Has Nobel Laureate Gary Becker been reading NOL?

Brandon Christensen Politics , , , , , , , , ,

I would think so, especially after reading this:

The movement toward free trade agreements and globalization during the past 60 years has enormously reduced the economic advantages of having a larger domestic market to sell goods ands services. Small countries can sell their goods to other countries, both large and small, almost as easily as large countries can sell in their own domestic markets. For example, during the past 30 years the small country of Chile has had the fastest growing economy of Latin America, larger than Brazil and Mexico, the two largest nations of this region. This would not have been possible without the access of Chilean companies to markets in other countries, both in South America and elsewhere. As a result, Chile now exports around 40% of its GDP, compared to a ratio of exports to GDP in the United States of about 13%.

[…]

Small countries can do well with small domestic markets by taking advantage of a globalized economy by selling large fractions of its production to consumers and companies in other countries. That is why smaller countries usually export a considerably larger fraction of its production, and import a much bigger share of its consumption, than do larger countries. Size of country was much more important in the past when many countries had high tariffs, and transportation costs were much more important.

Political interest groups tend to be less able in smaller countries in distorting political decision in their favor. This is partly because smaller countries are more homogeneous, so it is harder for one group to exploit another group since the groups are similar. In addition, since smaller nations have less monopoly power in world markets, it is less efficent for them to subsidize domestic companies in order to give these companies an advantage over imports. The greater profits to domestic companies from these subsidies come at the expense of much larger declines in consumer well being.

The growth in the competitiveness of small countries on the global market is in good part responsible at a deeper level for the remarkable growth in the number of countries since 1950 from a little over 100 to almost 200 countries now. And the number of independent countries is still growing.

OMG! He has been reading us! How could he not be? Check out our thoughts on secession, decentralization, and devolution and tell me I’m wrong. Do it!

Heck, if we’re writing about the same stuff as a Nobel Laureate, and you’re reading us, what does that tell you about you? About us?

I’m curious. I also know Dr Becker doesn’t really read us. However, does the fact that we write about the same concepts and events as a Nobel Laureate have more to do with intelligence or ideological bias? Do prominent Left-wing scholars write about secession and globalization in the same way that we do?

From what I can tell, the answer to my second question is ‘no’ (the answer to my first is further below). Generally speaking, libertarians view more countries, more decentralization and more economic integration as a great thing, and we’ve got the data (increases in income, and longevity of life, and literacy rates, and…) to back it up. We’re the optimists.

Leftists and conservatives argue that all the good libertarian things happening in the world are bad, and they have some data to back it up (like Gross National Happiness). Leftists and conservatives are the pessimists.

Is this disagreement over globalization really a matter of intelligence? Of ideology? I think it’s probably a mixture of both, and also that intelligence levels affect ideological bias. You don’t hear many stupid people advocating for a more globalized world, much less for decentralized power structures and economic integration. It’s also hard to find smart people that will shun internationalism at the cultural or political level. The fact that many smart people, especially on the Left, shun economic internationalism is not so much troubling as it is amusing.

Watching intelligent people attempt to squirm out of answering questions about economic internationalism (“globalization”) can be quite the treat.

I think facts are squarely on the libertarian’s side, and that the main obstacle to attaining a more globalized, a more economically integrated, and a more politically decentralized world is rhetoric (and sheer numbers, of course). The benefits of globalization are usually seen by intelligent people very quickly (though not always thanks to clever rhetoric), but there are simply not that many intelligent people in the world (if there were, wouldn’t intelligence be rendered useless or morph into something else?).

I guess what I’m trying to say is that working towards a more libertarian world (thousands of political units with one world market) should be easy, so why isn’t it? I think the answer is ‘factions’. Farm subsidies in the West, for example, are unnecessary and can actually lead to hunger in poorer parts of the world. Getting rid of such subsidies would be a great benefit to mankind, but these subsidies persist. Why? Because of the political power of farm lobbies. If a politician representing a farm district in the West votes to eliminate subsidies, he’s gone in the next election. So unless the representatives of Western farmers somehow band together in defiance of their own interests and vote to eliminate farm subsidies, poor people will go hungry and Western citizens will pay too much for food.

Here is the real conundrum, though. If some factions gain political leverage over other factions, it does not necessarily follow that arbitrarily ending the hard-won privileges of the rent-capturing factions is the best option to take. In fact, it is often the worst option to take because of the dangers associated with arbitrary rule.

Think about it this way: Suppose a bunch of farmers in a democratic state band together and form a lobby for the purpose of protecting their interests. They gain influence (“capturing the rent”) and eventually become a nuisance to their countrymen but not a problem. Unfortunately, they are more than a nuisance to people in poor countries, but these poor people are unable to form a lobby that counters the lobbying efforts of the farmers.

The farm lobby in the rich country has followed all the rules. It has achieved its status as rent-capturer fairly, democratically and legally. What gives the government the right to suddenly change the rules on the farm lobby? Absolutely nothing. Furthermore, if the democratic government starts to ban lobbies it deems to be nuisances, it relinquishes its democratic moniker (and, more importantly, introduces arbitrary rule). Do you see the problem of ‘factions’?

