In January’s edition of Wired Magazine, they detail an article about rail systems and advocate high speed rail as a solution for congestion.  The problem is identified correctly (here):

…Getting California’s train up and running will be expensive. But doing nothing would cost two to three times more. Why? Currently, gridlocked lanes waste $20 billion in fuel and productivity annually. And it’s only going to get worse. The Golden State is growing — quickly. By 2030, another 12 million people could be calling it home. Without an infrastructure overhaul, drivers can expect a 10 percent congestion increase every year. To accommodate the billion trips between cities that residents and visitors will make annually, the state would need to build 3,000 more miles of freeway lanes, five more commercial airport runways, and 90 more airline departure gates. The price: at least $100 billion. Oh, and all that construction wouldn’t alleviate traffic; it would simply keep pace with it….

The article goes on to detail rail as a solution, showing a brief history of rail in the US, including the really cool technological advancements in rail systems.  The main problem with the idea however, isn’t that new rail systems aren’t cool or that rail couldn’t become much faster and more efficient, the main problem, which they slightly acknowledge, is getting people to use it:

…To be cost-efficient, any high-speed rail system needs an ample supply of riders. San Francisco hopes to deliver them through a new million-square-foot terminal. Dubbed the Transbay Transit Center, it will connect the new rail line with nine regional transportation systems…

And

…No city epitomizes the insane appeal of driving like Los Angeles, whose citizens cling to their steering wheels even as they face the worst congestion in the nation. Will high-speed rail persuade them to give up their autos? Maybe. Ridership on the local rail system has increased to 306,000 on weekdays, up from 265,000 in 2007. A faster, cheaper trip — the high-speed ride between Ontario and LA will save the average commuter at least 85 hours and as much as $6,400 a year in gas, parking, and lost productivity — might pry even the most dedicated motorist out of the driver’s seat….

Looking historically though, they’ve made this argument over and over again and it’s always failed.  Due to constant regulation of the transportation industry, we’ve wasted billions and continue to poor billions more into this mess (from 2007):

Rail transit is a huge waste of money that harms transit riders and mainly benefits a few politically powerful interest groups, such as rail contractors, at the expense of ordinary taxpayers….

Thanks in part to the high cost of rails, transit systems in Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and the San Francisco Bay Area carried fewer riders in 2005 than two decades before….

…Due to financial stresses caused by the high cost of rail transit, San Jose cut its transit service by 20 percent and lost a third of its transit riders.

The mass transit system in Portland, Ore., carries only 7.6 percent of the region’s commuters, down from 9.8 percent before rail construction began.

The subway in Washington, D.C., is wonderful for tourists, but not commuters: Though the region gained more than 100,000 jobs between 1990 and 2000, the transit system lost more than 20,000 daily commuters….

& it fails for the very same reason most centralized planning fails – there is no one-size fits all solution which can magically come from government that will ever be better than what the market can provide.  Over thinking the obvious, that if rail lines could honestly save the average individual 6400 dollar a year, they should be willing to pay 4000 dollars a year to help fund it.

The simple truth is that government inefficiency will only increase the costs of rail overtime, increasing the subsidies and making a large portion of the population fund what a small portion of the population will use.  As Cato notes (here):

….Second [problem with highs peed rail], highway users paid for interstate highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will rarely use it….

Why do “smart” people seem to espouse imposed solutions by default?  Well, as with a lot of scientific minded individuals and magazines, the search for solutions to problems becomes an end by itself.   This certainly helps when it comes to innovation – always looking for that next step or next increase in efficiency is extremely valuable ideal which helps many be successful.

Conversely, we also try to decrease known defects, a valuable skill in a fairly closed system, but I think a detriment to larger scale thinking.

Engineers, computer programmers, process engineers, CFOs, IE those in the industries where daily critical thinking tasks ask not only what we can do better, but also attempting to steam line, standardize, and reduce defects through control mechanisms, seem to be more prone than others to view imposed solutions as a solution default.

