Global Warming Hullaballo

The most interesting part of the discussion of global warming has been its politicization.  It is the alarmism that most people worried about, not the science.  There were serious misrepresentations of the science occurring.

Fortunately, I am in a very convenient place.  I am neither upset that global warming is being questioned, nor am I happy to see the tarnish on climatologists’ reputation.

But I’m very happy to see that people are starting to care about what is true.

No matter what else the hacked emails will do, they will at least cause further scrutiny of global warming science–which should always be welcome.  Further transparency, further scrutiny, and better science is always a good thing, no matter the question.  In other words, with any luck the topic of global warming will turn to solutions, transparency, and how global warming became so sensationalized to begin with.

I am hopeful that people will begin to think clearly on the matter.  Rather like Dubner does here.  His points are meaningful and his questions insightful.  For example, if global warming is 100% real, will the proposed reforms really help us?  (As a disclaimer, the person from Fox is about as uninsightful and inflammatory as possible, comparing climatologists to Hitler and Stalin.  Literally.)

Two other important points.  First, this is the second case where someone obtained information illegally that embarrassed people greatly.  (The first was ACORN by Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe.)  While I’m happy to see that the truth came out in both cases, I don’t know that the ends justify the means.  Each party (from my limited understanding) broke the law here.

Finally, Dubner aside, the Fox presentation is sadly illustrative of today’s media.  Notice how fox portrays supporters of global warming, literally likening them to Stalin and Hitler.  This is inappropriate.  It waters down what Hitler and Stalin did.  Even if the climatologists are as nefarious as can be imagined, they are nothing like Hitler or Stalin.  The worst they are being accused of fudging some science.  That’s all.  I don’t think Fox News is doing this because they are biased either, but for simpler reasons: ratings.  Comparing people to Hitler always draws a crowd.

In other words, Dubner is insightful, and Fox is an interesting commentary on the state of our society.  Enjoy.

Sincerely,

Farther Up

The Future of the Media

Posted by Further In

The Media is in flux. The barrier to entry in the market—a publisher—has been totally destroyed by the internet. As this supply-barrier exploded, the market has a glut of content to sort through.

The logical next step, then, is that the market will call for a sieve.

There are two kinds of sieves here; I suspect that the next wave of media will be fact-checkers, bias-miners, and truth-tellers. The market, in essence, will create its own licensing feature, and give kudos to those organizations that do a good job of true journalism, and will punish those organizations that do not.

The second type will be media aggregators, who will read thousands of pieces of news per day, and decide which are well-written, which are biased, which offer insightful commentary, etc.

In other words, I don’t believe that the New York Times is going under—I think they are going to be evaluated by other sites that have yet to appear. These sites will take the mountains of content, determine which is true and which is not, and then determine what is worth reading and what is not.

I believe that this will happen in response to the polarization of news agencies such as MSNBC and Fox News. People like to hear what they believe preached back to them, but there is a growing discontent in the market—many who would rather learn than be coddled. These truth-seekers will eventually become a strong enough market force that they will be tailored to.

I should say that I hope that they grow to be a market force. Such seekers of truth—if a force to be reckoned with—would do a great deal of good for society.

Glenn Beck: Entertainer

Posted by Further In

I don’t much care for Rush Limbaugh.  I don’t like Keith Olbermann.  They rile me up.  They get me mad.  And they do very little to help me think more, speak kinder, or be better.

In short, they are the opposite of what Farther Up and Further In is all about.

But what of Glenn Beck?

This evening, while watching The Colbert Report, it dawned on me, that Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Glenn Beck are all in the same category.  Their attempts are partly to entertain, and partly to explain.

Glenn Beck is simply a little more paranoid than the other two are.

Somehow, however, I suspect that he doesn’t take himself as seriously as many others do.  But maybe I’m wrong.

It is interesting, however, to note that besides Beck, Comedy Central may be the world’s up-and-coming news provider.  An interesting thought for the future of news.

FTC Regulation of Blogs

Posted by Further In

Regulation.  To some the word implies safer markets and more consumer protection.  To others it means market distortions and inefficient outcomes.

The fact of the matter is that regulation continues to grow and is ever pervasive.  Apparently, the FTC has now decided to regulate whether or not bloggers have to disclose if they receive sponsorship from private firms to promote products.

While such regulation appears, on the surface, to keep consumers safer, the FTC’s implementation of the policy is disturbing to modern liberals.  According to a recent Heritage Foundation blog post, the FTC goes so far as to require video game bloggers who receive free video games and consoles to review to disclose that information to face FTC fines.

