Monday, March 30. 2009
The Left has been talking a lot these days about income equality. I have no idea why. Even putting aside the fact that the Left's only plan to reduce inequality is to reduce the incomes of the prosperous, I see no virtue in income equality.
Furthermore, I see many serious problems with the concept, just two of which are disincentivization of risk-taking and of the assumption of responsibilities.
Fred Bauer discusses Yglesias on redistribution of "the wealth" (h/t, Riehl). One quote from Yglesias:
What if we had a 95 percent marginal tax rate on income over $10 million? What dire consequences would flow from this?
Besides the minor details of the loss of freedom and the confiscation of citizens' property (and the fact that people would quit buying those $200 million Powerball tix), what could possibly be wrong with it?
Ed. note: Many of the topics on wealth and poverty are discussed in Cassandra's fine post.
Sunday, March 29. 2009
People are reluctant to say that it is "subcultural," but it is. Wasn't it just one year ago that Al Sharpton was supporting Hillary Clinton against Obama because "Obama wasn't black enough"?
What's the main predictor of income gaps in America? Single parenthood.
Excellent overview of the American working person and his income at Villainous. One quote re the non-static nature of low income in the US:
A University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution -- middle class or higher. Moreover, three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991.
Thus there is no "poverty class" in the US. We are mobile, and poverty is temporary. Another quote, re Obama's taxes:
...the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed (in The Economist) is this one: “His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000.” It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions.
If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children.
Read the whole thing. Link above.
Thursday, March 26. 2009
New York City has a population of 8.2 million. 5000 of those people pay 30% of NYC's taxes.
Is that a "fair" distribution of the load? (h/t, Surber)
Videos at Thompson, Parts 1 and 2
Monday, March 23. 2009
Andy McCarthy says:
Congratulations to our friend Mark Levin on the publication of Liberty and Tyranny — A Conservative Manifesto, which is officially released this week. It's going to be a huge bestseller, and deservedly so. Mark has written a crystal clear and coherent summons to first principles against the statist onslaught — whether the issue is religious liberty, the free market, federalism, national-security, immigration, the environment or the welfare state. Through and through, Mark's love of country, his passion for our history, and his mastery of the Founding and constitutional law are striking. Yet the book is completely accessible to the non-lawyer: it is written for conservatives and recognizes, first and foremost, that the law and the state are meant to serve American freedom and self-determinism — not the other way around. And best of all: it's a great read. Do yourself a big favor and read it.
Friday, March 20. 2009

Pedro: If I win, you can be my secretary or something. Napoleon Dynamite: Sweet! Plus I could be your bodyguard, too. Or like, Secret Service Captain, or... whatever...
Thursday, March 19. 2009
Ramesh Ponnuru: The Pride of the Liberals. He begins:
Sometimes political movements, as they grow old, become arrogant, insular, and dismissive of criticism. Critics said that the conservative ascendancy of the last few decades succumbed to that disease, and there is more truth in it than conservatives would like to admit. What we are seeing in Washington, D.C., right now is different: President Obama and his supporters are showing early symptoms of this syndrome in the first flush of victory. The liberal ascendancy is already becoming a liberal complacency.
Read it.
A Columbia prof teaches a highly diverse class of Columbia's famous and required Contemporary Civilization. He discusses in A Look at Real Diversity.
He concludes:
I have been teaching a class on Western Civilization since September.
It is highly diverse.
My brown students are no less -- but no more -- meaningfully "diverse" than the others.
And in our class, together in all of our diversities, we have had a multifaceted and utterly human journey.
I'd give almost anything to teach that course for a couple of years.
Tuesday, March 17. 2009
There's a monotonous feel to the interaction between the stock market and government these days. A government hack says something dumb, and the market tumbles. The only adult left in the room, Ben Bernanke, will appear in some forum and talk a little sense. First the market stabilizes, and then jumps. Lather, rinse, repeat. Then every once in a while, the big kahuna of them all, Studs Urkel Obama, opens his yap and everyone with even a sock full of pennies heads for the exits. It's like clockwork.
Yesterday was only one in a raft of examples of this dynamic. Bernanke appears on Sixty Minutes, the market's riding on multiple consecutive days of big gains, likely fueled solely on shellshocked investor optimism that there's enough stability to preclude their money being subject to a kind of three-card-monte oopsie the next day. The DJIA is up 200+ by midday and it looked like maybe people might start to think it's dangerous not to be in the market. Then at noon a picture of Little Timmy and President Urkel running their mouths about AIG appears on Drudge and the market gives up three percent in two hours. Little Timmy Geithner has fallen into the Treasury well, and Lassie is dead. President Urkel can't even be in over his head, because he's never even been to the pool. He literally knows nothing about being an executive. Here's some advice for the dynamic duo: AIG deals in counterparty risk. The counterparties listen to you too.