Indeed, in their lines of work, lots of systems are routinely imposed on clients, employees, and others with typically, minimal involvement from the end user. & often for good reason.  Allowing untrained users to have open access to say a client database would be too risky.  Allowing any employee to spend the company’s money on what they thought was a good idea, would be a huge preventable risk as well.

The difference however between these critical thinking endeavors is that they have somewhat of a closed system.  Sure, market dynamics affects the controls companies can exert on their clients, but the cost benefit analysis for decisions in these closed system will be much more accurate than a similar analysis for the market as a whole.

The idea of imposing these new systems through tax payer funds has a further assumption as well: if the market is currently in state A and many experts believe it should be in state B, that’s because the market has failed.  Inside of that assumption holds that we have the requisite knowledge to take literally billions of individual transactions which led to the creation of the current transportation system and with a few nifty math tricks and a good sales pitch from the experts -  impart a better solution than all those transactions managed to build.

& lastly, but not an inconsequential difference, is a company’s ability to control the results.   One of the keys to any systems update success, will always be in checking the results.

For instance, if I changed process X, hopefully to make the time spent on X lower on average or hoping to reduce defects in products for which process X can affect – I should be able to look back in time after making the changes and ask the question – did my solution work for the problem we attempted to solve?

This doesn’t seem all that radical and certainly seems like something our government could be doing now, but the historic reality is always the same.  Governments seek to grow by expanding power.  Governments by nature move slowly.  Good government is stable and therefore moves more slowly.

This means when the government proposes changes in X process to solve problem Y, they have a known tendency to exaggerate the benefits and obfuscate any attempts to prove that changes in X didn’t affect Y, by constantly shifting goal posts (example of just one, tiny government program employing this strategy  here – 2002):

…This is essentially the strategy that DARE, the country’s leading drug education program, has successfully used to stay in business for nearly two decades. One study after another has found that students who complete DARE (a.k.a. Drug Abuse Resistance Education) are just as likely to use drugs as students who don’t. Yet DARE claims it is constantly revising its curriculum, so any research indicating that it doesn’t work is immediately outdated….

In a classic example of not being able to see the forest for the trees, this default condition of believing in solutions which will be imposed for benefit of others might be well meaning, but still one of the largest logical & philosophical impediments to true freedom.

Via Buzz.Yahoo.com (because I refuse to send people to the Huffington Post), the Huffington Post reports (here):

President Obama will unveil on Thursday a proposed levy on the nation’s biggest financial firms structured not just to repay taxpayers for the bank bailout, but to recoup some of the public subsidy that “too big to fail” banks have enjoyed on account of their implicit government backstop, a senior administration official tells the Huffington Post….

First, I honestly have a problem with senior administration officials lending their knowledge to such a highly partisan propaganda site as the Huffington Post.   They long ago stop pretending to care about being news or even being accurate and moved straight into MoveOn.org territory.

Now, I’m not saying the President or his staff must chose the outlets I would prefer, but they could definitely send out press statements or use seemingly “real” and more honest news organizations.  It’s not like the NY Times isn’t on the President’s side – why go to Huffington?

Either way – regardless of the merits (or lack thereof0) for this specific  marketing strategy – it seems quite obvious that Mr. Obama and his team lacks a fundamental understanding of economics.  Their continued reliance on government solutions to all economic problems, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the dynamics needed to keep this economic engine and society moving forward.

It seems they have an idea that they can model the economic behavior of institutions they define as “Too big to fail” as if this equilibrium is: A) possible to spot & B) static enough to allow the slow moving government the ability to legislate in a helpful way.

Indeed the current economic crisis itself lends credibility to the idea that the government is in no position to grasp the complexities that exist when dealing with so many interconnected businesses (here):

…”We are here to examine what happened in the public sector, what happened in regulatory agencies, what happened in enforcement agencies,” said Phil Angelides, the chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission….

