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

Reason interviews security guru Bruce Schneier. Lots of practical, in-perspective advice.

A friend at another university tells me that his school is banning the sale of bottled water on campus, as the university administration is bothered by the pollution produced by plastic water bottles.

Presumably, they figure that bottled-water consumers will switch to tap water, as tap water is bottled water’s closest substitute. I wonder — aren’t bottled soft drinks a closer substitute? Don’t people want the convenience of a container at their desk rather than an occasional drink at the water cooler (or a cup to be filled at the water cooler)?

[...]

That’s another excellent blog entry from the well known Freakonomics blog site. So, university bureaucrats paternalistically prohibit water bottles, so people switch to Coke or Pepsi. The bureaucrats “feel good,” but fail to do anything useful, and in fact make matters worse by promoting obesity. Sound similar to what Congress does on a weekly basis?

Sure it does! Previously, the same blog had a post on a “cash for old cars scheme.” The idea is that Big Government would give people money for old cars (as an anti-pollution measure, presumably… or maybe just a Detroit hand-out). The problem is as follows:

In sum, the unintended consequences of such a program would be that people would likely drive older (and more polluting) cars longerthan they otherwise would so as to be eligible for the money give-away. Further, some people might engage in the economically unproductive task of fixing up old cars merely to sell them to the government and have them trashed.

Thomas Barnett points out the irony (that escaped me)–we screw the UAE over on a deal to run shipping ports but are OK with them having nuclear technology. Funny irony when you think about it.

Like Barnett, I agree that the nuke deal was a good idea and actually increases our security, not the other way around.

A WSJ writer suggests that Obama will bargain to get the US’s fiscal house in order. Toward the bottom:

Here’s where the Grand Bargain could come in. Like Humpty Dumpty, the budget is going to be broken anyway. In putting it back together, would retirees be willing to accept that idea of having more prosperous seniors pay a monthly premium to receive their Medicare health coverage? Would liberals accept cuts in their favorite social programs? Would conservatives accept the idea of a carbon tax, to both raise big money for entitlements and prod the nation to move more quickly away from fossil fuels?

Obama is proving to be much more of a centrist than his campaign rhetoric. He may very well go down as a visionary if he can bring all sides together & find some real solutions (Medicare, Social Security).

The title of the editorial struck me b/c we really need a grand bargain in another respect as well–foreign policy. In the view of strategic visionary Thomas Barnett, we need a grand bargain with Iran to get closer to Mideast peace. Obama, unlike McCain, might actually do that, provided he doesn’t cave in to fears of being considered “soft” on foreign policy.

Grand bargains aren’t a sign of weakness, but refusing to bargain out of fear certainly is.

I’ve noticed certain “themes” that are prevalent in left-wing editorials. These themes are typically interspersed in editorials, satires, and Hollywood movies. Sometimes the implications are subtle, sometimes not subtle at all. The latter scenario might be more shocking or emotion-provoking (Michael Moore’s flicks, or Noam Chomsky’s books), but the former is far more pernicious.

Those themes are:

1. Disdain of capitalism/corporatism; obsession with class struggle; implicit or explicit favoritism toward Marxism or other non-market model
2. Obsession with idea that all racial and gender socio-economic disparity is explained by institutional and aggregate cultural biases, with no interest in important discussion on alternate view points on that important issue (to the detriment of those most adversely affected)
3. Disdain of religious faith of any kind, esp Christianity
4. Willingness to excuse intolerant groups deemed “oppressed,” including terrorist groups (i.e., the US “deserved” the 9/11 attacks by “freedom fighters”)
5. Along with previous theme, a kind of anti-majoritarianism; opposing the majority (the masses) for the sake of opposing them

None of this is to demean the many moderate liberals who do not share the fanaticism of the far-left. Nor am I suggesting that there aren’t wrong-headed themes on the far-right as well. Current culture, however, and especially Hollywood, leans much more heavily to the left, and the agenda-filled propaganda should be examined with these themes in mind.

I’ll add that some left-wing themes have some validity when evaluated objectively. For eg, theme 2 is certainly worth studying objectively. But fanatics–of all sorts–fail to consider their view points rationally and within the broad context, instead favoring ideological explanations.

