Up until a couple days ago, I didn’t know who Freddie de Boer was/is. Apparently, he’s a semi-retired provocative and well known leftist blogger. What brought him to my attention is a puzzling headline from the Atlantic, Does The Blogosphere Permit Left Wing Ideas?

Puzzling in that I’m not sure what the argument would be, when the blogosphere is the definition of an open forum.  So I read further to find out that Freddie began the argument:

There are many myths within the political blogosphere, but none is so deeply troubling or so highly treasured by mainstream political bloggers than this: that the political blogosphere contains within it the whole range of respectable political opinion, and that once an issue has been thoroughly debated therein, it has had a full and fair hearing.

Um… okay.  I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone assert this “myth” before, don’t know anyone who believes it, and certainly don’t know anyone advocating it strongly.

I have heard several arguments along the lines of, the increase in the blogosphere has increased the number of views overall, but nothing like “media reports, blogosphere decide”.  In fact, many of those arguing that the blogosphere has increased the number of voices don’t agree that this has been a good thing, nor that it’s in any way equal in presentation of all ideas.   Just that it can help and has increased the total number of ideas available.

But I digress… the more puzzling part is this:

The truth is that almost anything resembling an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation within the political blogosphere, both intentionally and not, while those writing within it congratulate themselves for having answered all left-wing criticism.

Puzzling because the one thing the blogosphere is above all else: a free market.  Yes, it’s not completely free as costs do exist, but costs for bloggers have been decreasing dramatically over time and are close to being zero from a casual level. (more…)

For good news – we have more research helping to confirm what true free trade advocates have always believed.  We don’t see a decrease in wages or living standards by trading with developing countries.  Via NBER here:

Concerns that (1) growth in developing countries could worsen the US terms of trade and (2) that increased US trade with developing countries will increase US wage inequality both implicitly reflect the assumption that goods produced in the United States and developing countries are close substitutes and that specialization is incomplete. In this paper we show on the contrary that there are distinctive patterns of international specialization and that developed and developing countries export fundamentally different products, especially those classified as high tech….

Which translated means, the US, one of their main agents in their research, has an economic dynamism (here & here)which results in the US never directly competing with other countries’ lower paid labor:

…Judged by export shares, the United States and developing countries specialize in quite different product
categories that, for the most part, do not overlap. Moreover, even when exports are classified in the
same category, there are large and systematic differences in unit values that suggest the products made
by developed and developing countries are not very close substitutes—developed country products
are far more sophisticated….

& this of course isn’t the only research making such conclusions (here & here).

But that’s not all.  We’ve seen historically that creating obstacles to free trade can hurt us severely (here):

One of the major causes of the Depression was Congress’s passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which was signed into law on June 17, 1930. Smoot-Hawley placed tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods. It halted the recovery from the 1929 downturn and resulted in retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners and a decline in U.S. imports and exports of more than 50 percent….

Though not all would say cause (here):

“The best estimates are that the multiplier is roughly 2. In that case, real GDP would have declined by about 3.4% between 1929 and 1931 as a result of the decline in real exports. Real GDP actually declined by about 16.5% between 1929 and 1931, so the decline in real exports can account for only about 21% of the total decline in real GDP.”

Irregardless, the research and economist communities agree on the benefits of free trade (here):

A 1990 survey of economists employed in the United States found that more than 90 percent generally agreed with the proposition that the use of tariffs and import quotas reduced the average standard of living….

Congress’ answer to all of this? A trade war with China (here):

The Democrat-backed bill passed by 348 to 79, and targets countries that hold down the value of their currencies, as many accuse China of doing….

The Senate’s answer?  A trade war with China (here): 

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Wednesday that the upper chamber is “poised” to legislation meant to hammer China for its currency policies…

To paraphrase an axiom:  With economic heavy weights like this as friends, who need enemies… but I’m sure there’s no way they’ll screw up health care, right?

The President? A trade war with China…. sort of no.  While he’s pushing China just as other presidents have (here):

The Obama Administration believes that China needs to take steps on rectifying its currency value, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said….

He hasn’t stated he would sign anything and other administration officials are pushing different views (here):

Treasury Department Secretary Timothy Geithner said there was “no risk” of a global currency war during a wide ranging interview with Charlie Rose Tuesday evening….