While investigating the public portion of the failure:

…Questions focused on failures around regulatory decisions to loosen bank leverage and capital limits, faulty credit rating agencies, a warning about epidemic of mortgage fraud and a decision by Congress and the FDIC to stop collecting vital insurance fees from ‘well capitalized” banks between 1996 and 2006….

They grilled DOJ:

…Panel members asked Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct an investigation into what, if anything the agency did after the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2004 warned that mortgage fraud was so rampant that it was a potential “epidemic.”…

& the SEC:

…SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro was inundated with questions about the agency’s failure to oversee credit rating agencies, which provided overly rosy debt ratings for problematic mortgage securities….

The FDIC & Congress:

…Meanwhile, the FDIC and Congress were criticized for its decision not to collect deposit insurance premiums from well capitalized banks for roughly a decade between 1996 and 2006….

But it’s ok, because the FDIC agrees with them:

…Both Schapiro and FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair agreed that an SEC decision in 2004, under its chairman at the time, William Donaldson, to allow banks to identify how much capital and leverage they must have on hand, based on their own model-based formula, was a mistake that allowed banks to expand their leverage to problematic levels….

Where the lead to the obvious conclusion they were searching for the entire time – government help:

…Bair said. “I think the only place to tackle that on a system-wide basis for both banks and non-banks was through consumer protection rules that gave the Fed the authority to apply rules against abusive lending across the board to both banks and non-banks.”…

Now it might just be me, but thinking federal regulators with new powers over banks and abusive lending standards will get it right next time seems a tad optimistic…. you know, especially considering their massive failure with the current crisis.

Which is of course only a portion of the story.  The government, through various GSE’s, exacerbated the problems with global capital flows, by giving banks incentives to make riskier and riskier loans (here):

…The actual causes of our financial troubles were unusual monetary policy moves and novel federal regulatory interventions. Regulatory distortions intensified in the 1990s. Poorly chosen public policies distorted interest rates and asset prices, diverted loanable funds into the wrong investments, and twisted normally robust financial institutions into unsustainable positions.

We can group most of the unfortunate policies under two main headings: (1) Federal Reserve credit expansion that provided the means for unsustainable mortgage financing, and (2) mandates and subsidies to write riskier mortgages….

Please don’t misunderstand me – just because someone leaves their keys in their car doesn’t mean you should take it – so immoral actions on behalf of lenders, home buyers, and an inaccurate understanding of the true risks were also present in the prelude to this tragedy:

…There is no doubt that private miscalculation and imprudence made matters worse for more than a few lending institutions and individual borrowers….

& therein lies the true rub.  This imprudence is something for which the market should bear the price of their mistakes.  Only through bearing the true cost will their incentives ever line up with true moral behavior.  If you think a local bank or lender wasn’t able to sell every single loan to a GSE, they would’ve continued to allow bad loans to be made which they knew would sink themselves… well, that’s just not very likely and not very rational.

But don’t worry – I’m sure with these new and smarter people, this time they’ll figure out which banks are too big to fail, do it right, and only tax them in the amount they need to insure against the risk.

To me, and indeed historically, that a fear society & freed society are mutually exclusive.

& like all consistent lessons from history, we haven’t seemed to have learned this lesson and seem to be determined to repeat it.

Towards that end, the Wall Street Journal online published two articles on Friday, under the shared title, Undressing the Terror Threat. The first article by Paul Campos & Nate Silver explains correctly:

…The world’s greatest nation seems bent on subjecting itself to a similarly humiliating defeat, by playing a game that could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts as long as there are terrorists who want to harm Americans; and

(2) If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any of us, they win.

