The USPS is planning on proposing a 5-day mail schedule due to major losses during 2009.
This is a prime example of why we should allow private mail delivery. Companies like UPS and FedEx already have the infrastructure in place to provide mail delivery and they would be able to push down postal rates for first-class mail.
Instead, we continue to have a poorly run, inefficient bureaucracy that wastes our money, and will become slower and more cumbersome as it flails in the wake of email.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Reason Magazine: In Defense of Slums
I kind of gagged a little when I read the title of this article. Okay, so he is not really "defending slums" but instead comparing them to their economically worse off counterpart - rural countrysides.
But still. The fact that slums are better than the country side and rural areas really only tells us one thing: that the whole country is poor and miserable. Reason should be focusing on how to make slums better places to live - or how to make them disappear - with property rights and sensible limited government policy, not defending them as wonderful enclaves that the poor masses enjoy.
I was struck by a comment on the page, however:
My response: Illegally sitting on someone else's land is "anti-libertarian." But in slums, the situation is different because the government has made is almost impossible to legally get land. In this case, it is the state's responsibility to reduce barriers to legally obtaining title to land.
The "libertarian" answer would be:
1. Make property rights well-defined. The law must clearly state that property is yours with title and that means you can sell, lease, rent, whatever you want with it.
2. Remove the numerous regulations to obtaining legal title to land. Most slumdwellers and squatters want to own their land, but they cannot get legal title - either it is publicly held and the process to acquire it legally is near impossible, or it is unknown who the land belongs to because of ill-defined property rights systems to begin with.
3. Actually ENFORCE the law (a lot of people technically own property but its not protected in practice). Make sure that the informal "rules in use" are the laws on the books.
Doing this will result in several things:
1. Use of land/property as collateral to get loans. It is a source of capital.
2. It is a potential source of revenue - you can rent out land.
3. Strengthens women against domestic abuse - if she owns land, she is more likely to leave a abusive partner because she can support herself. She also becomes a key decision-maker in the home because she has access to capital.
4. Reduces violent conflict - property disputes can be easily solved.
5. And scores of other positive benefits come from property rights.
But still. The fact that slums are better than the country side and rural areas really only tells us one thing: that the whole country is poor and miserable. Reason should be focusing on how to make slums better places to live - or how to make them disappear - with property rights and sensible limited government policy, not defending them as wonderful enclaves that the poor masses enjoy.
I was struck by a comment on the page, however:
""the conurbations made up of people who do not legally occupy the land they live on—more commonly known as slums""
Illegally occupying land isn't a violation of someone elses's property rights?
What, these cities have never heard of emminant domain? Once they become slums, you need to bulldoze it down and and bring in the real growth. What's the property value of a slum? Isn't a slum pretty much the defintion of urban blight? Bulldoze it, build high rise commercial buildings that will create jobs.
""If there were much hope for a decent life in the countryside of impoverished countries, people would happily live there. Instead, they realize that if they want to make a decent living, heading to the city is their best bet.""
You mean head to the city and illegally squat? While they are at it, they might make a living at picking pockets. If you have to break one law in the name of better living, why not break two?
Would a libertarian argument be against slums?
My response: Illegally sitting on someone else's land is "anti-libertarian." But in slums, the situation is different because the government has made is almost impossible to legally get land. In this case, it is the state's responsibility to reduce barriers to legally obtaining title to land.
The "libertarian" answer would be:
1. Make property rights well-defined. The law must clearly state that property is yours with title and that means you can sell, lease, rent, whatever you want with it.
2. Remove the numerous regulations to obtaining legal title to land. Most slumdwellers and squatters want to own their land, but they cannot get legal title - either it is publicly held and the process to acquire it legally is near impossible, or it is unknown who the land belongs to because of ill-defined property rights systems to begin with.
3. Actually ENFORCE the law (a lot of people technically own property but its not protected in practice). Make sure that the informal "rules in use" are the laws on the books.
Doing this will result in several things:
1. Use of land/property as collateral to get loans. It is a source of capital.
2. It is a potential source of revenue - you can rent out land.
3. Strengthens women against domestic abuse - if she owns land, she is more likely to leave a abusive partner because she can support herself. She also becomes a key decision-maker in the home because she has access to capital.
4. Reduces violent conflict - property disputes can be easily solved.
5. And scores of other positive benefits come from property rights.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Obama's Big Lie ... or, "We're gonna need a bigger stimulus"
Reason's April 2010 cover story on the failings of the stimulus package to create sustained growth is enlightening. The article is not featured on the web yet or else I'd link to it. But the issue is out there on newsstands and it is a really great article.