Not only is such a proposition ludicrously difficult to enforce, it is also unnecessary.  For instance, readers who follow popular technology blogs like Gizmodo and Engadget are generally aware that the commentators receive free or temporary samples of private technology in order to provide reviews.  Trying to buy all the technology reviewed by these blogs would certainly be burdensome and unnecessary.

The FTC does not need to amass more regulatory power, even if it is in the name of “protecting” consumers.  Further regulations, especially when they are relatively obscure and unknown inhibit free speech and contribute to the “over-criminalization” of American society.  This message sponsored by people concerned about government regulatory encroachment.

© 2009 Farther Up and Further In

Charter Schools–New Evidence

Breaking news from The Wall Street Journal on charter schools.  A new study from Stanford has some far-reaching implications for education policy. See the following two articles.

Click here and here.

Obama’s Budget Solution

Glenn Beck on John McCain

What People Aren’t Talking About: The Economic Costs of Obamacare

By: Further In

Today, the heritage foundation released a brief on the current health insurance reform that Senator Baucus has proposed.  The paper has grim warnings for those interested in pro-growth economic policy and job creation.

Not only is the health bill a massive increase in the size and power of government, a huge spending increase in a time of massive deficits, and a rushed attempt to make taxes more complex and numerous, it also would spell disaster for an already-wounded economy—particularly in investment and innovation.  Dr. Karen A. Campbell, the author, puts numbers to the economic destruction that the higher taxes would cause.  Her report includes the following important information:

•    By 2019, the economy would have 452,000 fewer jobs than it would have without the increased taxes.

•    Many individuals who are currently on the brink of further investment would have to cut back due to the tax; those who are not on the threshold would normally use profits to invest in venture capital (job creation) or, as Warren Buffett, would give to charity.  Instead, this money would go to the federal government.

•    Higher marginal rates also give an incentive to avoid paying taxes—that is, many small businesses (and owners) would begin to spend more time attempting to legally avoid taxes, instead of investing in productive activities.  This is money that could have been spent on new jobs, and instead is wasted on legal tax avoidance.

•    The deadweight loss from the tax—the value of all the things that could have been produced with the resources that were used to comply with and legally avoid the tax—would steadily increase.  This cost would average 46.7 billion per year from 2011 to 2019.

•    The high-income tax penalty is a very costly way to raise revenue.  For every dollar of tax revenues that the government is able to levy, taxpayers pay $2.50 in opportunity cost and taxes.

•    The root of the problem—the opaque medical system that does not allow consumers to seek the lowest price and highest quality options—is not addressed by Baucus’ bill.  That is, not only will the Baucus bill raise taxes and hurt the economy, it will do nothing to solve the root of the problem.

The entire paper by heritage can be found here.

Sincerely,

Further In

Health Care: An Easier Road

By Farther Up

There are two types of political thinkers in the United States. The first group thinks that only the strict enforcement of governing bodies, with their attendant bureaucracies, can bring about desired results. The second group firmly believes that the proper incentives coupled with well-constructed social structures –like functional free markets- can produce desirable behavior.  Setting aside the philosophical question about whether or not leaders and governments should seek to direct the behavior of others, the contrasts between the aforementioned groups are tremendous.  The current debate about health care provides some demonstrative examples.

The general consensus among many on the Left is that there ought to be a large, government-sponsored entity that provides subsidized insurance to the American public.  The basic idea is that such an entity would have market power:  the ability to dictate the prices it would be willing to pay hospitals and doctors for their services.  It would have this power because it would be one of the few (if not the only) customers for medical practitioners.  The Left desires this “single payer” or “public option” because it solves a major problem in American health care:  it’s cost.

More Liberal* minded individuals, on the other hand, believe that there is a much simpler way to reduce costs.  Instead of giving a government firm market power to bargain down prices, give individuals more liberty to dictate their own health insurance plans.  Currently, the payer for most private insurance is not the same as the individual receiving services.  This is because most private insurance comes through private work-place benefits.  As such, individuals over-consume health care services because they do not face the full costs of using them.

A simple way to reduce costs would be to allow individuals to select their own insurance policies so that they can see and understand the differences in co-pays, premiums, and more.  This ought to reduce costs because it would end, rather quickly, the over-consumption of health care.  This method is, of course, a much more liberal and less complicated one than the one expounded by the Left.

Another instance of the contrasting in political thought in the United States is the debate over the quality of health insurance Americans receive.  The Left generally believes that a large government-run solution health insurance firm would ensure that individuals receive better quality of care than they do now.