These rules help explain the otherwise inexplicable wave of hysteria that has swept over our government in the wake of the failed attempt by a rather pathetic aspiring terrorist to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. For two weeks now, this mildly troubling but essentially minor incident has dominated headlines and airwaves, and sent politicians from the president on down scurrying to outdo each other with statements that such incidents are “unacceptable,” and that all sorts of new and better procedures will be implemented to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

Meanwhile, millions of travelers are being subjected to increasingly pointless and invasive searches and the resultant delays, such as the one that practically shut down Newark Liberty International Airport last week, after a man accidentally walked through the wrong gate, or Tuesday’s incident at a California airport, which closed for hours after a “potentially explosive substance” was found in a traveler’s luggage. (It turned out to be honey.)…

The authors make a very good point here, though I do object to the term “rather pathetic aspiring terrorist”… as I saw on a blog somewhere in retort “What you really need are suicide bombers with experience!”.

Beyond that, they then try to take some statistics too far.  Using murder & suicide rates to show how are fears aren’t lined up with a real assessment of risks, they write:

…The country’s homicide rate is approximately six times higher than that of most other developed nations; we have 15,000 more murders per year than we would if the rate were comparable to that of otherwise similar countries. Americans own around 200 million firearms, which is to say there are nearly as many privately owned guns as there are adults in the country. In addition, there are about 200,000 convicted murderers walking free in America today (there have been more than 600,000 murders in America over the past 30 years, and the average time served for the crime is about 12 years)….

Taking those numbers, they conclude that which doesn’t follow:

…Given these statistics, there is little doubt that banning private gun ownership and making life without parole mandatory for anyone convicted of murder would reduce the homicide rate in America significantly….

& Even though they aren’t advocating such a policy, they basically state that the number of guns in private hands necessarily affects either homicide or suicide rates.

I think this ignores the historical evidence that governments typically ban weapons prior to mass murdering their own citizens, but it also isn’t proven by the numbers they give.  Because regardless of how people kill themselves or others, removing the primary instrument doesn’t necessarily means those actions will halt.  Lastly of course, even that assumes the government has the ability to remove the primary instrument in question, which is highly unlikely.

Either way, overall they use the example that is hysteria over terrorism to show parallels to the war on drugs, traffic accidents, and other risks to conclude:

…What then is to be done? A little intelligence and a few drops of courage remind us that life is full of risk, and that of all the risks we confront in America every day, terrorism is a very minor one. Taking prudent steps to reasonably minimize the tiny threat we face from a few fanatic criminals need not grant them the attention they crave….

The thing is that I agree with the authors’ basic premise, or what seems to be their basic premise, that fear based policies are wrong, even though I disagree with the facts they’ve lined up and think that using terrorism as too narrow an example has severely undermined their case.

First, while it’s certainly true that the gap between objective terrorism threats and hysterical policies seems large, there are valid reasons for that.  They discuss one, which is we need to focus money on preventing mass catastrophes such as a nuclear detonation, but they fail to mention the organizations themselves and how they differ from murder in general.

It’s true, that in any free society, a lone nut, bent on killing others, will have the opportunity to do so and there’s little we can do, while maintaining a free society to prevent that from happening.

However, were terrorism and even gangs, the mob, and other criminal organizations differ is that we have to attack those organizations directly.  Dealing with each instance of terrorism as non-related criminal events is exactly what allows their organizations to gain grounds on operational abilities.  Ignoring the organization therefore, seems to dictate a increase in the likelihood of a major incident.

Outside these specific critiques however, I think our society has become very easily motivated by fears instead of reason and logic.  When we allow victims of drunk driving incidents dictate the driving laws, or say a murdered victim’s family members to seek emotional healing through a policy of revenge, or use those in the most destitute of scenarios to control medical policy… whatever it is, if  we allow fear to take a hold of our government policy, new legislation, or even on a personal level, allowing fear to control our own lives… if we allow this, we should at least be doing so with the knowledge that it’s not conducive to freedom.

Detailed Abstractions has more articles about fear based policies here, here, & here.

This year is really a banner year for the unions.  Recently, they begin early pushing the Obama administration to pass the double-speak entitled bill, the Employee Free Choice Act (which actually removes individual free choice - here @DA).