The story sheds light into how the Obama administration's claims that our country is headed towards recovery due to the stimulus are absolutely false. Yes, GDP rose... with a huge portion of that rise coming from the purchase of new cars and homes.
The article explains how the automobile industry got a big surge in productivity after the Cash for Clunkers program, but that as soon as this program ends, the industry will slow again - mostly because Cash for Clunkers did not create NEW demand. People did not utilize the program unless they were already planning on buying cars, so the increase in demand was sort of a consolidated demand from the coming months. Why does this matter? Because it cannot be sustainable - not without a bigger stimulus down the road.
Similarly in the housing market, housing credits encouraged the purchase of new homes. This, again, does not create demand, but instead consolidates future and present demand - it encourages people to buy homes now, rather than in 6 months. The Obama administration extended the housing credit until April 2010 because they are aware that their stimulus did not create demand, did not create recovery, and will not be sustainable long term.
The main failings of housing market still have not been addressed. Instead, the stimulus provided a short-term band-aid cure - a politically motivated band-aid cure - that has two outcomes: either a). the programs will end, leaving the housing and auto markets flailing and leaving America with a federal spending hangover or b). the administration will continue to extend federal spending, extending our debt, encouraging inflation, and creating a new bubble.
The story sheds light into how the Obama administration's claims that our country is headed towards recovery due to the stimulus are absolutely false. Yes, GDP rose... with a huge portion of that rise coming from the purchase of new cars and homes.
The article explains how the automobile industry got a big surge in productivity after the Cash for Clunkers program, but that as soon as this program ends, the industry will slow again - mostly because Cash for Clunkers did not create NEW demand. People did not utilize the program unless they were already planning on buying cars, so the increase in demand was sort of a consolidated demand from the coming months. Why does this matter? Because it cannot be sustainable - not without a bigger stimulus down the road.
Similarly in the housing market, housing credits encouraged the purchase of new homes. This, again, does not create demand, but instead consolidates future and present demand - it encourages people to buy homes now, rather than in 6 months. The Obama administration extended the housing credit until April 2010 because they are aware that their stimulus did not create demand, did not create recovery, and will not be sustainable long term.
The main failings of housing market still have not been addressed. Instead, the stimulus provided a short-term band-aid cure - a politically motivated band-aid cure - that has two outcomes: either a). the programs will end, leaving the housing and auto markets flailing and leaving America with a federal spending hangover or b). the administration will continue to extend federal spending, extending our debt, encouraging inflation, and creating a new bubble.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The climate change debate
Putting aside the debates about whether climate change is real, that it is a danger to humanity, or that it is man made (and for the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume it is real and it is irrelevant whether it is man made if indeed it is dangerous to humanity), I have strong opinions about what can be done to alter climate change.
Let's face facts, without any cynicism or bitterness: what is currently profitable for our economy (and that includes corporations, governments, and individual people) is cheap energy made from fossil fuels. That is indisputable. In the long run, fossil fuels are no longer going to be profitable, due to the disasterous economic, political, social and human costs they will wreak due to climate change. However, it is (in my opinion) one of the failures of markets to not be able to take into account future costs. I very strongly believe that in the long run, the market can and will adjust to these costs - fuel prices will rise, the market will begin to provide cost-effective alternatives, and we will continue to be able to consume because these alternatives will be cheap.
Markets perform, and they respond to demand. When there is a real and sustained demand for alternative fuel (not this pansy green movement shenanigans), markets will be able to provide them cheaply. Many people think this is naive, but I'd answer, look at personal computers, cell phones, cars, microwaves - each of these things began as incredibly expensive items for the ultra rich. They began cheap because profit-seeking companies sought a way to make them accessible to a massive market of middle and low income people.
Therefore: the only real change in energy policy, the only real answer to climate change, is to make it profitable to be truly green, and make it not profitable to be operating with dirty fuels. People will ultimately change their buying habits when green products are as efficient and cheap as dirty products. New technology must be developed to make green products that are not even marketed as "green" but as BETTER and CHEAPER than our old products.
How do we do this? I have yet to hear a real free market solution to this. I am forced to believe there must be some sort of government policy to make the change. The solutions proposed by free marketers (and I'm not talking cap and trade and those types of policies, as they require government intervention) are basically: "Wait, and the market will provide." Well yes, it will. But is it going to be soon enough to avert a disaster?
