Monthly Archive for February, 2020

Recommended Reading

1. Bernie Sanders says (repeatedly) that he wants the United States to be more like Sweden. Bring it on! No estate or inheritance taxes, no minimum wage, a much higher ratio of consumption taxes to income taxes, an income tax system that is by some reasonable standards far less progressive, school choice, high deductibles and copays for medical care, lighter regulatory burdens and free trade. And a government that has shrunk by a third over the last few decades, ever since the Swedes got fed up with the economic stagnation that went hand-in-hand with the old-style Swedish socialism of Sanders’s fantasies. Farad Zakaria says all this and more in a spectacularly good op-ed at the Washington Post.

2. The ever-thoughtful Robin Hanson observes that if a whole lot of us are going to be struck by COVID-19, it would be a whole lot better for us not to all get sick at once. If I were pretty sure (maybe a bit surer than I am now) that I was destined to get sick eventually, I’d much rather have it be now than a few months later when 70% of my neighbors — including 70% of medical personnel, 70% of food providers, etc. — are all sick too. So maybe it’s time to start incentivizing people to expose themselves, get their illnesses over with, and be immune when the rest of us need them. Robin points out there’s plenty of precedent — parents used to be (and for all I know, still are) routinely advised that when one kid gets chicken pox, it’s a good idea to expose the others, because it’s easier to treat three at once then three in succession. (Of course the parents are aiming to bunch while Robin is aiming to minimize bunching, but the point in both cases is to think about how much bunching is optimal and then aim for it.) More here, with, as usual in a Hanson post, much worth pondering.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

The Rules of Excommunication

If Bernie Sanders wants to say that Fidel Castro occasionally did something good, while acknowledging that he often did things that were very bad, I think that’s a reasonable position. (It might also be reasonable to say that Adolf Hitler occasionally did something good, though offhand I can’t think of a good example.)

But surely — surely — if it’s reasonable to say this about Castro, then it’s enormously more reasonable to say that there were good people among the protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia, while acknowledging that there were also some very bad people. Because I have not the slightest shred of a doubt that the fraction of people on either side of that Charlottesville protest who were basically good is enormously greater than the fraction of Castro’s policies that were basically good.

You might want to argue that it’s not okay to acknowledge any goodness at all in a Hitler or a Castro or a large crowd of people that includes some number of violent neo-Nazis. I wouldn’t agree with you, because I think it’s always okay to acknowledge anything that happens to be true. But if that’s your position, you have to decide where to draw the line, and if you draw the line in a way that puts Trump beyond the pale, then Sanders is way beyond the pale.

In other words, I see how you can excommunicate both of them, I see how you can excommunicate just Sanders, and I see how you can excommunicate neither. My preference is neither. If your preference is otherwise, we can cheerfully disagree. But if you want to excommunicate just Trump, I’m very skeptical that you’re applying anything like a consistent standard. Feel free to prove me wrong in comments.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

Stop-And-Think

I hold these truths to be self-evident:

  1. Any law whatsoever, no matter how desirable on balance, will impose some costs on someone somewhere.
  2. In any society with more than about 12 people, it is virtually certain that those costs will be borne unequally.
  3. If the costs are borne unequally, then the costs borne by various individuals are virtually certain to be non-trivially correlated with at least one observable characteristic.

For example: A law that says you have to pick up after your dog will be costlier for dog owners than for non-dog-owners. Dog owners, depending on the community, will be either disproportionately old or disproportionately young or disproportionately rich or disproportionately poor or disproportionately ill or disproportionately healthy.

Therefore, unless you are willing to conclude that all laws are bad essentially without exception, you cannot argue that a law is bad just because it imposes individual costs in a way that is correlated with observable characteristics.

Therefore when Michael Bloomberg is criticized for supporting a stop-and-frisk policy because it caused disproportionate pain to young people with dark skin, his critics are being either disingenuous or unthoughtful.

Continue reading ‘Stop-And-Think’

Share

Swamp Creatures

Here’s what I saw on the news tonight:

1) A President exploiting the power of his office to manipulate the justice system.

2) A presidential candidate boasting about how, in her first act as a state legislator, she exploited the power of her office to manipulate the insurance market (by requiring the purchase of additional insurance to cover the cost of extended hospital stays for new mothers of hospitalized infants).

The President seeks to change judicial outcomes for the benefit of his small band of cronies. The presidential candidate sought to change market outcomes for what she portrayed as the benefit of a small number of patients.

At least the President seems to know what he’s doing. The presidential candidate seems not to have understood, and still not to understand (or at least pretends not to understand), that you don’t make people better off by forcing them to buy additional insurance after the market has already revealed that they have other priorities.

I also saw a bunch of commentators who, like me, are outraged, appalled, and frightened by the arrogance of the President. None of them offered any comment on the arrogance of the presidential candidate — who, frighteningly enough, seems to me to be probably the least dreadful of the alternatives.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share

Innumeracy at CNN

At the moment (and it’s been this way for quite a while), CNN has Amy Klobuchar 84 votes behind Pete Buttigieg, and 2.1% of the vote behind Pete Buttigieg. Which should mean that the total number of votes counted is about 4000. But Klobuchar and Buttigieg have about 11,000 each, and Bernie Sanders has more than that. None of the anchors seems even slightly perturbed by this.

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.

Share