Intelligently, he’s keeping his options open in this very way.  Though I’m not sure I want to bet that he continues down the road of economics considering his approval ratings., but a smart move overall.

Writing in the NY Times, an MIT Professor for the Sloan School of Management, Simon Johnson explains how bad budget deficits will be if we allow the Bush tax cuts to continue.  Basically he tells us, if we fail, it will only be due to the fact that taxes aren’t high enough and we’re not spending enough money on the right things. (here):

According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending all the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the total 2018 debt. The single biggest step our government could take this year to address the structural deficit would be to let the tax cuts expire. Such a credible commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability should reduce interest rates today, helping to stimulate the economy….

According to Mr. Johnson, even though critics say letting the tax cuts expire would retard growth, that money could be used more effectively (he continues):

…If the goal is to boost growth and employment immediately, it would be better to let the tax cuts expire and dedicate some of the increased revenue to real stimulus programs…

You mean, stimulus programs like “Cash for Clunkers” (NBER working paper here)?

…Our empirical strategy exploits variation across U.S. cities in ex-ante exposure to the program as measured by the number of “clunkers” in the city as of the summer of 2008. We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended….

Or how about the stimulus plan we were told would keep unemployment rates to 8% (DA Post here), while they currently hover around 10% (here):

…in August, and the unemployment rate was about unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Or…maybe the government takeover/purchase of GM (post here):

…in reality, the US Treasury through pressure by the Obama administration spent $50 billion dollars to own 61% of the shares.  With roughly 500 million shares available, this means the US government current owns 305 million shares.  At the current stock price today of .375 dollars, their 50 billion dollar investment is worth roughly 115 million dollars….

Or maybe controlling healthcare costs by passing a bill no one understands…. which has already started failing as insurers have already started raising rates more than goverment predictions (post here):

…The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers…

So to sum up Mr. Johnson, even though evidence, extremely recent evidence, demonstrates what economic thinkers have told us for centuries:  government can not create jobs – the problem doesn’t lie with government spending, but instead in allowing people to keep their own money.

I don’t know when we start understanding what Albert Einstein expressed so eloquently so many years ago, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” but let’s hope it’s soon.

For more, excellent Cato article The Stimulus: The Government Job Creation Myth

As most know, late last week, smaller health insurance companies sent out press releases detailing a simple fact – when mandates increase, so will premiums (via WSJ here):

…Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators….

To most, this might seem an obvious consequence of the legislation.  The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers (WSJ continues):

…Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates….

…Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada…

…Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan…

…In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates….

Not only should this seem obvious, but in a free country, any company should be able to set their rates for their services.

This of course assumes you don’t work for the government – then the news is shocking (WSJ continues):

…The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

“I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you’re quoting… are justified,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House’s top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was “already their modus operandi before the bill” passed. “We believe consumers will see through this,” she said….

Not only shocking – but so wrong that even more force is needed.

Enter the Department of Health and Human Services threatening private business, for making private decisions, solely because those decisions disagree with the government’s predictions (via HHS website – bold added):

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.  I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases….

…We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent….

…Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act.  Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections….

Think carefully about some of  these words/phrases used by government officials against private businesses in a free country: zero tolerance, misinformation, not tolerate, unjustified….all for raising theirs rates at a greater rate than the government assumed.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the government threatens people for fishy emails, then moves forward to threaten private business for deciding what to charge for their services…. well, it certainly doesn’t appear to be a free society.

As Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Over at HBR Amar Bhidé has written an article discussing the housing market and subsequent crash (very interesting – entire thing here) and proposes that among the causes of the crash, a sort of self restriction had taken the market from a vibrant one to one controlled by centralized authority:

The modern economy creates and spreads unprecedented prosperity by drawing on the resourcefulness and enterprise of the many, not by blindly following the dictates of a few. Individuals today make and act on their own judgments to a degree that would have been unimaginable to our forebears….

In recent times, though, a new form of centralized control has taken root—one that is the work not of old-fashioned autocrats, committees, or rule books but of statistical models and algorithms. These mechanistic decision-making technologies have value under certain circumstances, but when misused or overused they can be every bit as dysfunctional as a Muscovite politburo….

His argument is one we’ve heard from the military and other agencies as well – what they needed was more human intelligence on the ground, not more technical complexity from high.

