One of the more frustrating things I find when engaging others in political discussions, is that some people seemingly have either an unwillingness or inability to contemplate how too much of a good thing can still be bad.

I say frustrating, because it’s intuitive to understand this.  As Paracelsus was quoted saying centuries ago:

“Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy.”

But even without that thought, it seems as if examples are around us daily.  The easiest one to spot is the current tax code.  Looking at individual deductions, it’s easy to see why most exist.  Deductions for raising children or owning a home or small business tax cuts for those hiring or charitable deductions…..etc, etc, etc – They all seem innocuous by themselves.  Even if you disagree with some specifics, the arguments seem valid.

Yet you transition from this basic idea of rewarding people for certain actions through the tax code, to today and you end up with (here):

…the current tax code is 60K pages of government sponsored corruption where the normal citizen or even the IRS agent has little idea exactly what all 60K pages means together, but special interests, nonprofits, businesses, and others all work to make the code a little better for themselves. (Freedomworks – Top Ten Reasons to Scrape the Code here)….

The criminal & regulatory codes are no better.  Their infinite complexity and shear volume, promotes the same corrupt, rent seeking behavior (ever wonder why health care reform is 1600 pages?).

This complexity inherent in all these laws and regulations creates not only rent seeking behavior, but also makes it easier for those in power who wish to abuse others through the system to be able to do so.  You see, once the system has become so complex, then even the average citizen runs the very real risk of unintentionally being on the other side of the law.  When enough people are on the other side of the law, then you get selective enforcement.

But when you’re a Senator and there are potential political points to score…. the trees are just too pretty to worry about that whole forest thingy, so you add more to it by introducing legislation to ban a specific crib because of 32 infant deaths since 2000.

Even on the merits, this law isn’t needed as the 32 deaths weren’t all by the same failure in the drop-down crib (via government’s own report) and no one has yet made any claim that the design itself is the reason for the deaths:

…CPSC has also received reports of 20 other drop side incidents, 12 of which involved the drop side detaching in a corner of the crib. In two of these incidents, a child became entrapped. One child suffered bruising from the entrapment. There are five reports of children falling out of the cribs due to drop side detachment. One child suffered a broken arm as a result of the fall.

In addition, CPSC has received 8 reports of mattress support detachment in these cribs. Due to the space created by the detachment, three children became entrapped between the crib frame and the sagging mattress and four children crawled out of the crib. There was one report of cuts and bruises….

What they found was this was actually the products from one single manufacturer which  is now out of business.  The report goes further to note:

…Due to the fact that Generation 2 went out of business in 2005, CPSC has limited information about the cribs. Although CPSC does not know the total number of units distributed or the years of production, it is believed that there were more than 500,000 of these cribs sold to consumers…..

Which means, that even out of the number of products sold by this one company, the government doesn’t have any real information on such things as failure rates.  32 out of 500K is a small failure rate (assuming all failures can be attributed to product failure versus other causes like improper installation).  Combine that with the knowledge that these numbers are guesses and only include one single company, our Senator should think of herself as being on shaky ground.

The calculus for any potential opponents however is obvious:  lots of potential downside when being labeled as pro-infant death and very little upside as few people seem to care.

So for now, while the trees might know the forest exists and vice versa, until voters are able and willing to contemplate the difference, we will simply continue to lose sight of one in favor of the other.

Oil leaks into the Gulf of Mexico from the end of the pipe that was supposed to pump oil from the sea floor before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded Photo: AP

The audacity of writers will never cease to amaze me and today is no exception.

In a piece at Salon.com, authored by Andrew Leonard, and titled Gulf oil spill gas price blackmail Mr. Leonard tries to make the case that the Obama Administration should:

Ignore critics of regulation who warn of rising pump prices. They are obsessed with the wrong bottom line.

Though his only reasoning seems to be that the opponents of new regulations only came to be after a major crisis. First, he starts with some of the current opposition statements:

The International Energy Agency is frightened, reports the Financial Times that “a knee-jerk reaction by regulators, banning new offshore licensing altogether,” in response to the Gulf oil spill, will end up increasing costs for the oil industry, and “therefore oil prices.”….

This helps us understand why he uses words like blackmail and frightened…. because these people are only looking at the bottom line.   From here, now that we understand these people are greedy and uncaring for anything other than money, he moves quickly into the timing of this opposition:

…it’s impressive to see how quickly the clamor advising the White House not to go overboard on offshore regulation has flared up. The parallels with the financial crisis are irresistible: A massive failure of markets and government oversight leads to a disaster, but before the wreckage has even been cleared away, we are told that regulatory overkill will be bad for business….