Thomas Friedman has an interesting perspective on Israeli foreign policy–and American foreign policy–in the region. Nothing that hasn’t been said before, but good recap. Moving forward, I think Obama/Clinton (as pres & sec-state) will try the diplomatic approach. The stick and the olive branch approach has been tried, and failed, before, but it’s all Israel can do now, and worth trying again. Obama will take this opportunity seriously and might make some good in-roads.

Barbara Ehrenreich comments on the growing clout of the “nouveau poor”–whoever they are. Some excerpts, with my comments in green.

The media have been pelting us with heart-wrenching stories about the neo-suffering of the nouveau poor, or at least the formerly super-rich among them. Foreclosures in Greenwich, Connecticut! A collapsing market for cosmetic surgery! Sales of Gulfstream jets declining! Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue on the ropes! We read of desperate measures, like having to cut back the personal trainer to two hours a week. [What stories is she talking about? I've read about sob stories concerning Joe Six Pack, not Joe Millionaire.]

[...]

All right, I’m a journalist and I understand how the media work. When a millionaire cuts back on his crême fraîche and caviar consumption, you have a touching human interest story.

[Huh? What kind of story is that?]

My point is not to discredit all of Ehrenreich’s claims. But since her work is no doubt required reading at universities and possibly taken seriously outside that context, it’s useful to offer counterpoints. Certainly, there are rich people, and I guess it’s “not fair” that they’re rich. I’ve felt that feeling myself. That’s life, and an Ehrenreichist model, if there was one, would no doubt fail to solve that problem, just as the model of Marx and Engels similarly failed on a grand scale (repeatedly). Smaller scale attempts to legislate prosperity or to seize it and re-allocate it are fraught with problems as well.

This is one reason for my quasi-libertarianism. Politicians can spread wealth around, but they don’t create wealth, and spreading it around normally involves government consumption of most of it before blowing it out to select interest groups, who are then dis-incentivized to greater achievement on their own merits. The government seizes assets from the rich, bringing serfdom to the poor, who become addicted to government largesse like a drug.

None of this is to say that there’s not a role–a just role, in fact–for government. That role provides for the common good in a minimalist, but still significant, capacity. That role doesn’t punish the rich for becoming entrepreneurs, nor does it purchase votes from the poor via largesse–a sure path to serfdom for the poor. Instead, it provides the means of attainment for those who strive for it, and a fair shot for all to work hard. That’s why millions of immigrants strive to reach America’s shores. Not because we hold them down, but becomes they finally live in a place where they can lift themselves up.

tdaxp writes:

We hear a lot about the need for a pro-growth economic agenda. However, we need a pro-growth foreign policy agenda, too.

Of course, this means supporting the power and influence of actors who support growth, and reducing the power of influence of countries that oppose it.

Specific suggestions? We need to be pro-India and pro-China, because it is only these new core economies that can both spend and save enough to help America in our burden of leading the global economy. A pro-China/pro-India foreign policy will kill the Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF channels our relationship with other great powers into conflict, instead of growth.

Well-spoken. We can throw money down the toilet on “Star Wars” and get absolutely nowhere, or we can divert resources toward realistic threats, like weak, rogue states and trans-national terrorist groups. Current priority is focused on too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I hope the “pro-growth foreign policy” term, as defined by tdaxp, becomes mainstream.

Listen or read the transcript.

Bottom line: fiscal stimulus sounds good (like “universal health care”), but inefficiently allocates resources and promotes spending over saving.

Recovering from having 4 wisdom teeth removed yesterday. Everyone’s experience is no doubt different. The first day (after the anesthesia wore off) was very tough. The next day (today) has been substantially better. The painkillers are useful for the dual purpose of reducing pain and, as a bonus, helping me sleep (to expedite healing).

Toughest part: not being able to eat. That part is very, very hard. I’m stuck with beef and chicken broth (not soup, just the broth), as well as protein shakes. I haven’t even moved on to soft foods like mashed potatoes or apple sauce yet (playing it extra safe). Drinking my meals gets old fast.