A hundred years from now, I'm not concerned about the future hating us for killing off polar bears or rainforests. I'm concerned that people will look at our generation as the only that enabled and furthered the massive humanitarian disaster that will occur if ocean levels rise in the south Pacific, or if droughts increase and intensify in the Sahara.
As much as it pains me to say it, I do not think the market can provide this answer in the short run - which is when we need it. I think the market needs to provide some sort of price signal that takes into account these future costs. Unfortunately, if the market cannot plan for it, I'm sure that government bureaucrats will not be able to adequately predict it either. I'm left feeling, as I do with that unsolvable problem of "development," that I have no idea what can be done.
Let's face facts, without any cynicism or bitterness: what is currently profitable for our economy (and that includes corporations, governments, and individual people) is cheap energy made from fossil fuels. That is indisputable. In the long run, fossil fuels are no longer going to be profitable, due to the disasterous economic, political, social and human costs they will wreak due to climate change. However, it is (in my opinion) one of the failures of markets to not be able to take into account future costs. I very strongly believe that in the long run, the market can and will adjust to these costs - fuel prices will rise, the market will begin to provide cost-effective alternatives, and we will continue to be able to consume because these alternatives will be cheap.
Markets perform, and they respond to demand. When there is a real and sustained demand for alternative fuel (not this pansy green movement shenanigans), markets will be able to provide them cheaply. Many people think this is naive, but I'd answer, look at personal computers, cell phones, cars, microwaves - each of these things began as incredibly expensive items for the ultra rich. They began cheap because profit-seeking companies sought a way to make them accessible to a massive market of middle and low income people.
Therefore: the only real change in energy policy, the only real answer to climate change, is to make it profitable to be truly green, and make it not profitable to be operating with dirty fuels. People will ultimately change their buying habits when green products are as efficient and cheap as dirty products. New technology must be developed to make green products that are not even marketed as "green" but as BETTER and CHEAPER than our old products.
How do we do this? I have yet to hear a real free market solution to this. I am forced to believe there must be some sort of government policy to make the change. The solutions proposed by free marketers (and I'm not talking cap and trade and those types of policies, as they require government intervention) are basically: "Wait, and the market will provide." Well yes, it will. But is it going to be soon enough to avert a disaster?
A hundred years from now, I'm not concerned about the future hating us for killing off polar bears or rainforests. I'm concerned that people will look at our generation as the only that enabled and furthered the massive humanitarian disaster that will occur if ocean levels rise in the south Pacific, or if droughts increase and intensify in the Sahara.
As much as it pains me to say it, I do not think the market can provide this answer in the short run - which is when we need it. I think the market needs to provide some sort of price signal that takes into account these future costs. Unfortunately, if the market cannot plan for it, I'm sure that government bureaucrats will not be able to adequately predict it either. I'm left feeling, as I do with that unsolvable problem of "development," that I have no idea what can be done.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Sexting: Get OVER it
Sure, there is no reason to be happy when your middle-school aged daughter is showing her boobs to a guy she likes at school, but when the school officials, her friends and peers, and her family all essentially tell her that her future is ruined, that she is a whore, and that her life is in a downward spiral. The girl ended up committing suicide.
I mean honestly, yes it is troubling that such young people are so overly sexual. But chastising a young girl for trying to be sexy is more troubling to me because it simply reaffirms that our culture asks women to be both virginal AND sexy, and there is no way to win that battle. Its frustrating even at my age; I cannot imagine what it would be like for a 13 year old. Further, lets take a moment and remember that there was a recipient of that text message, who not only showed all of his friends (jerk) but also was probably begging her for the picture in the first place.
If you're under 18 and you're sending pictures of yourself naked, you need to get a lesson from your parents about sex and what is appropriate. You do not need to be chastised by everyone in your life, like the girl in this story, or treated like a felon or a sex offender, like the dozens of young kids that get prosecuted for this "crime" every year.
I mean honestly, yes it is troubling that such young people are so overly sexual. But chastising a young girl for trying to be sexy is more troubling to me because it simply reaffirms that our culture asks women to be both virginal AND sexy, and there is no way to win that battle. Its frustrating even at my age; I cannot imagine what it would be like for a 13 year old. Further, lets take a moment and remember that there was a recipient of that text message, who not only showed all of his friends (jerk) but also was probably begging her for the picture in the first place.
If you're under 18 and you're sending pictures of yourself naked, you need to get a lesson from your parents about sex and what is appropriate. You do not need to be chastised by everyone in your life, like the girl in this story, or treated like a felon or a sex offender, like the dozens of young kids that get prosecuted for this "crime" every year.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Help me get to Kenya!