What he seemingly fails to grasp is, well, with all due respect to Mr. Leonard, he is failing to grasp the obvious – people generally don’t oppose or support regulations when they aren’t being proposed at all. So this argument about timing is completely irrelevant.

Logically, people, groups, communities, companies…. all of us have enough to worry about that we don’t usually worry about those things that aren’t happening.

It’s possible the author is unaware, but most of the pro-life movement didn’t really exist until 1973 as it wasn’t necessary prior to that. Maybe he finds this suspect as well?

But logic be damned, he uses this to springboard into the current investigation to explain why drastic changes in regulations are needed right now:

…But focusing only on the bottom line without taking into account the larger picture of what could go wrong — and what is going wrong — is exactly how we ended up with a giant Gulf oil slick in the first place….

Ironically, & potentially unwittingly, he then gives reasons why major regulation change should be avoided. By trying to conflate some idea of greed into this, but still keep the appearance of some factual stance, he states some of the issues clearly and properly notices that we don’t yet know what happened.

The main reason we don’t know – the only real people currently talking are those with a stake in not being blamed and there are 3 primary private actors and a multitude of government actors. Independent investigators will sort through all parties statements, responsibilities, duties, actions, and all the rest and hopefully come to some answer as to what really took place. Until then, any newly proposed regulation will be premature and wholly inconsistent with wise decision-making.

Additionally, he never refutes the words used by opponents, because he simply can’t. Economics shows us without emotion or emotion-filled words such as “blackmail” that regulations cost businesses money and those costs have to be borne out by the consumers.

The one interesting thing he noted was about the parallel to the financial market, but here he sees reverse of reality. The parallel Mr. Leonard should easily see is that we have a government bent on adding more and more power at the federal level attempting to use fear of another crisis to grab more power before even understanding why the crisis happened in the first place. Instead, of fearing this, he seems to be concerned only for some hypothetical lack of regulation, as if that has been the problem all along.

The reality is there. Going back historically, let’s say, going way, way back to… how about 6 months ago? When fear of another financial crisis was & is still being used to add regulations on entities such as pay-day loan companies, on investment vehicles such as derivatives, on compensation of employees, and many, many more things which had absolutely nothing to do with the current crisis, his concern for lack of regulation seems oddly misplaced.

After all, this is not only the same administration which is pushing for specious financial regulations, but they are also the same group which after years of railing against the Patriot Act, when the time came to do something, they did. They reauthorized its use to maintain their power.

Please note though – it’s not just this administration. Historically, governments seek to expand their power, they use crises to do so, and once those crises are mitigated, they keep the power they promised us was only necessary under the circumstances.

Whether a terrorist event, an economic crisis, or even an oil spill by greedy business people, allowing the government to take more and more powers before we even have an idea of what took place is the perfect move for those who want reduced freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

Over @ HBR Blogs, Jeff Goldsmith asks the following question: Has the U.S. Health Technology Sector Run Out of Gas?.  Looking historically, he notes the amazing progress since the 1970s, but a decline in that growth since 2000:

…Technological innovation — in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices including imaging, and enterprise IT — exploded in the thirty year period 1970 to 2000…

…Then about a decade ago, the US medical technology sector entered a prolonged innovation drought. In pharmaceuticals, new drug introductions declined by almost two thirds, while drugs patented in the latter part of the boom period lost protection, this despite a near tripling in R+D outlays. (New drug introductions rebounded modestly in 2008 and 2009, but still haven’t regained their 2004 levels)….

He goes further to note that this dip in activity wasn’t just about new drugs:

…The drought wasn’t confined to pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Imaging, a dazzling success story for three decades, has seemingly run out of gas. Imaging equipment sales collapsed precipitously in the US, by roughly 40%…

…Enterprise clinical information technology seems to have hit a similar flat spot. The major commercial IT platforms for hospitals and health systems are more than a decade old.

& all of that makes complete sense based upon what we know about the last couple of decades.

Since the mid-1990s (well really, since the 1960′s), we have increased regulation on the medical industry on a constant basis.  From minor changes in who qualifies, to new regulations such as HIPA, to very large new regulatory pressures such as the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, resulting in an explosive growth in government expenditures of health care:

There have also been additional pressures.  Increases in financial and IT regulations through SOX and other legislation have increased companies’ weariness to put themselves at risk and increased costs of doing business.