Not content with simply removing your right to vote anonymously and thereby reduce your freedom of association, they went to the state level.  There they decided that individual business owners can now be forced by law into the union (here @ WSJ):

…A year ago in December, Ms. Berry and more than 40,000 other home-based day care providers statewide were suddenly informed they were members of Child Care Providers Together Michigan—a union created in 2006 by the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees….

& obviously they are doing this for a reason:

…Today the Department of Human Services siphons about $3.7 million in annual dues to the union—from the child-care subsidies….

But not to worry, the union is doing something with all that money.  More lobbying:

…Ms. Berry now sees money once paid to her go to a union that does little for her. She says she is “self employed and wants nothing to do with the union.”

The union claims it is working for Ms. Berry and others like her by pressing the legislature to increase child-care payments….

For the score keepers at home – the government through union lobbying has forced (by law) private citizens running their own commercial enterprise to pay dues, which they graciously will remove from their state reimbursed child-care subsidy checks…. all in order to lobby the government to raise the child-care subsidy.

For the union organization itself though – lobbying dollars spent pays off.  Also from earlier this year, during bankruptcy of large companies involving unions, they got paid first (here @ DA):

…Now we have POTUS playing politics with the rule of law.  Ensuring money goes to unions before secured creditors, the same unions who are using that money to buy up assets of the companies they helped to bankrupt….

The unions and their elected representatives of course are playing the game as designed and currently played by the voters.   The unions know based upon their membership and war chest they can affect the outcome of an election.  The leaders they help get elected know this and therefore craft union friendly legislation.

Effectively the unions moved away from an organization championing workers’ rights, into another corporation using the government to ensure their continued existence.  & by doing so, they will ultimately raise the cost of doing business for everyone, including the working families they claim to support.

As always in a representative government, the voters are ultimately to blame.  Whether their failure is due to an inability to care, critically think, understand basic economic incentives, or lack of equilibrium between the moons of Venus & Neptune…

Irregardless of why, given the current state of incentives and voters unwillingness to punish their legislators, unions will continue to rent-seek at the expense of the average  citizen.

In what has to be good news in the world & especially Russian citizens, Russia appears to be moving forward towards free market reforms with help from former President Putin.

For Russia, the last 30 years has been marked by instability.  Russia in the 80’s was in a descent from crumbling Communism which limited real individual freedoms.  They moved from that, to a poorly implemented and corrupt form of cronyism, which also limited real individual freedoms.

Then to stabilize and reassert themselves to the international community, former President Putin worked towards a stronger central government.  In doing so, he too worked towards the removal of individual freedoms.  For example, having the government buy the the main press outlets, using the judicial system to attack  corporate heads who were against Mr. Putin’s reforms, changing election laws to reduce citizen say, and many other things.  All of which seemed a sure march back to Communism and the stage for a new global dynamic with Russia trying to be the main international opposition to the US.

However, in recent months Stratfor and other publications have been noticing changes inside the Russian government.  Many reformers have been pushing the new President and Mr. Putin to begin to make real free market reforms through privatization and it looks like they’ve won some ground (Stratfor Video below):

Since I have a strong belief in the morality and pragmatism of individual freedom, this is a good sign.  Let’s hope it continues.

Odd thing is – those without freedoms or with lesser freedoms around the world have been pushing for market reforms, including Germany, France, China, Russia… while the US is pushing centralized control over banking and health care (to name two things).

Proving once again, that the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance.

For months since the reelection of Iranian President Dictator, protests against the Islamic regime have ebbed and flowed.  DA (Detailed Abstractions) covered the reelection farse  here & here.  While the news was dismal, massive protests started in June and continue to this day.  The most recent protests staged on December 7th (via CNN):

Now I’m not a big fan of protests in most of the free world, but these students deserve the world’s attention.  Unlike protests in America, their heroic protests are done in the face of threats of violence against not only the protestors, but their families as well  (@Stratfor):

…Iranian Prosecutor General Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei announced Dec. 8 that “intelligence and security … forces have been ordered not to give any leeway to those who break the law, act against national security and disturb public order.”  He added that “families are responsible too if their children are arrested. They will have no right to complain.”…

Lest we forget though, every totalitarian terrorist regime in the world, is only beating  people for their own good:

“Our people can no longer take this… it is our duty to defend the rights of the people.”

