Robert Murphy, a prominent Austrian School economist, has challenged Paul Krugman, a prominent neo-Keynesian economist, to a debate. Krugman has still not responded. See this link below. If/when the debate occurs, all money pledged will be donated to a charity to help the NYC homeless.
http://www.krugmandebate.com/
Shame Krugman into accepting by donating. No matter which side you agree with, everyone should want to see this actually happen.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Further evidence of internal contradiction
Florida bill seeking to outlaw speech of private physicians.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Re: re: Big Business LOVES Regulation
Gus writes:
"Selling foods with less sodium only requires that store to stock less sodium filled products, versus a meatpacker who has to purchase new equipment, hire new staff to monitor the meats, etc."
I think this undersells it a bit. The manufacturers of the food with less sodium will probably charge more for their food due to higher input costs. Salt is very cheap and an easy way to inject lots of flavor. If a manufacturer cannot use salt, it may have to use better quality ingredients in order to provide enough flavor to provide enough utility to the end consumer to keep him interested in purchasing the product.
Assuming I'm correct about that (I really don't know, its just an assumption), then Walmart can still afford to buy the food from the manufacturer and sell it at nearly the same price of pre-sodium regulation food. A mom and pop store may not be able to take the profit margin hit that this would necessarily entail. Once mom and pop have lost enough business to Walmart, they go out of business - leaving Walmart. Walmart can then increase its prices (due to a lack of competition) and make up for its lost margin.
"Selling foods with less sodium only requires that store to stock less sodium filled products, versus a meatpacker who has to purchase new equipment, hire new staff to monitor the meats, etc."
I think this undersells it a bit. The manufacturers of the food with less sodium will probably charge more for their food due to higher input costs. Salt is very cheap and an easy way to inject lots of flavor. If a manufacturer cannot use salt, it may have to use better quality ingredients in order to provide enough flavor to provide enough utility to the end consumer to keep him interested in purchasing the product.
Assuming I'm correct about that (I really don't know, its just an assumption), then Walmart can still afford to buy the food from the manufacturer and sell it at nearly the same price of pre-sodium regulation food. A mom and pop store may not be able to take the profit margin hit that this would necessarily entail. Once mom and pop have lost enough business to Walmart, they go out of business - leaving Walmart. Walmart can then increase its prices (due to a lack of competition) and make up for its lost margin.
Contracts and Coercion
Query: does an adequate theory of contract necessarily imply a coercive force? Is contract tantamount to law in a completely stateless society? Can contract exist without the state?
Re: Big Business LOVES Regulation
Danger agrees with Vedran Vuk's theory that Walmart is pulling the ol' meatpacker's trick. Though I can't really opine as to Walmart's strategy and whether they are pulling a somewhat homoerotic sounding "trick", I think requirements to lower sodium content of foods and requirements to improve the preservation of meat are qualtitatively different such that a smaller competitor in the walmart line of business today is not affected like the small meatpacker of yesteryear. Selling foods with less sodium only requires that store to stock less sodium filled products, versus a meatpacker who has to purchase new equipment, hire new staff to monitor the meats, etc. While big business may benefit from some regulations, I'm not sure this is one of them.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Big Business LOVES Regulations
Not my work, I just strongly agree:
Walmart’s announcement to reduce salt content by 25% and sugar content by 10% with a deadline of 2015 leaves me skeptical. It seems a bit too altruistic. Why, even the Huffington Post didn’t have an angle on it. Surely their resentment of Walmart would find something wrong with this promise. Surprisingly, they mentioned nothing. However, here’s my take. The article notes:
Food makers say they are trying to reduce sodium gradually, making it a more palatable change to its customers and giving the industry time to reformulate products. Most said they support efforts to curb sodium in American's diets but are waiting to see if the Food and Drug Administration decides to mandate a reduction.
