g m g D e s i g n . c o m

There’s a furtive property boom in Cuba. It’s illegal, of course, since the oppressive socialist state forbids economic freedom. But the assumption is that Fidel’s successor will be more lenient than the long-time dictator.

But this is about more than housing upgrades. In addition to the obvious advantage of greater prosperity, states that transition peacefully from socialism to capitalism are freer and have governments that are, eventually, more transparent and democratic.

I guess this isn’t too surprising. It makes sense from a strategic point of view, and given the lack of success by China to cause reform from within in N Korea. They don’t want an immediate, theatrical collapse of the North (neither do the S Koreans), but they want to be prepared if a collapse happens.

Fascinating perspective by Thomas Sowell regarding what he refers to as classic greed masquerading as liberal environemntalism. His thesis here is that, in the name of environmentalism, some people in California are restricting new housing in or around their neighborhoods. These “open space” policies are in the name of the environment–the god of many liberal elitists–but that in fact they gain economically. I.e., by restricting the supply of houses that can be built, and with relatively constant demand, they inflate their own housing and property values. Sowell also notes that this disproportionately and adversely affects minorities.

I haven’t delved into this subject, but on the surface, the economics makes sense here. Any perspectives out there on this?

Strategic thinker Thomas Barnett suggests that Asia will lead energy efficiency innovation.

Interesting editorial on the merits of free-market capitalism on the NY Times. Not stuff we all don’t already know, but a nice, concise, cogent argument for free market skeptics. Good to see less moralizing and more reasoning on the Times editorial pages.

Concluding para:

Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you’re being extorted. When a free trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation — even if Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and the rest of the presidential candidates don’t want you to.

Robert Samuelson doesn’t like our current energy priorities. Concluding para:

This is not a case of unintended consequences. A new generation of “cellulosic” fuels (made from grasses, crop residue or wood chips) might deliver benefits, but the adverse effects of corn-based ethanol were widely anticipated. Government subsidies reflect the careless and cynical manipulation of worthy public goals for selfish ends. That the new farm bill may expand the ethanol mandates confirms an old lesson: Having embraced a giveaway, politicians cannot stop it, no matter how dubious.

In other news, I was pleasantly surprised to find a well-balanced, rational perspective on national priorities from Paul Krugman (who I’m not normally a fan of). Will this sort of tone and balance be a trend for Krugman? I hope so.