Russell Roberts's Blog, page 1461

Sneak preview of the new Keynes-Hayek rap video

John Papola and I will be hosting a conference call for supporters of the Keynes-Hayek rap video next Tuesday, April 5th at 4:00 pm, eastern time. We will talk about the project, play some of the new song and take your questions. Anyone who makes a gift of $25 or more before Monday April 4 will get a confirmation and information about how to call in. The call will go for about 30 minutes. You can donate here.

Your chance to star in the next Keynes-Hayek rap video

John Papola and I are hard at work on the next rap video. We are days away from the final version of the music. The major filming will take place April 16 and April 17. We are looking for extras and other roles. Now is your chance for glory. To find out more, go here.

We could also use some more funds to make sure we can take this next project to the highest level. Please donate here.

And it's a very good time to watch the original as we close in on 2 million views on the main file at YouTube.

 

And Which Part of Article I, Section 8 Authorizes Such Expenditures?

Here's a letter to the New York Times:

My goal isn't to be politically incorrect, but I must ask: why do you believe that government should fund "family planning" ("It Will Take More Than a Few Regrets," March 29)?  Such planning requires virtually no expense.  Each couple makes its own decision whether or not to have children.  If the decision is 'yes,' nature in its splendor takes over and fulfills the plan.  If the decision is 'no,' the only expense is for a few low-priced pills or condoms.

Now if "family planning" is a euphemism for abortion, even many pro-choicers agree that, because today even the sexually voracious can easily and inexpensively avoid getting pregnant, taxpayers should not be used as a prophylactic to protect irresponsible persons from the consequences of their irresponsibility.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

Not so unfathomable or mystifying

In the aftermath of the tsunami, Japan is suffering from a fuel shortage.

[image error]

 

H. T. writes at The Economist (which is also the source of the photo):

IT IS almost unfathomable. As seen during 17-hour drives to and from the tsunami-hit north-east of Japan this week, the country appears to have ground to a halt, hit by a mystifying shortage of fuel. Added to rolling power cuts, I predict the consequences for this quarter's growth will be severe. From Tokyo northwards, drivers turn off their engines and park in single file for hours, waiting for their 20-litre rations. Tokyo's police report that the theft of petrol has become widespread, with at least 40 cases of illegal siphoning from car parks around the capital. Petrol-pump attendants along the route north say that the shortages are due to the supplies having been diverted to the stricken coast. But in Miyagi prefecture, scene of much of the devastation, the petrol queues are even longer—miles longer, literally. Drivers wait all day to get to the pump. Worse, the fuel shortage means that supermarkets, convenience stores and other businesses are shut, unable to get fresh products. In evacuation centres for tsunami victims, so-called "food refugees" are joining the queue for a bowl of hot soup—these are people whose homes are still intact, but who have run out of food nonetheless.

Why, you might ask?

H. T. goes on to talk about the refinery that was knocked out by the earthquake/tsunami and the bureaucratic snafus that contrbuted to poor distribution:

Yet the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which handles fuel distribution from its darkened offices in Tokyo (the lights are switched off to save energy), acknowledges there has never been a supply shortage in Japan as a whole. Refineries in western Japan have increased output to make up for the shortfall further north.

About a week ago, officials dispatched 200 lorries with fuel to the stricken areas, but another 100 appear to be waiting in reserve. Why, when they too should be hurtling up north? The biggest problem appears to be private-sector stockpiling, and flimsy half-measures by the authorities to overcome that. When the crisis hit, there was a law on the books requiring energy companies to keep 70 days of petrol in reserve. This was quickly lowered by three days, but that did not help. And there is the outrage. It was not until March 21st, ten days after the crisis, that the limit was lowered to 45 days. Yet still METI can only use "administrative guidance" to persuade companies to release their hoards of fuel. A big stick would be better.

This reveals a bureaucratic problem that the crisis has thrown into sharp relief. Japan has no system for overriding petty rules and regulations to cope with an emergency. People trying to deliver supplies to the needy complain about this in a myriad of ways—above all, in access to trunk routes which are still empty (and largely undamaged), save for a few emergency vehicles…and journalists' cars. (The Japanese media, which tend to report slavishly what the government tells them, have been shockingly lax in reporting the food-and-fuel crisis in the afflicted areas.)

Here's an idea. Let people buy and sell fuel freely. Evidently that is not part of the Japanese system. Shortages are actually quite fathomable–they come from a price ceiling. Prices go unmentioned in the article.

Near the end of the article comes this:

If Japan's establishment were not so bunker-headed and convinced that it knows all the answers, it would have created a war room, brought in experts from the real world, and declared a state of emergency to get the fuel up north. Only now are supplies starting to arrive.

