|
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.
|
|
This is not a picture of me, though. |
Wall Street too skittish to lend right now? Borrow from silicon valley!
This article is incredible. After reading it, I immediately left a positive review on google for the pizza hut I’d visited the night before.
Also, approx. once a week I post on the Show-Me Institute’s blog. Check it out.
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
According to a Post-Dispatch article the city of Joplin will no longer allow teachers in its public schools to show any visible tattoos.
Now, at first blush, this seems like an infringement on liberty, and perhaps it is. But it may also be a way for a local government to provide something people want, without the drawback of forcing all to comply. Let me explain.
In 1956, an economist named Charles Tiebout (pronunciation: I’m told his last name rhymes with see-through) put forth the idea that if (a) information is sufficiently available, (b) moving is relatively inexpensive, and (c) there are sufficiently many communities to chose from (there were a few other assumptions that aren’t important here), then communities would be able to most closely match the preferences of their constituents. Joplin has provided an alternative for people who prefer to send their children only to schools where the teachers have no obvious ink. If it were a statewide mandate, I would oppose it on the grounds that it is difficult to aggregate the preferences of an entire state. Because it is local, however, I celebrate the experiment.
For other Show-Me Institute–related references to Tiebout, go ahead and check out our first policy study, published way back in March ’06.
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
There’s a nice short article on KOMU Channel 8’s website advocating increased public funding for health care in Missouri. Now, I am not a monster. I do think it would be better if more people had better health care — but I am not willing to ignore the costs. Therefore, I disagree with the efficacy of the method supported in this piece. Sure, if we increase taxes or divert funds from current projects, we can spend more on health care. But there is little reason to believe this would bring about a preferable outcome.
My complaint is twofold. Firstly, it is difficult to be sure that public funds would be spent in the areas of greatest need. There is instead reason to believe that leaving money in the hands of the taxpayers will allow them to spend it on whatever medical treatment has the highest benefit/cost ratio for their particular time and place. Second, let’s not forget that public spending in particular areas tends to crowd out comparable private industry in those areas, even when that private area is charitable in nature. From the article:
Brown gets free therapy at the University of Missouri’s School of Health Professions from a program that runs on donations. Brown and his [fiancée] realize without it he would have no therapy at all.
Now, the government may have established incentives, such as tax breaks, to encourage this kind of behavior from the SHP — but this is plainly a privately funded project. Rather than encourage the government to tax/spend more on something that most people would agree benefits those in need, instead perhaps it would be worthwhile to encourage increased private donations to such programs, demanding no funds from already cash-starved public coffers. And, more importantly, let us celebrate the decency of the SHP and its donors for providing such a wonderful service to those in need.
For related reading from the Show-Me Institute, see Calvin Harris’ recent op-ed.
An article at time.com discusses the downsides to falling oil prices. The downsides? Really?
When did the popular press start siding with the fatcats? I loves me some capitalism, but I take no truck with pure exploitation. I honestly believe that free markets produce the most desirable outcomes.
Why should we worry that the oil-rich countries are losing some revenue? BOO HOO. Economics is the science of scarcity and trade-offs. OPEC may not make as much this year as they expected, but some number of the 300 million americans(not to mention the billions abroad also buying gas at cheaper prices[Chinese and Indian middle-class, I’m looking at you]) who buy gas every week will find themselves suddenly with a lot more money to spend on other things.
Let us not forget that OPEC is a cartel. Their very existence is forbidden by US law(which is why they have to hold their meetings in other countries). Some readers may point out that since I disagree with most laws regulating business, I probably disagree with our anti-trust laws. I do, but that’s not the point. Just because I personally think that cartels should be permitted to exist doesn’t mean that A) I think they are necessarily good or B) Time magazine should be calling for sympathy for them.
Regarding the environmental concerns. I have already stated my stance on the popular view of global warming. Cheaper gas means more people buying it(the law of demand) means more emissions. What’s the trade-off here? A global mean surface temperature perhaps 4-9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in 2100 in exchange for millions of people able to pay their bills from now till then. Even if CO2 emissions are bad, and global warming is a dire consequence, perhaps artificially raising oil prices is not the answer. (anybody heard a’ deadweight loss say “YEAYAH!”)
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
The stock market troubles that have made the front page of CNN’s website almost every day for the last two weeks (at least) are fairly generally accepted to be part of a national economic slowdown, which is almost certainly much older than the recent turmoil.
Two results of the slump from USA Today: Missouri is one of the states having to cut back on spending (namely, on Lambert airport renovations and bridge repairs), and has seen dropping gas prices (Missouri is one of the three states in which average prices dropped to less than $3 per gallon).
There is an interesting coincidence here. Reduced gas prices will almost certainly mean increased gas consumption (depending on the relative effect that other aspects of these hard times have on Missouri residents’ incomes and expectations), so the federal highway trust fund may well prove to provide more than anticipated to fix those bridges, which would alleviate the need for additional highway funding from the general fund.
Lastly, I feel I would be remiss if I did not link to our policy study from February about Missouri’s transportation future.
Oh yeah, and I got a job working in a free-market think tank.
We have a blog. I have already posted in it. Scroll down to the one titled “Police You Can Count On”.
I am a research assistant, and I work 18 hours a week.
According to my admittedly dubious calculations, the oil drop depicted on the cover of this book would satisfy our current(actually 2005) oil consumption for over 7 million years.
all the data and assumptions needed to duplicate my calculations.
[This post was originally written for my employer’s blog, Show-Me Daily.]
The Post-Dispatch reports that St. Louis has a new police chief. My favorite part of the article:
[New chief Daniel] Isom said he will take a more modern approach by decentralizing the decision-making.
“I want to push resources down to the district level in the neighborhoods, so officers can rapidly respond to crime,” he explained.
I was pleasantly surprised by this. All too often, governments speak of the strength and reliability of centralization, while nearly the whole history of free-market economic thought touts the benefits of individual-level decision making. In particular, this reminds me of the argument for law enforcement decentralization put forth by David Friedman in chapter 17 of this month’s Show-Me Institute book club selection. Friedman makes the case that centralized police forces tend to invest more of their resources protecting the wealthy, causing the poor to feel powerless against crime and, indeed, infractions by the police themselves.
Delegation of authority to local levels should result in, at the very least, increased accountability. I look forward to observing the effectiveness of Isom’s implementation, and, more importantly, his administration’s results.
I only took it once, I feel I should’ve gotten a higher socially permissive score. Some of the questions were very poorly worded.
| You are a Social Liberal (83% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (96% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