Unfortunately, factions are built in to the policy-making process itself. One of the strengths of democracies is that they tend to give factions more of a voice than autocracies. In the United States, for example, Madison sought to combat the problem of factions by restricting the scope of the state to certain duties, and his system has done an excellent job (all things considered).

So I’ve got two questions I hope to be able to think about in the near term: 1) how can we make the Madisonian system better here in the United States, and 2) how can we “export” (for lack of a better term) Madisonian democracy abroad in a non-coercive manner?

Is President Obama the culmination of American Marxism?

Brandon Christensen Liberty , , , ,

I recently tried my hand at prodding Jacques to blog more often about Marxism and Marxist thought. As an immigrant from a country with a strong Marxist tradition and – more importantly – with his educational background (Stanford’s sociology department in the late 60s/early 70s; arguably the time period with the most sophisticated understanding of Marxist thought ever), I think he provides readers with a nuanced and sharply critical glance into Marxism, something that is very tough to do. Alas:

Brandon: Thanks for the suggestion and for the incense. However, the charm of blogging has much to do for me with following whatever my inspiration whispers at any one time. Once in a while, it lands on Marxism, not often. When it does, it’s often in the context  of conversations in French with French speakers. (You may have noticed something on my blog called, “Le dernier Communiste.” )

To the extent that I am impelled to do the needful rather than the natural, I direct my steps to whatever I think I do well and that is also in demand. In general, I am not sure waking up Marx for the benefit of young Americans is useful or much in demand. Almost no one in America calls himself a Marxist anymore . (There were many when I was young.) The people who would have been Marxists in 1974 call themselves “environmentalists” today.  Aside from this, I suspect
that the Obama administration is the result of wet dreams by Marxists of my generation but I don’t know how to talk about it. It’s just my sense of smell telling me.

I make a mental note of your expressed demand for Marxist critiques. In the meantime, feel free to pillage whatever you find on the subject in my blogs.

Oh, I’ve pillaged. His knowledge of Marxism is too important for me to ignore it. You can find Jacques’s thoughts on Marxism here. Jacques is also working on his memoirs, and you can find excerpts of those here (it’s also located on the top right side of the blog’s navigation bar).

As far as President Obama being the culmination of American Marxism, I think Jacques is woefully wrong. However, I also think Jacques’s assessment of Marxism in the US today (it’s irrelevant) is spot on. There is a recent, well-written essay in Dissent by a political scientist at Columbia arguing that the Obama administration is simply kowtowing to a neoliberal (and, by extension, racist) agenda, and this, I think, suggests that my suspicions are correct.

The Paleo Diet and the Vegetarians

Jacques Delacroix Current Events , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have been defending the “Paleo diet,” named after the book of the same name by Loren Cordain. Unlike many of its critics, I have actually read the book. I like the fact that it rests on an overall defensible viewpoint based on evolutionary theory while its specific claims are explicitly and painstakingly related to modern research.

The Paleo diet or v “caveman’s diet” simply says that our genetic apparatus cannot have changed much since the spread of agriculture, 7,000, 8,000 or 9,000 years ago (more like 6,000 for people of European ancestry). Therefore, the author argues, we should limit our food intake to what our pre-agriculture ancestors ate: Vegetables, fruits, nuts, and especially fish and meat. Thus, it excludes cereals, beans, dairy products and sugar, among other staples. That’s the general argument. As I have said, there are also specific arguments pertaining to different classes of food that are linked to contemporary scientific research.

I have been observing the Paleo diet, with some systematic cheating, for a little less than a year. The cheating involves two items: wine and coffee. Cavemen obviously had the solace of neither (but they had the thrill of trying to escape giant cave bears). Basically, I would rather be unhealthy than give up either drug. My adherence to the Paleo diet is not a “faith.” It’s completely rational, as the accommodation I make at this stage in my mind with the information available to me. I could turn on a dime on this.

Two things have happened since I started the Paleo diet: First, I have had Diabetes Type II for twenty years. Less than three months after I started, my basic blood sugar number became almost normal. (That’s the same number I have been monitoring for fifteen yeas.) It became completely normal another three months later and has stayed there.* Second, I have lost a little weight without even trying. I keep losing. It’s very little but it’s consistent. (I use to gain a little weight consistently.) There is no mystery about why I lose weight: I seldom feel hungry and when a I do, I am able to cut hunger with ten almonds.

Of course, the coincidence in time of this positive health development with the diet may just be that, a coincidence. This is how I am thinking about it: For twenty years, there are no good news; I go on a specific diet that promises specific improvements; shortly thereafter, I get specific good news pertaining to the improvement the diet promises.

Of course, it’s possible that in addition to positive health outcomes, the Paleo diet is destroying my heart, or my kidneys. As to the first, my Stanford Medical school cardiologist is not concerned. My other doctor, the internist who hates fads has not said anything about danger to my kidneys.

The Paleo diet has not made me more handsome, nor smarter, nor yet kinder, I must admit.