As our blog's namesake once wrote–the curious task of economics is to illustrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design. Japan doesn't need a war room or experts. Just a little economic freedom.

 

Energetically Political

Mr. Joshua Freed

Director of Clean Energy

Third Way

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Freed:

Thanks for your e-mail today seeking my support for your proposal to have Uncle Sam "require utilities to generate a percentage of their electricity from clean (non- or low-emitting) energy sources."  It's interesting that the first alleged benefit that you trumpet for your plan is that it will create lots of "new jobs."

I've some questions.

Suppose a brilliant scientist invents a method enabling a single unskilled worker to supply every American with ample low-cost energy as clean as the energy that your proposal promises to deliver.  Which method of energy supply would you support: yours, or that of the brilliant scientist?

If you'd support your plan over that of the brilliant scientist, then I can't take your proposal seriously, for it would be revealed to be the product of a mind that mistakes costs (the use of precious human labor) for benefits.  And anyone who misunderstands economics so fundamentally is unlikely to have trustworthy insights into just what Americans' energy demands will be in the future or how best to supply those demands.

If, instead, you'd support the plan of the brilliant scientist, why, when promoting your plan, do you emphasize the large number of "new jobs" that it will create?  My guess is that you do so for political reasons – because you understand that politicians make decisions based upon such economically foolish criteria.  So talking loudly about creating "new jobs" gives your proposal a broader hearing along Pennsylvania Ave.  But then, I must inquire, why do you trust these same politicians – officials who are enchanted by economic nonsense – with the awesome power to mandate nationwide clean-energy standards?

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

[Here's the 'clean-energy' memo that came along with Mr. Freed's e-mail.]

Review Questions for The Choice

Doug Walker at the College of Charleston uses these questions with his students when he has them read my book, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism. They're excellent and he gave me permission to share them. Feel free to use them or variations on them in your classes or just to test your knowledge of the ideas in the book.

Hans Rosling again

Don blogged on this earlier but I think this video of Hans Rosling talking lyrically about washing machines is worth embedding to make sure you don't miss it. Superb.

Julian Simon on Firing Line

One of the greatest privileges – stroke of unearned and undeserved good fortune, more accurately – of my life was my being befriended by Julian Simon for the final eight or so years of his too-short life that ended suddenly in February of 1998.  The power, the reach, the penetration, and the uniqueness of his insights have yet to be fully appreciated; far, far from it.

My friend Barry Conner sent me a DVD of a recording of Julian's October 1981 appearance on William Buckley's t.v. show "Firing Line."  I'd no idea until today that Julian ever appeared on Buckley's justly famous program.  So I devoured the episode (figuratively, of course).  Then I searched for it on YouTube – and found this segment of it.

Julian is the last soul in the Great Beyond who would be surprised that human creativity makes his appearance of nearly 30 years ago so readily available for me to share with you.

Julian – you are deeply, sorely missed.

Birther Myth

Here's the Heritage Foundation's Robert Book on different methods of defining infant mortality (from a letter in the March 30th Wall Street Journal):

Your editorial "The March of Health Progress" (March 25) correctly celebrates the increase in life expectancy, decrease in infant mortality and decreasing death rates from most of the leading fatal diseases in the latest annual summary of mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, a closer look at the data reveals an even rosier picture. Increased access to fertility treatments has resulted in more multiple births and a higher average maternal age. These factors result in more high-risk pregnancies and would be expected to increase infant mortality—yet infant mortality has declined more than enough to offset these increased risks.

Those who argue that the U.S. lags behind some other countries in infant mortality fail to take into account national differences in definitions of live birth. The U.S. complies with the World Health Organization standard, which requires registration of a live birth whenever an infant shows any sign of life outside the womb, regardless of birth weight, size or duration of gestation. Many countries restrict registration to cases in which these measures exceed certain limits, such as a birth weight of 500 to 1,000 grams, a crown-to-heel length of 25 to 35 centimeters, 22 to 28 weeks of gestation, or survival for a minimum amount of time. Since small and pre-term babies are more likely to die, standards that exclude these cases artificially decrease a country's infant mortality rate, making its health-care system seem better than it really is. Yet U.S. infant mortality rates are competitive, despite a much more broad definition of live birth.

On State- and Local-Government Revenues

Carpe Diem's Mark Perry offers data showing that it's a myth that state and local governments throughout the U.S. have seen their revenues fall over time.

The dollars in Mark's data seem to be nominal rather than real.  So converting all dollars into 2010 dollars, we find that the $378,312,000,000 raked in by state and local governments in the final quarter of 2010 is 88.2 percent more real revenue than these governments raked in during the first quarter of 1988 (which was, in 2010 dollars, $200,980,000,000).

Some austerity.