He continues:

…Consider what has just happened in the financial sector: A host of lending officers used to make boots-on-the-ground, case-by-case examinations of borrowers’ creditworthiness. Unfortunately, those individuals were replaced by a small number of very similar statistical models created by financial wizards and disseminated by Wall Street firms, rating agencies, and government-sponsored mortgage lenders. This centralization and robotization of credit flourished as banks were freed from many regulatory limits on their activities and regulators embraced top-down, mechanistic capital requirements. The result was an epic financial crisis and the near-collapse of the global economy. Finance suffered from a judgment deficit, and all of us are paying the price….

Even going so far as to invoke Hayek to make the case:

The great twentieth-century thinker Friedrich Hayek made the classic argument for decentralized choice in his essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The stability of the economy depends on constant adjustments to small changes, he believed—“B stepping in at once when A fails to deliver.” No single individual has the knowledge to make those adjustments; rather, it is widely dispersed across many individuals. But information about “the circumstances of the fleeting moment” cannot be quickly and accurately communicated to a central planner. Therefore, individuals who have on-the-spot knowledge must be allowed to figure out what to do….

Adaptation to changes—the focus of Hayek’s article—is only part of the story. The success of the modern economy also depends on innovation. As it happens, decentralization beats central planning here, too. Innovations are unprecedented, one-of-a-kind developments. Even incremental ones require imagination. An innovator cannot simply rely on historical patterns in placing bets on future opportunities. Knowing what has worked before and what hasn’t is but a starting point. Innovation also requires considerable trial and error. Unforeseen technical problems—or customers not doing what they had told market researchers they would—demand recalibrations that combine on-the-spot observations and historical knowledge with leaps of imagination….

Of course like most writers who seem to espouse the virtues of decentralization, he still thinks some things need centralized control which don’t:

Technologically advanced societies couldn’t function without some centralized control, of course. Governments need to regulate how businesses drill for oil, develop genetically modified crops, and pick the paints they use in toys, for instance….

Either way, he goes on to argue that the financial industry, using mathematical formulas and statistical models, embraced a sort of top-down control giving rise to “Mechanistic Decision Making” & “Robotic Finance”.

This basic line of reasoning isn’t exactly new.  Wired had an article in February of 2009 (here) about the risk formula which killed Wall Street.  The formula worked well for 5 years as investors used it as a way to measure pooled risk in MBSs (mortgage backed securities), but the formula:

…still hadn’t solved all the problems of mortgage-pool risk. Some things, like falling house prices, affect a large number of people at once. If home values in your neighborhood decline and you lose some of your equity, there’s a good chance your neighbors will lose theirs as well. If, as a result, you default on your mortgage, there’s a higher probability they will default, too….

Now while both articles point to specific issues which helped the collapse, like most they conveniently left out all discussion in reference to the government’s role in perverting the incentives, but together I think they present an interesting challenge to those of us who believe in decentralization as a good (DA post on decentralization here).

& that is – can there be mechanisms put into place which actually help foster decentralized control since our history, both long term and recent, seems to indicate humans have a tendency towards centralized control at certain levels of complexity.

We see this through various disciplines such as anthropology, archeology, and history, that over the past 10,000 years or so, humans made a mass migration from the nomadic lifestyle which was practiced for nearly 200,0000 years, to villages, towns, and cities.

Using agricultural knowledge to help spur this transition, humans also started growing in population.  As more land became developed and could support more people, villages and towns grew into large cities & states.

With the advent of these new societal structures, came new power structures.  In nomadic communities, authority is handled from a tribal point of view.

This means that people don’t really have positions of authority which is spelled out by any specific power structure.  Their authority comes from their ability to influence.  So elders with specific knowledge are sought after for wisdom and help, without a formal power structure of say a judicial system.

With the growth of society, came the growth of power structures as they became necessary to handle the population explosion.  Things such as basic sanitation and clean water were large public work projects which required the control of enough resources (labor mostly) which heretofore had been impossible.

These beginning power structures, would eventually evolve into the world in which most of us find ourselves today: a world in which more of our daily lives are coming under scrutiny from centralized power structures.

& we’ve seen what these power structures are capable of doing, both good and bad.  While it allowed for greater sharing of knowledge through vibrant cities which pooled resources in denser areas, it also allowed for the pooling of resources for war.

Either way, in this case the centralized authority we can normally blame was there in multiple areas, but for this specific factor it was self imposed.