My testimony just remains this, a personal testimony; it’s a truthful one. The critique below is more than a personal testimony though if you believe that the nature of its warriors tells you something about the validity of a particular war.

Of course, the Paleo diet has triggered the anger of vegetarians and “sustainable” agriculture advocates, and well it should have. Sustainable Ag people simply don’t have a leg to stand on. Veggies are apparently tired of simply arguing that theirs is an ethically superior stance. (I believe it is.) There is an article in the June 3 2013 issue of Scientific American that just came to my attention. I surmise, it’s an expression of this anger. It treats the Paleo diet as just another unscientific fad. In the middle of the article, the author uses the following words with respect to our ancestors: “[they] evolved a mutation.” Cut, stop press! Mutations don’t “evolve,” they just happen; they happen all the time. The verb matters, it suggests that a particular mutation appeared in response to something. Mutations are not (adaptive) responses to anything; they are the material on which evolution plays. Natural selection simply retains spontaneous mutations.

End of story; end of reading. The author just demonstrated that he lacks a basic understanding of evolutionary theory, the main material of the view he is criticizing. How about the editors of Scientific Americans, what were they thinking when they allowed this monstrosity? Is there a reason for the laxness? Is there an agenda or is it just an expression of ordinary slothfulness?

This big mistake in a big publication dedicated to the spread of science does not make the Paleo diet right of course. I will await with interest a critique by someone who know what he is talking about.

* I am still taking the full complement of diabetic drugs. It’s a precaution and my doctor, a skeptic, does not seem to know how to phase them out without risk.

Законы, вступившие в силу в России в 2014 году

Evgenii Grigorev Law

С 1 января 2014 года в России вступили в силу сразу несколько законов, которые должны оказать влияние на нашу страну.

1. Безвизовый режим с Южной Кореей – теперь туристы из России могут находиться в этой стране до 60 дней. Хотя Южная Корея в принципе не является такой уж популярной страной для туризма. К сожалению, подавляющее большинство русских предпочитает отдыхать на популярных курортах типа Египта и Турции, где само понятие “русский турист” уже давно окрашено негативными цветами по причине крайне плохого поведения определенной категории российских граждан… Это отдельная история.

2. Запрет на продажу SIM-карт для мобильных телефонов с рук. Данный закон, в принципе, и комментировать особо не стоит, так как он направлен на противодействие весьма распространенному в России мошенничеству с мобильными телефонами, когда услуги сотовой связи предоставляются покупателям, не имеющим при заключении контрактов удостоверения личности. Думаю в цивилизованных странах (я имею в виду, более развитых, чем Россия) такой проблемы нет.

3. Дополнительный налог на автомобили дороже 3.000.000 рублей (1 доллар США = 33 рубля). Этот закон чем-то напоминает налог на роскошь, который недавно ввели во Франции, и из-за которого популярный актер Жерар Депардье отказался от гражданства Франции и получил гражданство Российской Федерации. В России очень велика имущественная разница между различными слоями населения, и этот налог призван в некоторой степени “сгладить углы” противоречий…

4. Людям, уклоняющимся от службы в армии запрещено поступать на государственную службу. Этот закон призван поднять престиж российской армии. Думаю не для кого не секрет, что русскую армию боятся не только гипотетические “враги России” (не буду углубляться в эту тему, думаю многие знают, о каких странах я говорю, хотя сам позицию большинства по этому вопросу не разделяю), но и сами военнослужащие. В интернете довольно часто всплывают скандалы на тему русской армии: неуставные отношения, издевательства над солдатами и всякое такое… Наверняка это проблема не только наших гарнизонов. Другое дело, что по этой причине многие молодые люди боятся идти в армию и вынуждены скрываться от разыскивающих их военных комиссаров с 18 до 27 лет (по закону все граждане старше 27 лет автоматически переводятся в запас и не подлежат призыву на военную службу в мирное время). По идее, этот закон должен как-то поднять престиж армии, но я сомневаюсь, что эта инициатива окажется успешной.

5. Закон об обязательном оповещении клиентов об операциях по их банковским картам. Ну тут все понятно. То, к чему во всем мире пришли 10 лет назад, докатилось до России только сейчас. Очередной закон против мошенников…

6. Повышение минимального размера оплаты труда и материнского капитала. Первое понятие – это минимальная заработная плата, ниже которой работодатель не имеет права платить. Реально, она просто смехотворна, и прожить на нее крайне сложно. Она составляет примерно 180 долларов США. Но этот закон как бы намекает гражданам, что “уровень жизни повысился”… Стыдно! Материнский капитал – это единовременная выплата семье, в которой родился ребенок. Также реверанс в сторону повышения уровня жизни.

Помимо этих законов, с 1 января 2014 года действует еще ряд поправок к уже существующим законам типа не целевого использования государственных земель и всякого такого прочего, но эти поправки не стоят того, чтобы я тратил на них ваше время.

Inequality: the Solutions

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, Politics , , , ,

There is going to be talk of inequality for three straight years. It’s the Obama administration’s strategy to help voters forget the horrors of the implementation of Obamacare. (It’s not optimistic about the rest of the plan either, it seems.) Of course, the word “inequality” resonates well with young people who have been impoverished by the administration’s bad policies since the current economic crisis (which it did inherit). When you can’t get a job, nearly everyone is better off than you are, and inequality is concrete.