In my opinion, the big companies are first hedging against the risk of a possible mandate from the FDA, but the second part of the plan might be the old Chicago meat packers trick. In the early 1900s, the largest meat packers in Chicago were some of the biggest proponents of increased regulation for the meat industry. At first, this seemed like a move out of the goodness of their hearts – just like Walmart’s sodium and sugar reduction.
But the real game plan was to destroy the smaller competition that had been slowly eating away at market share for years. The big companies could easily afford to hire inspectors for their large warehouses. However, small operations were crippled by the additional costs. As a result, the big food producers scored a big win with increased regulation.
I can’t be sure of this, but I think the same thing is happening here. Walmart’s products will “voluntarily” wean customers off salt and sugar with clever R&D over the next several years. And when they’re ahead of the game, they’ll likely lobby for regulations mandating reduced salt and sugar to cripple competitors that didn’t find ways to reduce it. Smaller companies that don’t have the R&D power of the bigger outfits will lose out.
Walmart’s announcement to reduce salt content by 25% and sugar content by 10% with a deadline of 2015 leaves me skeptical. It seems a bit too altruistic. Why, even the Huffington Post didn’t have an angle on it. Surely their resentment of Walmart would find something wrong with this promise. Surprisingly, they mentioned nothing. However, here’s my take. The article notes:
Food makers say they are trying to reduce sodium gradually, making it a more palatable change to its customers and giving the industry time to reformulate products. Most said they support efforts to curb sodium in American's diets but are waiting to see if the Food and Drug Administration decides to mandate a reduction.
In my opinion, the big companies are first hedging against the risk of a possible mandate from the FDA, but the second part of the plan might be the old Chicago meat packers trick. In the early 1900s, the largest meat packers in Chicago were some of the biggest proponents of increased regulation for the meat industry. At first, this seemed like a move out of the goodness of their hearts – just like Walmart’s sodium and sugar reduction.
But the real game plan was to destroy the smaller competition that had been slowly eating away at market share for years. The big companies could easily afford to hire inspectors for their large warehouses. However, small operations were crippled by the additional costs. As a result, the big food producers scored a big win with increased regulation.
I can’t be sure of this, but I think the same thing is happening here. Walmart’s products will “voluntarily” wean customers off salt and sugar with clever R&D over the next several years. And when they’re ahead of the game, they’ll likely lobby for regulations mandating reduced salt and sugar to cripple competitors that didn’t find ways to reduce it. Smaller companies that don’t have the R&D power of the bigger outfits will lose out.
--Vedran Vuk
Casey Research
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Re: Originalism and Freedom
In replying to my response to his original post, Gus makes some very interesting remarks, many of which I agree (specifically regarding the contradictions within the Republican platform). The point of my original post, however, was that you were not fleshing out these contradictions (at least this is how your post read). Rather, you claimed that the republican platform implies an extreme form of nationalism. My point was that this is wrong. The republican platform implies nothing. It is completely contradictory (I believe the same is true about the democrat platform as well).
Also, an originalist interpretive methodology does not imply a reverence to the past vs. the denial of authority to the present, nor does it imply a vacuous conception of freedom. At most, it implies a kind of distrust for government and legal officials in general. By anchoring the interpretive object in concrete rules, the originalist methodology seeks to limit the discretion of the interpreter (i.e., the norm applier). If the originalist was necessarily preoccupied with the authority of the "founding generation," she would recognize that many clauses of the Constitution are standards rather than rules (e.g., "cruel and unusual punishment"). Standards require certain evaluative judgments be made downstream by the norm-applier rather than the norm-creator. Thus, the norm-creator, by positing a standard, indicates the intention that evaluative judgments are to be made by the norm-applier. Originalists evince a certain distrust for legal officials by re-interpreting standards into rules ("cruel" means x, y, and z). This distrust may be the result of a variety of different political or pragmatic beliefs. For example, one may believe that (1) the point of having a fundamental legal rule (i.e., a constitution) is to lock in certain political-moral principles that cannot be changed by the whim of those currently in office, (2) the point of having "law" in general is to authoritatively settle political-moral disagreement, and (3) by granting officials wide discretion in interpretation, the point of such a system is undermined because we (the originalist) do not trust officials to interpret the norms in accordance with principles determined to be settled. In such a situation, one may argue for an originalist methodology without any reverence for the past.