That’s right – the regime is taking that stance that by actively preventing free speech through threats of violence tothe  protestors and their families they are in some way preserving the rights of others.

As Plato said:

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.

Late last week, Michael F. Cannon @ Cato released a study entitled, Yes, Mr. President A Free Market Can Fix Health Care in response to a challenge made by President Obama in March 2009:

“If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.”

This is very much a presumption based question, like “When did you stop beating your wife?”  It holds within an assumption the only plausible answer is one which uses the power of the government to control the market, and by extension individual citizens, with complete skepticism about any power of the free market.

While this seems to be the default assumption of many of my fellow citizens these days, I don’t know that I’ll ever understand how an objective look at market success versus an objective look at governmental success would lead one to believe the government is capable of much more than simple, repetitive tasks.

Having said that and even knowing the Democratic leadership and the White House is likely to ignore the answer, Mr. Cannon presents a pretty convincing case about a market solution (@Cato).  He explains:

how Congress can remove the impediments that currently prevent markets from doing so:

Whole thing here.

If you’re anything like me, you too are getting nauseous about the “public option” in the health care debate.  One day it exists, the next day it will never exist.  The day after, it’s required…

Well, apparently legislators might have a compromise to pass a bill including an “opt-out public option” (@theHill.com):

Democratic senators continued to remain bullish on the chances of creating a government-run public option as part of health reform….

…Schumer echoed the calls of several senators who this week said that Democratic negotiators has garned the 60 votes necessary to invoke closure on the measure. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week put it in even stronger terms, saying that Reid had 60 votes for a “robust” public option.

…According to Schumer, Reid “is leaning strongly” toward including a provision that would allow states to opt out of public health insurance if they want to keep private insurers.

Schumer added that the liberal senators are “able to live with” an opt-out public option under which states could decline to participate in a public program….

So there we are;  in a compromise between moderate and liberal Democrats only, a public option seems likely.  Not only has the White House and Democratic leadership dropped any pretense of working across the isle, but people at large seem unwilling to question the claims of their leaders.

One suc spurious claim, is that this option will result in increasing competition:

…”We need some competition for the insurance companies,” Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” A government-run insurance plan would “have to play by the same rules as the insurance companies and it would negotiate rates with the providers,” Schumer said. Having a public option would bring competition to states that only have one or two insurance providers, Schumer said….

Proponents everywhere continue to take this stance, even though a public option is logically inconsistent with their stated goal of increase competition.

If Mr. Schumer and others truly wanted to add some competition for insurance companies, adding a new company would not be necessary.  In deed, removing the laws the disallow selling of insurance over state lines doesn’t cost the tax payers one single dime, yet increases competition dramatically, both in the total number of competitors and the speed at which they can begin competing.    Additionally, given the benefits a public option will have over its private competitors, this isn’t really competition.

As Michael Tanner wrote over @ Cato, this support for a public option isn’t likely what it seems (@Cato):

Cognitive dissonance is defined as holding two completely contradictory ideas at the same time.

That seems to be the case with the American public, with a new poll showing rising support for a so-called public option in health care, even as the public continues to oppose greater government control over the health care system….

All in all though, the Democrats hands seem to be very strong hand right now with recent polls showing 57% of the country expressing approval of a public option.   With uninformed voters, an uninformed and uninformative press, and politicians more worried about winning than engaging in honest debates, this compromise might soon become law.

That’s freedom for you – as unfortunate as it seems, whether most people truly understand what the public option entails is irrelevant.  So long as they are willing to approve things they know little about and skip any hard work necessary to critically analyze the problem and various solutions, this new government boondoggle will just continue going forward.