Besides, you can always find inequality somewhere by cherry picking: Since 1990, the top ten per cent have increased their share from X to Z while the bottom 17% have seen their share decrease by W; since 2001, the top twenty percent have grown their share from M to P while the bottom 50%, blah, blah, blah. See what I mean? The only situation where you cannot find inequality is when everyone one, every person, every household has exactly the same as every other. This would be hard to achieve if you tried, because people would become unequal again at one end (on the one hand) before you had finished at the other end (on the other hand).

Yet, it turns out, it’s not difficult to do something concrete and decisive about inequality of income and/ or of wealth on an individual basis, through personal initiative. (Inequality of looks is a tougher proposition.). I advise how below.

First, if you are rich, you can easily dispose of your share of the social burden of economic equality. Just give away your money until you reach a median position or below. If you can’t help but earn more money, just keep giving it away. Problem solved.

Second, if you are poor, just decide to become Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, both multi-billionaires who started from nothing. If that’s not your cup of tea, just become a millionaire athlete or actor. If that won’t work, and speaking of tea, start a Starbucks for teas. Hurry up, Starbucks itself is doing it right now. Don’t blame anyone: You had more than twenty years to take the initiative.

In general, the healthy poor in American have a lot of explaining to do. Go ahead, explain.

If you fear you don’t have the talent, or the education, or anything to help you qualify to do any of the above, here is a plan:

In every developed country including the US, there is a chronic shortage of plumbers, has been for at least forty years. One plumber I employed about ten years ago was grossing $60/hour. That was although his phobia prevented him for working in dark confined places. (Would I make this up?)

My suggestion is that you should apprentice yourself to a plumber for a year or so. After that span of time – which you might finance through a loan, don’t be shy, go right ahead – go into business for yourself. Plan for thirty hours a week of actual work because you need time to relax and a little time to get organized and to do the billing. Take a French-style one month vacation each year. Charge as much as I was willing to pay the phobic ten years ago, $60/hr.

You should gross about $85,000 a year. Count $15,000 for taxes and other deductions if you insist on keeping books. You are left with $70,000 to spend. According to the Census bureau, the gross household US median income was under $52,000 in 2011. It’s probably not much higher now. Since we are comparing net to gross, these elementary calculations put you actually well ahead of the average. And, remember, we are comparing your projected income to the median household income. So, under my plan, your spouse need not be gainfully employed.

With this kind of income, if you are that kind of person, you should be able to salt away in savings $5,000 each year. Placing the savings at a safe 3%, you re likely to be able to give your children something like $140,000 after only twenty years. Nice down payment on a house in California, nice house in Arkansas, even with inflation. Yet, more choice!

If you end up finding your superior plumber’s income distasteful because it violates your belief in equality, see above. Or you might just decide to work less each week or to take longer vacations.

On inequality, see also: “Equality and Fairness“.

Any questions?

Elephant Poaching: National Tragedy or Tragedy of the Commons?

Adam Magoon Current Events, Economics , , , , , ,

Elephant Poaching: National Tragedy or Tragedy of the Commons?

Tanzania recently ended a policy of summary execution of elephant poachers predictably due to “a litany of arbitrary murder, rape, torture and extortion of innocent people.”  The prime minister gave a PR response that, for me at least, sums up most government policy saying “The anti-poaching operation had good intentions, but the reported murders, rapes and brutality are totally unacceptable.”

World governments have taken the same measures they always do when individuals consume something that they arbitrarily deem distasteful and simply banned the sale of ivory; a method which has been categorically proved to simply not work.  After all, how easy is it to buy narcotics in America?  Or alcohol in the Middle East?  Or other drugs…in prisons.     

So what is my solution?

As with other commons violations such as over-fishing the answer to the dwindling elephant population is simple.  Privatize it.  Privatize what? You ask.  The elephants of course!  Ivory is a hot commodity in the third world, used for obvious things such as jewelry and decoration and not-so-obvious things like aphrodisiacs and snake-oil like medicines and this demand is not going away any time soon.

Allow promising entrepreneurs to tag, herd, breed, and protect groups of elephants for the purpose of harvesting their ivory, meat, hides, and any other parts of value for later sale throughout Asia and the world.  By doing this you would ensure the existence of these animals for as long as there continues to be demand for them.

The success of Kalashnikov? Still elusive

Brandon Christensen Economics, History , , , , , , ,

Before the New Year I asked why the recently-deceased inventor of the AK-47 was able to become so successful. There were a couple of good responses from Paul and Roman, but Jonathan Finegold’s response is worth highlighting:

Whatever I once knew about the process of military procurement in the Soviet Union, I’ve mostly now forgotten. But, the AK-47 is just one out of many Soviet military inventions that have become mainstays of global militaries: T-54 and T-72 tanks, MiG-29, et cetera. The USSR was generally head-to-head with the United States in military technology, although arguably the U.S. started to pull away during the late 1980s. This legacy of military technology follows back to the Second World War, and even before. It was the Soviets, under the leadership of Mikhail Tukhachevsky, who developed what is commonly known as “blitzkrieg” (typically associated with the Germans, who trained with the Soviets during the late 1920s and early 1930s). Their T-34 has become one of the emblem tanks of WWII.