These pressures in increasing the costs of doing business, combined with the federal government expenditures crowding out private spending, has resulted in higher costs for businesses and therefore consumers as well.  The new heath care and financial overhaul bills will continue this pressure.

The big cost however is what the author notes:  the lack on innovation.  When the government seeks to consistently erect new and more costly barriers to entry, competition will naturally decline.  The correlation to that behavior is that costs will grow more rapidly as we know competition in the long-term generates downward pressure on prices.

As we see now – prices are increasing, availability is decreasing, as the government decreases the availability of future competition in industries the government tightly controls such as health care.  Conversely with those industries with fewer barriers to entry have downward pressure on prices, such as cell phone or internet providers.

While I consider this failure of centralized control as a major factor, Mr. Goldsmith posits three contributing factors, risk aversion from management, size and increasing bureaucracy, and the fact that we are losing out globally for scientific talent:

1. Firms that used to be run by scientists and engineers are now run by attorneys and marketing executives….
2. Their ability to foster innovation has succumbed to a bureaucratic management culture….
3. Bright young foreign science and technology graduates are returning to India or China instead of staying here and creating new products or companies….

While I agree with all of these things, I think reasons 1 & 3 can be combined easily to a more basic point about government interference and centralized control.  Indeed they are symptoms of the problem and not necessarily the disease.

Having said that, I think it’s also important to note that reason number 2 exists due to the same thinking reasons 1 & 3 do – the belief that centralized control is a nominal good (DA post on business trends here).

The author seems remiss in not making the connection, even if he did eloquently, maybe unwittingly, stumble across it when writing about global competition:

…If they have more freedom to innovate in their home countries, that’s where they’ll go….

For as long as we continue to discuss symptoms and not the actual disease, we will continue to miss the point.

Obamacare - was the final push an act of noble means or just hubris? (via Reason.com here)

…At a time when America’s economy is still in bad shape and when we face numerous problems abroad, Obama has put the country through a shattering political battle—and, with legal challenges and promises of repeal, the fight may be just beginning.

This seems, at the moment, less a monument to idealism than to hubris.

Rep. Mike Honda, D-CA seems to think Fannie Mae knows their stuff (via Politico here).  In asking for more money to prevent legal foreclosures, he gives us this:

…In addition, Fannie Mae estimates that as many as 50 percent of the minority homeowners who received a subprime loan should have qualified for a prime loan. This clearly indicates the need for housing counseling services….

With all due respect to Mr. Honda, I think all this clearly indicates is poor critical thinking skills.  When a GSE which apparently knew nothing about the impending crisis and was proactively laying down on the job when it came to auditing loan standards gives you estimates on who might or might not have qualified for what kind of loan – laughter is the appropriate response.  Not regurgitation.

Cato on telephony deregulation, cell phone innovation, & ingratitude (here).  Discussing his memories as a child where phone line were costly and long distance was only slightly less expensive than actual driving as compared to today’s age:

Then came the breakup of the AT&T monopoly in 1984. Phone technology and competitive service provision exploded. In 1982, Motorola produced the first portable mobile phone. It weighed about 2 pounds and cost $3995.

Within a very few years they were much smaller, much cheaper, and selling like hotcakes.  Today there are some 4.6 billion mobile phones in the world, and counting, or about 67 per every 100 people in the world.

Then he moves forward to the ingratitude:

And to celebrate this incredible achievement, Slate and the New America Foundation are holding a forum titled “Can You Hear Me Now? Why Your Cell Phone is So Terrible.”

From the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute), we learn the EPA is about to expand its powers (here):

Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010 – The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are expected this week to finalize their joint greenhouse gas (GHG)/fuel economy standards rule. This will make carbon dioxide an “air pollutant subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act for the first time. The rulemaking, and the endangerment finding that is its prerequisite, will allow EPA to immediately exercise and continue to amass powers never delegated to the agency by Congress….

I suppose those supporting the decision know nothing about the EPA’s massive failure in just the Energy Star program.

Lastly, as a reminder, most places and people in the US did NOT buy homes they couldn’t afford (via WSJ here):

The U.S. still is feeling the effects of widespread housing bust, but a new report serves as a reminder that large swaths of the nation didn’t experience a boom in home prices and hasn’t suffered from the bust….

In fact, most of the insane double digit growth in real estate prices were in 5 main areas – NY corridor, Florida, Arizona, California, Nevada.  Make of it what you will that almost all flyover states never experienced the irrational boom, to be inevitably followed by the burst.