It's the executive branch, you know. He's the chief executive. And it's his first executive position. It shows. President Urkel went live yesterday, and he complained. Whined, actually. He made an impotent gesture, talking about how someone should do something about those bonuses they dole out at AIG. Or he was going to do something, except he can't. Well, he said something, I'm not quite sure what, and neither was he. The US government owns 80% of AIG, and the chief executive of the US whined like a recently promoted secretary still asked to make coffee. He could do anything he wanted. But he did what all bad executives do: He tried to leave his castle with a pitchfork and join the mob and yell at the spot he used to be standing in. It doesn't work that way.
If President Urkel knew the first thing about being an executive, he'd know that you only whine up the ladder. You never whine to your underlings. They whine to you, you whine to your boss, and so forth. There is no "up" where you are, Mr. President. You're the Decider, now, remember? You asked for the job. That's why Nixon roamed the halls and talked to the pictures of dead people. They're your only colleagues now.
Be quiet, or do something. My advice is the former, because you seem to have no clue about the latter.
Monday, March 16. 2009
Charles Murray at The American. One quote:
...do we want the United States to be like Europe?
I argue for the answer “no,” but not for economic reasons. The European model has indeed created sclerotic economies and it would be a bad idea to imitate them. But I want to focus on another problem.
My argument is drawn from Federalist Paper No. 62, probably written by James Madison: “A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.” Note the word: happiness. Not prosperity. Not security. Not equality. Happiness, which the Founders used in its Aristotelian sense of lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole.
and another
What’s happening? Call it the Europe syndrome. Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. After the speech, a few of the twenty-something members of the audience approached and said plainly that the phrase “a life well-lived” did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.
Perhaps we already linked Voegli's essay of the above title, but, if we did, it bears repeating. Here's one quote:
Our age has seen political disdain become seamlessly integrated into cultural disdain. The prominent novelist E.L. Doctorow showed the way in 1980 when he wrote that Ronald Reagan had grown up in "just the sorts of places [small towns in Illinois] responsible for one of the raging themes of American literature, the soul-murdering complacency of our provinces.... The best and brightest fled all our Galesburgs and Dixons, if they could, but the candidate was not among them." Reagan did attend college, but not the kind that would have given him some exposure to the world outside the soul-murdering towns where he grew up, and to moral ideas calling into question his parents' religion. Instead, wrote Doctorow, a "third-rate student at a fifth-rate college could learn from the stage, the debating platform, the gridiron and the fraternity party the styles of manliness and verbal sincerity that would stand him in good stead when the time came to make his mark in the world." Achieving success in his first job out of college, as a radio announcer in Des Moines, Reagan made a number of local speaking engagements, "giving talks to fraternal lodges, boys' clubs and the like, telling sports stories and deriving from them Y.M.C.A. sorts of morals."
We see here all the basic elements, employed for the past 28 years, of liberal condescension. Every issue of the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, or Rolling Stone makes clear that the policy positions of George W. Bush, Republicans, and conservatives in general are wicked and stupid. The real problem, however, is that everything about these people—where they reside, what they believe, how they live, work, recreate, talk, and think—is in irredeemably bad taste. To embark on a conversation with one of them, based on straight-faced openness to the possibility of learning something interesting or important, would be like choosing to vacation in Wichita instead of Tuscany.
Friday, March 13. 2009
I assisted with an abortion one time in medical school, on my OB-Gyn rotation. I went to the bathroom afterwards, shook and sweated, and then puked my brains out. I refused to help with another abortion. Nobody minded. I delivered about 30 babies during that rotation. Scary if you get into a jam, but otherwise good fun.
Knippenberg considers the embryonic stem cell issue (an issue about which I have no particularly strong opinion), and notes the contradiction between the amoral notion of "let science do science" and the political notion of "most people want this."
I guess pols are experts at insulating their decision-making from morality and ethics. In my view, Utilitarianism, like "efficacy," is neither a moral nor an ethical posture. It's a cop-out. It's the easy way.
From Yuval Levin's Obama's False Choice:
Obama (also) chose to repeat the familiar cliché that the Bush policy was a betrayal of science. In his administration, he argued, “we make scientific decisions based on facts and not ideology.” The facts of the Bush administration’s funding of the research, its support for science funding more generally, and the emergence of alternatives to embryo destruction seem not to count. And the fact that every human embryo is a living human being seemed unworthy of mention.