But, rather than a success of the Soviet system, this should be interpreted as a failure. The criticism of socialism is not that it cannot achieve certain ends, or even that it cannot achieve these ends with success, in some sense of the word. The critique of socialism is that they cannot economize on the resources used towards achieving these ends, and that these ends are not representative of the general welfare of society. In other words, the capitalist system is the achievement of a plurality of ends; socialism is the opposite. The USSR put military success, especially in terms of “out-showing” their American rivals, over other ends, especially those of their people. Thus, despite the poverty of Soviet society, the USSR accomplished great military and scientific achievements. (This is why comments like “socialism works, because we were able to mobilize resources towards the war effort and mass produce more military equipment than any other country” is not a good response to the critique of socialism — it fails to grasp what the critique of socialism actually is.)

Contrast this with the United States, which achieved both great military and scientific achievements and improvements to the general welfare of society.

This helps to clarify a number of important concepts (including why socialism failed), but I’m still puzzled as to why Moscow allowed one of its products to be nicknamed after an individual at the height of the Cold War.

Is free trade an expediency?

Brandon Christensen Philosophy , , , , ,

Jacques Delacroix makes an odd argument over at his blog Facts Matter:

Free trade is not a moral principle, it’s an expediency; violating the principle just costs money.

This argument comes after he admits that he would be very, very open to protectionism because of Mexico’s recent decision to denationalize its oil and natural gas industries.

Before I continue, who does Dr Delacroix think would benefit from a protectionist union with the United States?

Would he really advocate denationalizing the Mexican energy sector simply to force resources north of the border through a protectionist union? This seems to be the implication of his argument. If expediency is indeed Dr Delacroix’s excuse for free trade, then he automatically loses the argument to mercantilists (what, for example, sounds more expedient to you: A nationalized energy sector or free trade?).

It is precisely because of this automatic defeat that an 18th century moral philosopher (Adam Smith) decided to write a book on the moral superiority of free trade over protectionism (The Wealth of Nations). At its core, free trade is about the freedom of the individual to do what she pleases so long as no force nor fraud is involved. Once this underlying moral argument is understood, free trade can easily be seen as the natural outgrowth of such a philosophy.

Here is something to look out for as you read arguments put forth in the press: The moral argument. If an argument claims to have no moral underpinning it doesn’t mean there is no moral underpinning. It just means that the proponent of a said argument does not care for opposing or alternative arguments.

Ugh, this is getting convoluted so let me see if I can use an example. Suppose a politician or an academic is making an argument in favor of a policy (the policy itself is irrelevant). Suppose the proponent of this policy argues that the best reason to show support for his policy is because it will make everybody better off (it doesn’t matter how). Suppose further that this politician or academic claims that his policy is expedient rather moral, and that this in and of itself is one of the policy’s main features.

Would you support it?

Because throughout history most people have. This support is why we see a stagnation – of incomes, of years lived, and of innovation – for thousands of years in human history. The impact on mores that the expediency-over-morality outlook had on humanity can also be reflected in our utterly violent past.

I point out the difference between arguing from a moral standpoint and arguing from an expedient one because of the consequences that each of these approaches tend to produce. For example, Dr Delacroix also advocates military adventurism abroad in the name of expediency rather than morality. Can you guess why he still defends the actions of the Bush administration? But the Iraqis held elections, right guys? Right?

The moral thing to do – secure the lives and liberties of individuals first and foremost – is usually also the hardest thing to do, especially when people continually wave expedient choices in the faces of those who must choose. Yet I think that when and where this simple moral principle is able to gain a foothold in the minds of enough people, the rewards are ample.

Speaking of rewards, the ‘comments’ section at Dr Delacroix’s blog is currently inundated with speculation about whether or not Santa Claus was (was) really white-skinned. One reaps what one sows, after all!

What’s Up with New Zealand?

Brandon Christensen History, Law , , , , , , , , , , ,

Economist Scott Sumner’s 2010 piece on the unacknowledged success of neoliberalism (which I linked to yesterday and you should definitely read or reread) poses an interesting question:

There are two obvious outliers [to aggressive neoliberal reforms]. Norway, the highest-income country, is much richer than other countries with similar levels of economic freedom, and New Zealand, at 80 on the economic freedom scale and only $27,260 in per capita income (US PPP dollars), is somewhat poorer than expected […] Perhaps New Zealand’s disappointing performance is due to its remote location and its comparative advantage in agriculture holding it back in an increasingly globalized economy in which many governments subsidize farming.

Rather than challenge Sumner’s thoughts as to why New Zealand is much poorer (I think his guess explains a lot), I think I can add to it: The Maori.

The Maori are the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand, and can be compared – socially – to the Native Americans of the New World or the aborigines of Australia. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about the Maori (or other South Pacific cultures), but I do know how to draw rough inferences about things by using data!