Indeed in looking at human history, it seems given some level of complexity we seek out centralized forms of control.  It might seem today as if humans would never pick governments and politicians as idiotic and with as much power as they have today, but these were gradual changes over generations.

Taken with the most recent example of self selected centralization, it may be we need to consider the possibility that humans tend towards this direction with or without institutions directly promoting centralized control.

More thoughts on complexity here

Over @ Concuring Opinions, Nate Oman has an interesting post about the defenses of a free market (whole thing here):

Broadly speaking, I think that there are three families of arguments that can be made in defense of markets. Most commonly within the legal academy markets are defended on the basis of efficiency….

The second defense of markets is libertarian. This looks a lot of like the efficiency argument but is actually quite different, notwithstanding the fact that libertarians frequently confuse the two. In the libertarian argument what matters is not welfare but freedom. Freedom is taken as a good in and of itself, even if choices might result in reductions of welfare for the chooser….

The third argument is a defense of markets as markets.

Both the efficiency and the libertarian defenses of markets are reductionist in the sense that they see the good of markets in a unitary way. Markets are good because — properly constructed — they move resources around to maximize welfare….

Markets are good because they provide cooperation in the face of disagreement over the definition of the good and “social stability.”…

It’s a very decent article, though as a non-card carrying libertarian, I need to disagree with some of his minor points.  Namely, that libertarians are by group interested in freedom alone.  In fact, libertarians, just like other demographic groups get to the same answers through different paths and all three paths are prevalent in the current party.

For some libertarians, it is an…. intellectual/efficiency argument alone.  They believe markets aren’t necessarily moral or perfect at rationing, but they firmly believe that a free market leads to the best possible solution for the most people.

For me, I take the freedom approach.  To maximize individual welfare means one must maximize individual choices.  This might seem as too moralistic or philosophical for some as to be practical or useful, but it seems logical that reducing one mans’ freedom is antithetical to maximizing welfare.

& to be thoroughish, lots of libertarians are just tired of all the other parties and joined that cool one with that goofy, “Who is Ron Paul” stuff.  In reality, like most organizations, libertarians are not absolutists either way using a combination of thoughts to form their basis for their beliefs, but I digress.

The author continues about the third way:

On this view, traders are not cowardly, greedy, souless parasites (see, e.g., Shylock) constantly tempting the virtuous away from the path of justice with filthy lucre. Rather, commerce encourages courage, honesty, and fidelity. It encourages cooperation rather than predation. It allows people with widely disparate views of the ultimate ends and purposes of life to peacefully cooperate with one another. Commerce rewards the frugal and the farsighted, while punishing the wastrel and the spendthrift…..

But he tells us….

The third, pluralist view of the good of markets gets scant attention…

While this maybe a true statement, but the reality is that all three defenses coexist to form both a cohesive political and philosophical framework (though I do have issues with libertarians on foreign policy).

If we can start with the idea that maximizing welfare includes maximizing freedom, efficiency, freedom, & moral markets work together.

When starting with the paramount of freedom in economics, one also gets into the land of (un)intended consequences and perverted incentives.  Hayek talked about this a great deal – the fact that due to the shear size and complexity of the market, any attempted centralized interference will change incentives and unlikely for the better.  Unlikely, because the “status quo” we all question exists through millions and millions of individual transactions.

For lack of a better term, a collective wisdom emerges, order out of chaos.  An answer, that we might not like, but something for which a centralized system is (highly) unlikely to do better than free individuals.  The result is the most efficient use of resources we can hope to achieve while maintaining the most individual freedoms we can.

What about the morals? Well….it’s not as if we don’t have recent examples to help us out.  Leaving out the current mess of a tax code, take the recent financial crisis.

Predatory lenders?  Sure.  Fraudulent and speculative borrowers? Sure.  The reason why it worked so well?  Government incentives pushed quasi-government agencies to purchase loans without much oversight.

Why no oversight?  No skin in the game.  They couldn’t fail.  The market believed it & they believed it.  & in the end, the government proved them right.  Do the wrong thing, over and over and over and over again until it finally collapses and someone else ends up paying the bill….

So while the author is probably correct that we don’t use a moral market argument much, especially in an atmosphere of language such as “fat-cats”, he’s incorrect that this moral option is a “third” argument.  It is indeed part and parcel of the framework that markets are more efficient, better at maximizing freedom, and yes, even better at incenting moral behavior as well.

