Steve Levitt, I wondered if maybe Lott was acting a bit crazy. Now that I’ve read this (courtesy of Tyler Cowen) I wonder if Levitt was perhaps a bit more than injudicious (my take on the article is apparently different from that of the first commenter at Marginal Revolution). I realize there is a sizable gap between “more than injudicious” and “defamation”, but where does this fall? And the debates continue — be sure to see all the comments at Marginal Revolution. It sure looks as if there is considerable animosity between the two economists and between their supporters/champions.

Lott’s lawsuit hangs on two seemingly simple but academically fraught statements: the research was not replicated and the special issue of the journal was not peer refereed. …

In May 2005, an economist in Texas challenged Levitt’s characterization of Lott’s research and pointed out that Lott had guest-edited the October 2001 special issue of The Journal of Law and Economics, published by the University of Chicago Press. As a whole, the ten articles in the journal backed Lott’s conclusions. According to the lawsuit, Levitt e-mailed back: “It was not a peer refereed edition of the Journal. For $15,000 he was able to buy an issue and put in only work that supported him. My best friend was the editor and was outraged the press let Lott do this.” …

Lott contends that “‘replicate’ has an objective and factual meaning in scholarship”—it means that other researchers using the same data in the same way will get the same results. Thus, he says, Levitt’s use of the term amounts to “alleging that Lott falsified his results.” Levitt’s lawyers reply that Freakonomics is written in “everyday language” and is aimed at the general reader.

“Peer refereed” (or “peer reviewed”) refers to the standard practice at scholarly journals of sending a potential article to several other scholars to vet and approve before the work is published. To uphold academic impartiality, the writer does not know the peers’ names. In an e-mail to me, Lott said, “If you were to look at a physical copy of the journal you would see that all of the papers thank anonymous referees for refereeing their papers.” (As for whether he was able to “buy an issue,” Lott says in the suit that he “raised funds for” publishing the special issue.)

The “best friend” editor whom Levitt mentioned in his e-mail was Austan Goolsbee. “I was the lead editor at the time that special issue was printed, but not when it was prepared,” Goolsbee says. The journal collected papers delivered at a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Law, Economics and Public Policy at Yale Law School.

“In one sense,” Goolsbee says, symposium papers are peer reviewed “in that the articles sometimes go out” for critiquing. “But Steve Levitt is quite right that the standards are infinitely lower on a conference volume. The acceptance rate for papers at The Journal of Law and Economics is something like 8 to 10 percent. This issue had something like ten papers and like most conference articles, none [I believe] were rejected. That’s a one-in-a-billion event that you would get all of those papers in.”

At least two contributors, however, told me that their papers were indeed reviewed. Bruce Benson of Florida State University says he made “significant revisions” in the article he coauthored to address criticism from two referees. “I was surprised when I heard that Levitt made this claim because I actually had guessed that he was one of the anonymous reviewers of my paper. . . . Apparently this was not the case.”

T. Nicolaus Tideman of Virginia Tech, coauthor of another article in the journal, saw his paper at first rejected by a referee, but he rewrote it and then it was accepted. Tideman said the article analyzed Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime data in two different ways and the data held up both times.

Also see this.

I knew John Lott back then. He is very smart and back then was very careful with his research. Further, I am not aware of any good research that has refuted his initial findings. And the replications also have not been refuted so far as I know.

As I said at the outset, given that there are guns in the US, I'd be more comfortable being in places where someone from the NRA has a gun than being in a so-called "gun-free" zone.

Note: I have fired a gun twice in my life (when I was a boy scout in my early teens). I am not a gun owner. I probably should not post this, but I disclose it possibly to influence my creds.

I have friends who have guns and who have concealed-carry permits. I am confident they continue to train and practice. But more importantly I am confident I would stand a better chance in a potential terrorist attempted mass shooting if they are around than if there are no gun owners present.

We don't often read about the attempts at mass killings that are thwarted because the shooters are deterred or shot by legal gun owners. The MSM [main-stream media] doesn't report these events, but the gun-lobby-fringe does, of course.

Mostly I urge you to read the work with an open mind. Some of it does seem to push too hard (so far as I am concerned). But it is compelling.

Update: I had and have no specific evidence that John Lott received funding from pro-gun lobbyists. In fact I have no idea about his financial backers. I thought I remembered that he did, but he denies it, writing to me,

If you have evidence that I receive support from pro-gun lobbyists, please provide some evidence of that.  Have I lost jobs because of my research?  Yes (one example, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/01/scary-encounter-chicagos-mayor-richard-daley.html).  Have I been offered chances to do consulting on gun cases?  Yes, but I have always turned them down.  If you have some evidence for your claim, provide it.