The Maori comprise about 15% of New Zealand’s population, whereas in other states settled by Anglo colonies the population of the natives relative to the overall population of the country is minute (aborigines in Australia comprise 3% of the population, for example, and in Canada and the US the indigenous make up about 2%).

The relatively large percentage of indigenous citizens in New Zealand can better explain why New Zealand is an outlier among rich countries, but I also think it’s important to ask why the Maori (and other indigenous populations in Anglo-settled colonies) have failed to match the demographic trends of their European and Asian counterparts.

Institutions are, to me, the obvious answer, but I’m curious as to what the rest of you think. I’d also like to add that I don’t think enough of us think about the issue of land (as in ‘land, labor and capital’ when we discuss the huge demographic gaps found between – for lack of better terms – settlers and natives in Anglo-American countries).

Around the Web: Highly Recommended Reading Edition

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , , , , , ,
  1. Fantastic post about Uganda’s role (and a Ugandan’s perspective) in the ongoing South Sudan conflict.
  2. Sexual mores: Love in a cold climate. I live in California, but my ancestors come from the frozen wastelands of Scandinavia and northern Germany. Rawr!
  3. The unacknowledged success of neoliberalism.
  4. One of my favorite bloggers (Scott Sumner) is joining one of my favorite group blogs (EconLog). I’m a huuuuge fan of group blogs (they’re pretty much the only type of blog I read), so I hope he decides to stay on as a permanent contributor.
  5. Inglorious Revolutions. Why the West is kinda, sorta hypocritical when it comes to the Arab Spring.

Global Junk Science: a Small Window

Jacques Delacroix Current Events , , , , , , , , , , ,

I meet two young traveling Frenchmen at the coffee shop. I like the new French more than I liked the old. For one thing, they tend to know English fairly well. This helps them shed the monumental French parochialism (“provincialisme,” in French). Perhaps as a consequence, they are generally more friendly than the previous generations of French people I have known. And, by the way, I wish I had the power to end a tenacious legend once for all: It is not the case that the French “hate Americans.” They just don’t like anyone very much; they are not cordial to any strangers. I feel a glacial wind blow all over me whenever I land in France, that’s although my French is perfect, by the way.

OK, that was a digression. I was also well disposed toward these two young French men because they reminded me of me: It’s true that I itched-hiked across the country and back, at their age. One of them is helping his mother with two restaurants, one on the Riviera, one in Strasbourg; the latter is called, “le globe-trotter.” I like that. The other French guy, age 22, is studying engineering, engineering of “sustainable energy,” he specifies.

I am a weak man, I have trouble with temptation; I can’t resist this one, of course.

Why sustainable, I ask. Isn’t it true that we have more proven reserves of petroleum than ever before?

He readily assents but, he asserts, petroleum is very bad for the environment.

Interestingly, that young man is not especially eager to tell me about climate change. Instead, he affirms that the burning of fossil fuels causes holes in the ozone layer with deadly consequences for humans. This sounds like deja vu (as we say in English), something from ten years ago, but what do I know? It’s possible that the problem has come back and that I am not aware of it. I make a note to check into it.

What kind of alternative power producing methods do you favor? I ask him further. I am eager to avoid discussions of solar power because I live in Santa Cruz where I get more info about the topic than I can begin to digest, including a solid dose of mendaciousness.

Let me sum up my non-dogmatic position about solar power. First, I recently disconnected my old passive solar water pre-heating system because it did more harm than good. Perhaps, a better person, a more virtuous person (I was going to say a more pious person) would have obtained better results from it than I did. Me, I don’t have the time or the patience; I have many unimportant things to do. Second, every time I ask for estimates about installing a modern solar heating or electricity producing system in my house, I am forced to realize that amortizing it would take thirty years. It’s not worth the bother. Perhaps, if I were a twenty year-old home owner. Perhaps if I put a little religious zeal behind the project. Third, I think solar power is wonderful doing what it’s currently doing all over America. I mean providing power for emergency telephones on highways and keeping boat batteries charged during long lulls in boat use.

Incidentally, reliance on solar power in poor countries such as India is another topic altogether. I said nothing about it this time

More incidentally, my skepticism is not of the same nature as the faith of many solar advocates. It’s no symmetrical to it. I don’t “believe” that solar power is worthless. All it would take would be a single good technical innovation in solar energy production to erase my skepticism. It would not take a profound experience of the kind St Paul experienced on the way to Damascus, for example. If I became converted, I would still be the same person, with all the same few virtues and, I hope, the same vices.

What sustainable technologies do you favor? I ask the young man pretend-innocently.

Tide-activated power plants, he answers simply.

It turns out I have some familiarity with the topic. I lived near the first one ever built anywhere. It was in France, inaugurated in the early sixties. I skin dived and speared fished and collected shellfish both upstream and downstream of it. I have no objection to this technology. Forty years later, we know it does not do any serious damage to anything. Even sailors have become used to it. There is even a certain elegant simplicity in its design: Tide comes up, turbines activate, water comes back down, turbines activate again. That first tidal dam doubles as a bridge that was needed at that spot anyway. No problem, as far as I am concerned. I am pretty sure the tidal power technology must have improved in fifty years; it should have, yet….