More on market morals here

Here we go again…. yet another marketing campaign by the Obama Administration to tout bail out packages that has yet to do anything they’ve previously promised (DA Post here) as a rousing success.   These silly marketing games seem to work well for politicians, but what logic tells us is that you can’t prove a negative.  The Obama Administration can tout bailout monies spent for any reason in to any success they please because proving that it would’ve been better without the money is a nonexistent hypothetical situation for which we can only guess.

& with upcoming elections, for which Democrats currently seem to be in some trouble (polling data here via RealClearPolitics), they will continue this regardless of any true facts which show the opposite.  This week, with some gall, they plan to use the auto show in Detroit (here via Policito):

When the president travels to Michigan on Friday, he’ll tout the revival of General Motors and Chrysler since the auto companies received billions in federal aid and government-assisted bankruptcies….

I say with gall, because they fully intend to tout even more success with blown money when the only major car company to NOT take bail out money is doing better than their rivals (here via Star-Tribune):

DEARBORN, Mich. – Four years ago, Ford mortgaged everything down to the blue oval logo to save itself. Now, even as Americans remain skittish about the economy, it’s reaping big rewards and stealing business from stumbling rivals.

Ford said Friday that it made $2.6 billion from April through June, its fifth straight quarterly profit. The company, which reported record losses in 2008, now predicts it will end 2011 with more cash than debt.

With its two longtime Detroit rivals still finding their way after spending time in bankruptcy last year, Ford, which never took government bailout money, extended its success story…..

Yep, instead of using this time to stand up for the ingenuity, the self reliance, the perseverance of private individuals working without taking tax money, they will use this to tell us all how much better off we are than if they hadn’t.

Oh… and in case you might be one of those people who know about Ford’s success, they have an answer for that as well (here via Detroit News):

Washington — The Senate’s top Democrat argued Ford Motor Co. probably would have collapsed if the government hadn’t bailed out its top two competitors….

So there you have it, even with logical evidence to the contrary, not only did the all knowing government help out two companies that are still barely surviving, but also completely fixed a company for which they contributed nothing directly.

Come on…. we can’t find any good justices to nominate to SCOTUS?  This is what… the third (including the previous administration) uninspired justice nominated in just 5 years.

For such a prestigious and life long appointment, we should expect much better (via Cato here):

Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, seemed to shock many people when she dodged questions about the Declaration of Independence during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee…

DA posts here & here

Via Freakanomics here, which will hopefully put to rest the idea that nurses go on strike to “help” patients, from the NBER paper:

…Controlling for hospital-specific heterogeneity, patient demographics and disease severity, the results show that nurses’ strikes increase in-hospital mortality by 19.4% and 30-day readmission by 6.5% for patients admitted during a strike, with little change in patient demographics, disease severity or treatment intensity….

Robert Reich via Salon.com here demonstrates once again how much politics effects his economic analysis.  According to him, this whole economic mess, including a potential backslide can be blamed solely on deregulation:

…starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It increased the cost of public higher education and cut public transportation. It shredded safety nets…

Which he believes is causing greater wage disparities:

…We’re back to the same ominous trend as before the Great Recession: a larger and larger share of total income going to the very top while the vast middle class continues to lose ground….

Because with deregulation, of course, companies can become EVIL:

…Companies were allowed to slash jobs and wages, cut benefits and shift risks to employees (from you-can-count-on-it pensions to do-it-yourself 401(k)s, from good health coverage to soaring premiums and deductibles)….

I submit what Mr. Reich fears is freedom – freedom of business owners to hire and fire as they wish, freedom of employees to change jobs easily (401K allows this, pension does not), just freedom.

Secondarily, you can see in his writing that the only thing the government has ever done wrong, is by not getting involved enough.  He doesn’t mention government meddling, deficit spending, enormous new health care expenses, entirely new federal agencies which more money will be needed, idiotic regulations like a moratorium on all oil drilling due to one company’s failure….

Nope, for Mr. Reich, it’s all because the government hasn’t taken enough control over the little people.

Via Cato here, more news on the Obama Administration’s transparency:

The Social Security’s trustees’ annual report is, by law, supposed to be published by April 1. This year, however, the trustees have postponed its release indefinitely. The program’s financial condition continues to remain hidden from public view — and by many accounts will continue to be so until the end of the fiscal year….

Wonder if Reich views this as an issue?