Science policy is not a science: It must seek to use science to the benefit of the larger society, and also to restrain science in those rare instances when it threatens that society’s ideals. In hindsight, it seems increasingly clear that President Bush’s stem-cell-funding policy will stand as a model of how to strike a balance between these concerns. President Obama’s overturning of the Bush approach offers an unfortunate example of how fragile that balance often is.
Ed. note: Krauthammer today: Morally unserious in the extreme
Thursday, March 12. 2009
We should have been following this conference in NYC closely, but we can't do everything. Here's a dispatch from Reason, with this quote from Klaus' speech:
Klaus (also) warned that powerful rent-seeking groups were riding the global warming alarmism bandwagon all the way to the bank. Rent-seeking occurs when individuals, firms, or organizations attempt to make money by manipulating the regulatory environment rather than by trade and production. Klaus cited firms and non-governmental groups that plan to profit from carbon rationing in the form of emissions permits trading and by deploying highly subsidized solar and wind energy projects.
Watts Up has been following the conference. He also offers this toon:

Wednesday, March 11. 2009
Related to our first link of this morning, Focus on Outcome, we see this from Dr. Clouthier: We need to redefine merit...because standardized testing is racist.
How come I always thought that merit was supposed to be the solution to genetic and ethnic bias? I guess not. Racism and ethnicism are the new anti-racism and anti-ethnicism. Silly me to have trouble with that, after all this time.
With this obsession with the genetics of skin tone, why don't we simply revert to the old way, where our genetic blood-line determines what we get to do? No, I have no African blood (well, way back we all do), or royal blood either. English serfs mostly - essentially slaves (does that give me a leg up?), I believe, back in the 1400s. Hard workers who survived long enough to reproduce. A random knight or two, I believe, for whatever that's worth, and a few clergymen.
Thank God, no Irish blood.
Tuesday, March 10. 2009
George Bernard Shaw warned “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” The major overhaul of American health care pursued by President Obama and his supporters is based on many false premises and is excessive and likely to do more harm than good. Tuning up and improvements already always dynamically occurs. Instead, ObamaCare is aimed at dramatically changing one-sixth of the US economy in ways that are untested or tested and found wanting, primarily involving huge increases in government direction of health care.
The details of ObamaCare are largely being left to Congress, the same body that stuffs the federal budget with earmarks, waste, and other programs that are not requested. ObamaCare is premised on claims for drastic changes in health care and major increases in government programs being necessary. Those claims are largely specious.
Below the fold, the top ten specious premises for ObamaCare are discussed:
1. Comparing US Health Care To Other Developed Countries 2. US Health Care Spending Is More Than We Can Afford 3. Reform Overhaul Will Yield Major Savings 4. Increased Evidence-Based Medicine And Health Information Technology Will Significantly Improve Care and Reduce Costs 5. Present Administrative Costs And Insurer Profits Are Too High 6. US Consumer Dissatisfaction Requires Drastic Health Care Changes 7. Health Care Costs Are So High They Are A Major Cause Of Personal Bankruptcy 8. The Number Of Uninsured Is So Large That Drastic Health Care Changes Are Necessary 9. More Preventive Care Will Better Serve Consumers And Save Costs 10. Health Care Consumers Are Being Served By Drastic Health Care Changes
(More could be added, such as that government restraints on prescription drug prices will not impede incentives for innovations, but they are so transparently false that the list below dwells on other ObamaCare premises more misleading.)
Continue reading "Top Ten Reasons For ObamaCare Are Based On False Information"
Monday, March 9. 2009
The case that the Western World has gone mad, that our elite leaders are fools, and that we live in a lunatic asylum. From Part 9 of From Meccania to Atlantis in The Brussels Journal:
The asylum’s restraining device, a chain and ball, is made of paper. The United States Federal Tax Code takes up 67,024 pages. The Federal Register, i.e. government rules and regulations, takes up 78,000 pages. These 145,000 pages, weighing about 730 kg, are just the nucleus of the crushing grid within which the American citizen has to try to go about his daily life. In addition, there are tens of thousands pages more of tax codes and sundry regulations in each of the 50 states. In addition, each spending bill with which U.S. Congress further destroys the country and debauches its money, is over 1,000 pages long and rarely read by the people who vote on it.
In Europe, there were 80,000 pages of EU laws and regulations in 2005, 90,000 in 2006, and probably at least 100,000 now. Combined with the legal and tax code of each country, the EU citizen conducts his life with well over a ton of paper hanging from his neck.
To quantify the measure of the insanity further, it suffices to grasp that the outstanding nominal value of global swaps and derivatives at the end of 2008 was $531.2 trillion. Estimated Gross World Product in 2008 was $70.65 trillion.