I ask the engineering student: Why are there only four in the whole world? Does this indicate something wrong, impractical, uneconomical, or something with this technology?

No, he states with perfect self-assurance but with courtesy, you must be wrong; there are thousands of them worldwide.

So, if I looked, I reply, I would easily find hundreds of tide-powered plants?

Absolutely, he affirms.

I go home and I do the obvious, the easiest thing: I look it up in Wikipedia. I was wrong, it turns out; there aren’t only four tidal plants in the world in actual operation, there are eight (8). I was wrong by fifty percent or one hundred per cent depending how you count.

Then I turn to the Wikipedia entry on “ozone hole.”

It has an unfinished look. It seems much like a work in progress or perhaps, a work abandoned in mid-course . The only citation in anything resembling a scholarly journal dates back to 1985. It’s side by side with references to the Huffington Post and even to Mother Jones. There is also in the entry interesting and reasonable speculation about nefarious indirect effects of ozone depletion on melanoma (skin cancer). There is no real health study, not even a crude one.

My young French interlocutor seems wrong here too.

Is it possible that the a deeper search would shore up more sturdily the case for ozone depletion and human health? It’s possible. I think it’s frankly unlikely. There are enough English speakers on the globe interested in such issues for the Wiki entry to be reasonably well updated.

How about the tidal plants? Could there be many more? My answer is a resounding “No.” Power plants are easy to count and hard to miss. Perhaps Wikipedia is much out of date, perhaps there are twice more than it indicates. That would be sixteen (16). That is still a tiny number. My original question remains intact: What’s wrong with this superficially appealing technology?

Why did I find out in my conversation with this young hands-on environmental activist and through its follow-up?

1 The French educational system (or his particular engineering school) is very bad;

2 He does not care about facts. He does not care enough to check with ten keystrokes something important to him. Sounds familiar?

You decide.

From the Comments: Incentives, Academe, Science and Grants

Brandon Christensen Comments , , , , ,

In my experience scientists [including social scientists and including me] are incented to get more money for their research. The effects of funding on research can be worrisome. For example for reasons of politics and public opinion a disproportionate amount of money was devoted to HIV research. By disproportionate I mean that in my opinion there would be more bang for buck on bigger public health problems like malaria, certain cancers etc.

However does that mean that I should doubt the findings of the virologists, immunologists, and all the other -ists doing the research? I think not. Certainly not in the aggregate. Chasing the bucks might lead them to doing research in the ‘wrong’ area so to speak but it won’t lead them to falsify their results.

This is from Dr Amburgey (he’s real) and it comes from an exchange on climate change/global warming. I raised a concern I had about the incentive structure built into the scientific community of the West, but Dr Amburgey’s logic has put my skepticism to rest.

2013: Thanks for a great year

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links ,

Today marks NOL‘s third year of existence.

It’s been a great ride so far. Below are some of our most popular posts of the year, but first I’d like to highlight the new ventures of some of our guest bloggers over the year.

As far as top 2013 posts at NOL goes, here are some of the most read:

Guillermo Pineda’s post “El grave error del libertarianismo guatelmateco…” was the most most-read post of 2013.

Andrew Roth’s post “Impeach James Clapper” was also a viral hit and Fred Foldvary’s “New Mexico’s Police Breaking Badly” spent a few days at the top of /r/libertarian’s front page.

Warren Gibson’s “Open Season on White Males” was his most popular 2013 post, and his 2012 post on “…Raising the Minimum Wage” went viral.

New notewriters Adam Magoon’s “Debunking the Wage Slavery Myth” and LA Repucci’s “Statists applaud death of unarmed mother…” garnered a lot of reads and our Russian correspondent’s (Evgeniy) debut post “Just to say hello” was wildly popular as well.

Judging by the amount of reads Jacques Delacroix’s post on “Unequal Poverty…” received, I think it’s safe to say that it proved to be controversial, and Payam Ghorbanian’s guest post on the recent Iranian nuclear talks garnered the most reactions.

Rick, Audrey, Michael, Tibor, Jesper, Matthew, Claudio and guest author Peter Miller all put in valuable time to contribute to a better understanding of liberty and freedom. Our third year is going to be our best yet, so don’t go anywhere!

Лицо терроризма в России

Evgenii Grigorev Current Events , ,

Я возвращаюсь с новой записью. К сожалению, она лишена праздничного настроения, так как за минувшие сутки в России произошли два ужасающих, бесчеловечных террористических акта, перечеркнувших так называемую “атмосферу Нового Года”.

Я даже не знаю, с чего начать… Думаю, многие из вас смотрят новости по вашим информационным каналам и в курсе террористических актов, которые произошли сегодня и вчера в одном из городов России. Я говорю про город Волгоград, крупнейший южный транспортный узел России, который за последние три месяца трижды подвергался атаке террористов. И вот, сегодня – два новых теракта, с интервалом в 17 часов. Террористы-смертники привели в действие взрывные устройства в здании городского вокзала и в троллейбусе, битком набитом людьми в час пик. По предварительным итогам, пострадало более 100 человек, погибло более 30. Среди тех, кому оказалось не суждено дожить до 2014 года – несколько детей, а также женщин.