Notice that this argument proceeds without denying the moral right of a generation to alter the core principles by which they are governed. Rather, it assumes that a "society" reproduces itself over many generations, that such a society is never made up of a single generation, and the belief that the whole point of establishing a fundamental rule is to authoritatively settle certain disputes such that the fundamental structure of the system need not be in constant flux. Thus, in the event that a generation desires a change of the core principles that the society is governed by, it requires that a vast majority of such a society to agree. The reason for this super-majority requirement is that it permits the fundamental rule of the system to function as a fundamental rule.
There is one further point worth noting. Alternative interpretive methodologies do not imply an added appreciation for the moral authority of a generation to determine the principles by which they are governed. The Dworkinian interpretive methodology is decidedly anti-democratic and places great weight on the past.
I believe that the crux of the political rhetoric is not to be found in any fundamental belief regarding democratic authority and the moral right to determine the fundamental principles of a system. Rather, interpretive methodologies are argued for based on political expediency. If republicans believe that, based on the current judicial climate, judges are likely to overturn their favored legislation, they will argue for whatever interpretive methodology reins in the courts. If democrats believe that, based on the current political climate, state legislatures are likely to produce laws contrary to their favored policies, they will call for an interpretive methodology that produces the results they desire. It cuts both ways and both sides are fraught with contradictions.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
"Boehner elected speaker of the house"
You know that journalists love putting this as their headline . . .
Update: To be clear, I did not know how his name is actually pronounced, a boner on my part.
Update: To be clear, I did not know how his name is actually pronounced, a boner on my part.
Re: Originalism and Freedom
Hume comments:
"Although I am not a "Republican" (or a "conservative" or "right wing" etc.), I think that this statement is misguided. Much of the rhetoric of Republican politicians (I assume you are not discussing theorists) surrounding originalism as a constitutional theory (and the Republican platform in general) urges 'States' rights' and restrictions on the federal government.This is antithetical to the idea of nationalism."
Though Hume presents a contradiction, the contradiction is not mine. Republicans, rather, extoll the virtues of "freedom" (which, to them, means lower taxes, "smaller" national government and, in some cases, more power in the hands of states), promote a massive military and global corporations, and rail against the tyranny of Democrats, all the while believing that the Constitution is binding and that it only means what it meant to a group of landed white men 250 years ago. That Republicans both emphasize "state's rights" and believe that the Constitution binds everyone in the United States to the meaning of words as such were understood 250 years ago does not undermine the thesis of my prior comment. Rather, it illucidates this deeply embedded Republican contradiction.
"Moreover, any political theory justifying 'the state' (short of cosmopolitanism and world government) perpetuates an 'us vs. them' mentality. It separates people by geographical boundaries and asserts special obligations to 'fellow citizens' that do not apply to 'outsiders.' So I think that your hostility towards the Republican platform is too narrow and under-inclusive."
Justifying the presence of a state does not require one to assume an adversarial relationship with those who do not submit to the jurisdiction of that state, as the "v." would imply. But Hume makes a fair point. Nonetheless, it doesn't really address the issue I raised. If I were making the comment that Republicans don't believe in real freedom and Democrats do, than he would be accurate in saying that my "hostility" is "too narrow and under-inclusive." But, alas, that is not my point. My point has to do with the nature of the word "freedom" and its analogs in the rhetoric of Republican politicians. I can contrast the perspective of Democrats, who argue that government can be "good" and help create more equitable circumstances, with that of Republicans, who claim the mantle "freedom" and aspouse the efficiency of "free markets" and conjur fear of "big government". This makes my point more compelling because I am pointing out a contradiction. When Republicans use the word "freedom" they don't mean "for everyone" and they don't actually mean anything close to freedom from government. Quite to the contrary, they believe that no generation subsequent to the founders has a right to alter the core principles by which they are governed without the consent of a vast majority of people throughout the nation. That is my point. Whether or not this is a conscious part of the Republican platoform, it is certainly implied.