Others, however, point out that the problem is that private insurance providers are not directly accountable to individuals.  Instead they are accountable to private firms whose biggest incentive is to keep premiums down.  The way most insurance companies go about this is to reduce benefits.

A simple, Liberal solution to this is the same one expounded before for fixing health care costs.  If individuals can select their own health care packages, then private insurance firms become accountable to them.  This in turn leads to better service.  No more denied coverage or frivolous waits.  It would be similar to the markets that exist for auto-insurance and life insurance:  flexible choices that give the individual the ability to meet his or her needs.

A final example of the contrast in the mentalities of political thinkers is the question of how to provide health care for every individual in the United States.  Currently, the Left advocates an expensive government-run system of health insurance with complicated regulations for private insurers.  Further, the Left also calls for stiff penalties on those who do not buy insurance.

A simpler and more Liberal approach is to subsidize private insurance markets. If the goal of the United States government is to insure all Americans, then the easiest way to do this is to provide subsidies, either through tax credits or some other scheme for Americans to buy it.  The proposition to subsidize private consumption is not very shocking because the government already provides subsidies to Americans to buy food and other goods from private firms.  The government could even subsidize according to income level if it wanted to just to make sure everything was “equitable” (and less expensive).

Either approach will probably solve many of the problems currently in the American health care system.  However, one approach is complicated and gives the Federal government a tremendous amount of power over the private lives of individuals.  The other gives people the liberty to make their own choices about health care while at the same time achieving the same policy goals.  Of course, the two solutions outlined are truly just reflections of the rift in opinion between those who want more centralized control to direct human behavior and those who believe that the same behavior can be achieved through proper adjustments to incentives.  Perhaps most importantly, however, one method is also significantly less expensive for the government and for the future generations who will have to repay the government’s debts.

*Note that “Liberal” here refers to liberal in the classical sense of the word, not the modern sense used by most Americans.

 

© 2009 Farther Up and Further In

It’s the End of Free Trade as We Know It and I (Don’t) Feel Fine

To Whom It May Concern (and it should concern all):

During the campaign for the Democratic primary, then-candidate Obama fell into a mild form of populism by decrying the North American Free Trade Agreement and declaring his intention to “renegotiate NAFTA.”  With that simple declaration, many progressives and classical liberals came to fear that the positive and message of Mr. Obama’s campaign was at best only applicable to his domestic plans for the United States and at worst completely beholden to the special interests of the Democratic Party.  At the time, left-of-center political pundits and other supporters of Mr. Obama dismissed his critics’ fears about his stance on free trade by saying that his skepticism of NAFTA was only “campaign rhetoric” designed to garner support for his campaign.

After arriving in office, however, President Obama surrounded himself with many centrist politicians and technocrats, including many from the Clinton Administration, who were at least nominally in favor open markets and free trade.  Indeed, at last years’ April G20 summit, Mr. Obama, along with many other world leaders, affirmed the importance of maintaining liberal trade policies.

Despite setbacks in Congress and dangerous “buy American” clauses in its stimulus package, the Obama Administration seemed not to be a major hindrance to progressive policies on free trade.  It seemed that the Administration would not be beholden to the protectionist policies of the populists in Congress.  It seemed that way, that is, until last Friday’s announcement by the administration that it would impose a 35% tariff on Chinese tires imported into the United States.

With this move, the President has shown that he is willing to sacrifice America’s good standing in the world and its relations with one of its most important trading partners in the name of his domestic pursuits.  By acting to preserve the political good will of his trade-union backers on his health care reform package, the President has demonstrated, once again, that far too few American politicians are willing to fight for the good of all Americans.

Yes, it is true that few politicians, either on the right or the left, fight for the cause of free trade.  Republican legislators criticize the Democrats for being anti-free trade and then advocate an expensive and inefficient farm bill in the same breath.  Representative Nancy Pelosi visits China’s trade ministry while at the same time effectively demolishing a the good faith of the United States by underhandedly nixing its Columbia Free Trade Agreement.  Indeed, the “icon of free trade,” former President George W. Bush, could not resist appealing to important constituencies by imposing steel tariffs in order to placate powerful trade unions in America’s rust belt.  Even fewer politicians make the case that free trade benefits both American consumers and the vast majority of American producers.

It is safe to say that the President’s recent tariffs demonstrate that the he is little different than many of his predecessors, including those who effectively destroyed the Doha Round of trade talks.  Unfortunately, the illiberal trade rhetoric of Mr. Obama’s campaign is all too real.  That, however, is not a policy of change.  It is distressingly much more of the same.

Sincerely,

Further In

© Farther Up and Further In