Не буду углубляться в подробности. Слишком тяжело про это писать. При желании вы и сами можете поискать в интернете информацию.

За последние 20 лет лицо терроризма в России сильно изменилось. Если раньше мы имели дело с лидерами бандитов, управляющими достаточно крупными бандами, то сейчас имеем кучу разрозненных террористических шаек исламистского характера. Раньше с боевиками можно было хоть как-то договориться. У них была своя программа, требования, и исходя из этого их действия можно было хоть как-то предугадать и предупредить. Сейчас же мы сталкиваемся с фактами неприкрытого насилия против мирного населения. Не выдвигается никаких требований. идет откровенная война. Терроризм ради терроризма. Скажите мне, какие политические последствия может иметь взрыв в автобусе или метро? Да никаких. Жертвами выступает исключительно мирное население. От террористов, которые действуют ради самого процесса терроризма нет спасения. Их действия не предугадать, потому что в них нет логики и последовательности. А отсутствие хоть каких-то требований сводит на нет возможность конструктивного диалога.

Взять хотя бы для примера террористов, с которыми воюет Америка. Там все более-менее понятно. Какие-то требования, какие-то известные исламистские группировки. А у нас что? Никто не может понять. И судя по терактам, спецслужбы не могут их предотвратить или предупредить… Это ужасно, и у меня больше нет слов.

Я все сказал. Эта запись сделана “на эмоциях”. Надеюсь вы никогда не столкнетесь с тем, с чем сталкиваемся мы. Счастливого Нового Года. Я атеист, но тем не менее, сохранит вас Господь.

Related articles

California’s Neighborhood Legislature Initiative

Fred Foldvary Current Events, Politics , , , , , , , ,

In California, the voters are able to put proposed laws on the ballot if they gather enough signatures. This process is called an “initiative.” The legislature may also place propositions on the ballot, a process called a “referendum”.

One of the ballot propositions for 2014 is “The Neighborhood Legislature Reform Act,” which would decentralize the election of representatives in order to reduce the political power of special interests such as corporations, labor unions, and trial lawyers. This reform would shift political power to the people of California. (For the text of the initiative, see this.)

Like the US Congress, the California legislature has two houses, a Senate with 40 members and an Assembly with 80 members. The population of California is 38 million. The districts for the California Senate now have 950,000 persons, a greater number than for Congressional districts, while about 475,000 people live in each assembly district. It now takes a million dollars to win a California Senate seat.

The Neighborhood initiative would instead create Senate districts of 10,000 persons and Assembly districts of 5000. These neighborhood districts would form a greater association of 100 neighborhood districts within the current districts. The association council would elect a representative to the state legislature, thus keeping the same number of representatives in the state legislature. However, the final approval of a law would require a vote by all the neighborhood district representatives. That vote could be done on an Internet web site, as corporations now do for their elections of board members and propositions.

The Neighborhood Legislature proposition was initiated by John H. Cox, who has been a lawyer, real-estate management executive, and local office holder. The aim is to have the measure on the November 2014 ballot. That will require over 800,000 valid signatures, 8 percent of the votes cast for governor in the last election, by May 19. That is a high hurtle, which usually requires several million dollars to pay for signature gatherers. This initiative has already made a splash, with articles in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and other media.

I have been writing for years on reforming democracy with tiny voting districts in a bottom-up structure. Back in 2007, I wrote an article, “Democracy Needs Reforming”, proposing that the political body be divided into cells of 1000 persons, each with a neighborhood council. A group of these would then elect a broader-area council, and so on up to the national congress or parliament. The state legislature would then only need one house, rather than a bicameral legislature that mimics the US Congress and British parliament. This “cellular democracy” would eliminate the inherent demand for campaign funds of mass democracy.

The Neighborhood Legislature Reform Act would not be quite as thorough a reform as a cellular democracy based on tiny districts, but it has the same basic concepts: smaller voting groups, and bottom-up multi-level representation. This initiative would indeed greatly reduce the demand for campaign funds that are needed in today’s huge California electoral districts.

It will be a great challenge to obtain the needed signatures. It could happen if the media provide editorial support and coverage. At any rate, the fact that this initiative is taking place will go a long ways to publicizing the gross corruption of democracy that is taking place, and the only effective remedy to the inherent dysfunction of mass democracy. Many reforms are needed in today’s governments, reforms in taxation, pensions, environmental protection, transit, criminal law, and economic deprivation. The main reason that useful reforms are not taking place is the subsidy-seeking and reform-blocking induced by mass democracy. The initiative process in California and other states is a way to circumvent the corrupt legislature, but in a large state like California, that process itself requires big money.

It will be interesting to watch the progress of the Neighborhood Legislature initiative, and to watch the special interests jump in with misleading negative ads. If this goes on the ballot and wins, it will be a victory for the people and a defeat for the moneyed special interests.

(Note: this article first appeared in The Progress Report)