"Also, your focus on the authority of the past is somewhat misguided as well. One thing to notice about the nature of law is that all laws, absent an expression to the contrary, claim authority to bind future generations. Any theory justifying the authority of law justifies the authority of one generation to bind future generations. Notice that a law enacted by Congress in 1934 is valid today, absent an express change or amendment."
Hume's point, that all laws claim authority to bind future generations subject only to change or amendment, is fair enough, though this somewhat misses the point as well. Statutes promulgated by legislatures can be repealed or amended rather easily. Amendment of the Constitution, by contrast, involves the almost Herculean effort of obtaining a supermajority of both houses of Congress, then ratification of 75% of the state legislatures. Hence, with the exception of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times in 250 plus years. The flexibility of the law and its susceptibility to change is at the core of my comment, which highlights how permanent and frozen in time Republicans would prefer the the meaning of the Constitution to be.
"Although I am not a "Republican" (or a "conservative" or "right wing" etc.), I think that this statement is misguided. Much of the rhetoric of Republican politicians (I assume you are not discussing theorists) surrounding originalism as a constitutional theory (and the Republican platform in general) urges 'States' rights' and restrictions on the federal government.This is antithetical to the idea of nationalism."
Though Hume presents a contradiction, the contradiction is not mine. Republicans, rather, extoll the virtues of "freedom" (which, to them, means lower taxes, "smaller" national government and, in some cases, more power in the hands of states), promote a massive military and global corporations, and rail against the tyranny of Democrats, all the while believing that the Constitution is binding and that it only means what it meant to a group of landed white men 250 years ago. That Republicans both emphasize "state's rights" and believe that the Constitution binds everyone in the United States to the meaning of words as such were understood 250 years ago does not undermine the thesis of my prior comment. Rather, it illucidates this deeply embedded Republican contradiction.
"Moreover, any political theory justifying 'the state' (short of cosmopolitanism and world government) perpetuates an 'us vs. them' mentality. It separates people by geographical boundaries and asserts special obligations to 'fellow citizens' that do not apply to 'outsiders.' So I think that your hostility towards the Republican platform is too narrow and under-inclusive."
Justifying the presence of a state does not require one to assume an adversarial relationship with those who do not submit to the jurisdiction of that state, as the "v." would imply. But Hume makes a fair point. Nonetheless, it doesn't really address the issue I raised. If I were making the comment that Republicans don't believe in real freedom and Democrats do, than he would be accurate in saying that my "hostility" is "too narrow and under-inclusive." But, alas, that is not my point. My point has to do with the nature of the word "freedom" and its analogs in the rhetoric of Republican politicians. I can contrast the perspective of Democrats, who argue that government can be "good" and help create more equitable circumstances, with that of Republicans, who claim the mantle "freedom" and aspouse the efficiency of "free markets" and conjur fear of "big government". This makes my point more compelling because I am pointing out a contradiction. When Republicans use the word "freedom" they don't mean "for everyone" and they don't actually mean anything close to freedom from government. Quite to the contrary, they believe that no generation subsequent to the founders has a right to alter the core principles by which they are governed without the consent of a vast majority of people throughout the nation. That is my point. Whether or not this is a conscious part of the Republican platoform, it is certainly implied.
"Also, your focus on the authority of the past is somewhat misguided as well. One thing to notice about the nature of law is that all laws, absent an expression to the contrary, claim authority to bind future generations. Any theory justifying the authority of law justifies the authority of one generation to bind future generations. Notice that a law enacted by Congress in 1934 is valid today, absent an express change or amendment."