We have therefore in our asylum inmates on the upper financial floor, hanging beyond the parapet with all of us in tow, unspooling toilet paper that they swear is worth 7.5 times the total value of all the goods and services produced on Planet Earth. And all of the West’s governments were blind as this was building up over many years, busying themselves instead with breaking their White subjects’ resistance to being governed by green pacifist lesbians or being invaded by over-100 million Muslims, Aztecs, and other assorted redeemers of the Euro peoples’ inexcusably Euro civilization.
It just may be that in the course of human events, it’s the lot of this generation to stand up and walk out of the theater of madness.
Tuesday, March 3. 2009
Yes, Viginia, there is a Communist Party USA. Randal Hoven at Am Thinker compares their agenda with Obama's. "Bingo!"
Thursday, February 26. 2009
For those who have faith in the power of civil discourse to expose and isolate radical nonsense, there was a small victory this week at San Diego’s prestigious University of California campus.
The faculty and grad students of its Ethnic Studies Department issued a Statement one-sidedly accusing Israel as racist for its actions in Gaza, the Statement failing to consider Gazans’ fault or, indeed, that Israel itself is a multi-racial society where Sephardic (mostly Middle Eastern) Jews as well as Arabs have more rights and economic opportunities than in any Islamic country. The Ethnic Studies Department scheduled a forum on campus for Wednesday, Feb. 25, to further their charge.
From on and off campus, there was vigorous written refutation of the charge, and criticism of the Ethnic Studies Department’s lack of academic standards. The refutations were informed and civil. I wrote a column in the San Diego Jewish World on the matter (including a link to the Statement and comment thread on it), pointing out that the Islamist and pro-Palestinian groups alliance with far leftists on campuses has graduated anti-Semitism from singling out individual Jews to eradicating the Jewish state.
The UCSD Ethnic Studies Department cancelled yesterday's forum, claiming that the “character” of counter-writings is threatening. This is another of such groups’ canards and excuses, actually further revealing their fear and inability to stand up to determined factual and sane rebuttal.
Each campus is different but, regardless of outcome, this incident demonstrates the power of civil discourse. If not exercised by those who believe in it, the field is surrendered to those who don’t.
Tuesday, February 24. 2009
A Climate Change leader, quoted at Thompson (not satire):
The longer I work on climate change, the less important I think it is whether or not the warmists or the sceptics are right. [...] Imagine a world where we had listened to the climate scientists and started to change our resource-consuming behaviour and address the inequities of the global economic system. Although the warming still didn’t materialise, we would have addressed a host of environmental issues and be living a largely pollution-free existence. We may even be saying thank you to the climate scientists who, although they got it wrong, provided us the opportunity to create a cleaner, brighter and fairer world.
Saturday, February 21. 2009
From A Beacon of Liberty amid Depression:
The event in question took place over four days in an obscure building, the Musée Social, just off the Boulevard Saint-Germain in Paris at the end of August, 1938. Present were some 26 academics, business people and writers, mostly from Europe, but including the American commentator and journalist Walter Lippmann (who, as it turned out, was in Paris on honeymoon at the time). Also in attendance, apart from the young Raymond Aron, were some of Europe's leading economists: Louis Rougier and Jacques Rueff from France, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek of the Austrian School, and two Germans, both living in exile, Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow. Although invited, neither the future Italian President Luigi Einaudi nor the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset was able to attend.
The immediate cause of this coming together was the publication of a French version of Lippmann's An Inquiry into the Principles of the Good Society by the Librarie de Médicis, the same publisher that had also recently published Rougier's Les Mystiques Economiques and von Mises's anti-collectivist broadside, Socialism. The wider context was the challenge to liberalism and the free market posed by the rise of a generalised state interventionism in the form of planning, corporatism and socialism. Capitalism seemed on the brink of systemic failure and for many it was capitalism itself that was to blame. Its decline and its end appeared inevitable.
But the participants also saw that the challenge they faced was directed against more than simply the liberal economic order and the political democracy born out of the 19th century. "The totalitarian rebellion," Lippmann commented in his introductory remarks to the conference, "attacks the entirety of the Western tradition - its religion, its science, its law, its state, its property, its family, its morality and its conception of the human person." As a matter of urgency, the civilised world had to find a response to an inhuman enemy.
And, like Benda, they saw that intellectuals were aiding and abetting this enemy. Never, Rougier asserted, had the clercs betrayed as much as they were now doing. They denounced the crimes of Hitler and of fascism but remained silent before the Moscow show trials. They called for the socialisation of the economy without understanding that they were weakening democracy and helping dictators. Believing themselves to be the most implacable enemies of tyranny, they were in fact its best allies. They were betraying the very cause that they professed to serve.
Read the whole essay at Standpoint
|