This coming summer, I am volunteering at Watoto Wa Baraka Orphanage in Kenya! I am so excited to be going on this trip. I have a lot of great information about the orpanage and my tyope. Please take a look at my fundraising page to learn more about my upcoming trip to Kenya!
Any donations would be greatly appreciated!
Any donations would be greatly appreciated!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Dishwashers, Vacuum Cleaners and Feminism
I've been missing in action on the blog posting lately, mostly because I have been relatively busy with other shenanigans in life.
But anyway, a thought occurred to me today while doing laundry.
Which came first, feminism or home/family technologies?
At the end of the second World War, two things were going on:
1. A lot of middle class women (housewives) were in the workforce for the first time.
2. A lot of new technology had been created for the war, and could now be used to create consumer products.
One of the things that was a great liberator of housewives and contributed to women staying in the workforce was the fact that there were dozens of new technologies that allowed women to not have to be home all day. More and more foods could be purchased prepared or prepackaged, thanks to preservatives, fridges and freezes. Cleaning became easier with vacuum cleaners. Washers, dryers, microwaves - each of these things became suddenly more affordable to the middle-class family in this decade.
Women were no longer as burdened (at least as not as they used to be) by the need to spend the day cooking and preparing the home because such things became easier and simpler. I have one of my grandmothers Better Homes & Gardens cookbooks published in the 1950s, and there are numerous mentions of new gadgets and ways to save time while preparing meals for the wife's family.
Which leads me to my question - did this help to give feminism a little shove going into the 1960s? I think an argument could be made that the convenience driven, consumerist society actually helped liberate women more than we usually give it credit. 1950s housewives were not bra-burning feminists; they just wanted to get their housework done faster. And their demand for products to help them do that may have actually paved the way for future generations of women to get out of the house altogether. Women were still expected to take on the role as primary caregiver and homemaker, but at least the job was slightly easier.
But anyway, a thought occurred to me today while doing laundry.
Which came first, feminism or home/family technologies?
At the end of the second World War, two things were going on:
1. A lot of middle class women (housewives) were in the workforce for the first time.
2. A lot of new technology had been created for the war, and could now be used to create consumer products.
One of the things that was a great liberator of housewives and contributed to women staying in the workforce was the fact that there were dozens of new technologies that allowed women to not have to be home all day. More and more foods could be purchased prepared or prepackaged, thanks to preservatives, fridges and freezes. Cleaning became easier with vacuum cleaners. Washers, dryers, microwaves - each of these things became suddenly more affordable to the middle-class family in this decade.
Women were no longer as burdened (at least as not as they used to be) by the need to spend the day cooking and preparing the home because such things became easier and simpler. I have one of my grandmothers Better Homes & Gardens cookbooks published in the 1950s, and there are numerous mentions of new gadgets and ways to save time while preparing meals for the wife's family.
Which leads me to my question - did this help to give feminism a little shove going into the 1960s? I think an argument could be made that the convenience driven, consumerist society actually helped liberate women more than we usually give it credit. 1950s housewives were not bra-burning feminists; they just wanted to get their housework done faster. And their demand for products to help them do that may have actually paved the way for future generations of women to get out of the house altogether. Women were still expected to take on the role as primary caregiver and homemaker, but at least the job was slightly easier.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
GWU Econ student to Michael Moore: This isn't capitalism, its corporatism!
This is a great segment of an talk with Michael Moore at GWU.
I think that he totally calls Moore out on calling cronyism and corporatism "capitalism", which a lot of the more radical left does these days. They do it because most people believe that we DO live in a capitalist society, but I think its still important to call our system what it is: overblown government backing elites with protectist policy and corporate welfare.
Best quote from Moore I've ever heard: "We don't really have a free market."
I think that he totally calls Moore out on calling cronyism and corporatism "capitalism", which a lot of the more radical left does these days. They do it because most people believe that we DO live in a capitalist society, but I think its still important to call our system what it is: overblown government backing elites with protectist policy and corporate welfare.
Best quote from Moore I've ever heard: "We don't really have a free market."
White Man's Burden movie
I've been MIA for a week as I've been out of town, sorry.
Just got word that a documentary is in the works called the White Man's Burden after Bill Easterly's book - the movie will delve into problems in the World Bank and IMF lending policies. Looks very interesting!
Just got word that a documentary is in the works called the White Man's Burden after Bill Easterly's book - the movie will delve into problems in the World Bank and IMF lending policies. Looks very interesting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