Hume's point, that all laws claim authority to bind future generations subject only to change or amendment, is fair enough, though this somewhat misses the point as well. Statutes promulgated by legislatures can be repealed or amended rather easily. Amendment of the Constitution, by contrast, involves the almost Herculean effort of obtaining a supermajority of both houses of Congress, then ratification of 75% of the state legislatures. Hence, with the exception of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times in 250 plus years. The flexibility of the law and its susceptibility to change is at the core of my comment, which highlights how permanent and frozen in time Republicans would prefer the the meaning of the Constitution to be.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Re: Originalism and Freedom
"I think this is a good reminder that the Republican platform implies an extreme nationalism that necessarily abridges the concept of "freedom" to conform to an us versus them dichotomy."
Although I am not a "Republican" (or a "conservative" or "right wing" etc.), I think that this statement is misguided. Much of the rhetoric of Republican politicians (I assume you are not discussing theorists) surrounding originalism as a constitutional theory (and the Republican platform in general) urges "States' rights" and restrictions on the federal government. This is antithetical to the idea of nationalism. Moreover, any political theory justifying “the state” (short of cosmopolitanism and world government) perpetuates an “us vs. them” mentality. It separates people by geographical boundaries and asserts special obligations to “fellow citizens” that do not apply to “outsiders.” So I think that your hostility towards the Republican platform is too narrow and under-inclusive.
Also, your focus on the authority of the past is somewhat misguided as well. One thing to notice about the nature of law is that all laws, absent an expression to the contrary, claim authority to bind future generations. Any theory justifying the authority of law justifies the authority of one generation to bind future generations. Notice that a law enacted by Congress in 1934 is valid today, absent an express change or amendment.
Originalism and Freedom
I was reading this Q & A with Justice Scalia - http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1 - and I thought of a question: for Republicans who claim the concept of freedom as their polestar, how does it square that your judicial champions believe that you are not only bound by a document that is (not including amendments) more than 250 years old, but that you are bound by what what the people who enacted it believed it to mean at that time?
Truthfully, it doesn't. I think this is a good reminder that the Republican platform implies an extreme nationalism that necessarily abridges the concept of "freedom" to conform to an us versus them dichotomy. Further, this dichotomy identifies as its major point of departure, i.e. the point at which the circle was drawn around "us," a period in history during which property-holding white christian males dominated society.
I mean, am I wrong?
Truthfully, it doesn't. I think this is a good reminder that the Republican platform implies an extreme nationalism that necessarily abridges the concept of "freedom" to conform to an us versus them dichotomy. Further, this dichotomy identifies as its major point of departure, i.e. the point at which the circle was drawn around "us," a period in history during which property-holding white christian males dominated society.
I mean, am I wrong?
Persistence and Anarchy
A problem with the argument of no state anarchists (e.g. those who call for abolishing government) is that they presuppose that anarchy would persist without any explanation as to how. There is some expectation that without any state or states(how states would vanish is unexplained, though, presumably, there is at least the ability to "abolish" things), individauls would engage in free trade with each other and, at worst, form voluntary associations that would not only be more moral but more efficient in allocating resources among the individuals involved. However, I wonder how "anarchy" is preserved. Is there not at least a single rule, which requires that there be no states? Would there not be consequences for violating this rule? Is this okay?
Furthermore, what of these associations and there ability to grow large, make markets with their larger numbers, maintain a military and assert influence or force their ideals on others? As this association grows and begins to dominate more territory, how does the anarchist plan to oppose this voluntary association that simply believes in a different set of moral principles like, say, the preservation of the association's members above all else or whatever god says?
Furthermore, what of these associations and there ability to grow large, make markets with their larger numbers, maintain a military and assert influence or force their ideals on others? As this association grows and begins to dominate more territory, how does the anarchist plan to oppose this voluntary association that simply believes in a different set of moral principles like, say, the preservation of the association's members above all else or whatever god says?
Monday, January 3, 2011
My New Year's Resolution
Well, I have a few, but one I hope to follow through on is participating on this blog. For those of you who don't know me, I cannot help you. I will try to counterpunch effectively for the agnostics.
When is a political philosophy too utopian?
This is the ideal theory / non-ideal theory distinction. At what point is an ideal theory too ideal?
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)