Intellectual Prevarication

Bret Stephens, the affirmative action conservative hire at the New York Times, has a column out today about hurricanes and how they affect poor countries much worse than rich ones. He's right as far as that goes.

However, he drops this nice little piece of bullsh*t in our laps:

Between 1940 and 2016, a total of 3,348 people died in the United States on account of hurricanes, according to government data, for an average of 43 victims a year. 

I suppose that's fine as far as it goes. It gets difficult for me to take him credibly, however, when he fails to note that, based on the very link he provides, there were 1,016 hurricane-related deaths in 2005. Anyone remember what happened, hurricane-wise, in 2005? 

(Hint . . . the Big Easy, anyone?)

I wonder why Brett Stephens, the affirmative action voice of conservatism in the New York Times, would elide the fact that fully 30% of the hurricane deaths suffered in the past 56 years in this country happened in 2005, during one particular hurricane. Huh.

The Fruits of Your Labor

In light of Hurricane Harvey's devastation of Houston, I found this piece by Sheila Kennedy (another local blogger and a favorite of mine) to be most enlightening. An excerpt:

Last year, for example, a ProPublica/Texas Tribune investigation found that officials charged with addressing Houston’s obvious susceptibility to flooding had discounted scientists’ warnings as “anti-development.”

That reaction was so typically Houstonian.

For years, Houston has reveled in its “freedom” from “onerous, unnecessary regulations.” 

I suppose Houston, and Texas writ large, and any other area of the country, has the right to implement policies that they believe are in their interests. This is the very essence of federalism. This piece highlights that Houston, presumably after weighing the costs/risks/benefits, decided that doing things like regulating how much concrete a developer can put down or how much wetland can be drained is not worth the cost of doing so.

As I said above, I suppose this is Houston's prerogative. Of course, it reminded me of another common story that we in Indiana hear often about Illinois' budget problems. See here, here, and here, for but a few examples. We often hear horror stories about how the federal government (i.e. the citizens of Indiana, among others) will have to bail out Illinois' failing budget obligations.

I can't help but link the two stories together.

Illinois, like Texas, has the prerogative to set policies that it believes are in its own interest. If Texas wants to pave over wetlands, perhaps that is their right. If Illinois wants to put itself in debt guaranteeing pensions to its public employees, perhaps that too is their right.

The problem comes when they externalize the costs of those policies. As it sits, the citizens of relatively eco-friendly Vermont, Massachusetts, and California are going to be on the hook for the policies of Texas, that surely the citizens of eco-friendly states would view as "penny wise and pound foolish." Similarly, the citizens of Indiana, Tennessee, and Kentucky may be on the hook for the policies of Illinois, which those of us in fiscally prudent states may view as "profligate."

My point is not to evaluate any of these policies on their merits, because all public policy is typically a choice between imperfect options. Perhaps Illinois could have been stingier with their pensions, but they determined that doing so would have a negative effect on their public workforce. Perhaps Texas could have been stricter in its environmental and building regulations, but they determined that doing so would stifle development.

At risk of repeating myself, this is their prerogative. However, it is not their prerogative to externalize the costs of their decisions onto their fellow citizens. If I want to quit my job, that means that I would have more free time to spend with my kids. However, I don't think that I have the right to expect my neighbors to cover the negative externalities of that decision (i.e. I have no right to expect my neighbors to pay my mortgage or buy my groceries).

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. However, it really sticks in my craw when I hear Texas politicians (who constantly lecture the country on personal responsibility and making fiscally sound decisions) now approach the federal government with their hands out, seeking a bailout from the predictable consequences of their policy decisions.

As you sow, so too shall you reap.

Zoning

How can it be that with two very polarized political parties in this country, and the polarized policies that go along with them, we wind up with a basic issue that is addressed so poorly by both sides? The issue I'm talking about is zoning.

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and columnist for the New York Times, had an interesting take today:

The disaster in Houston is partly Mother Nature — natural disasters will happen sometimes whatever we did — but with a powerful assist from human action. Climate change definitely made such an event more likely; beyond that, Houston’s total lack of zoning, complete failure to limit the amount of land paved over, made it much more vulnerable than sheer geography required.

But this isn’t a simple parable where hostility to government intervention is the villain. In general, I have contempt for “both sides” arguments; given the corruption of modern American conservatism, on most issues there is a huge asymmetry between left and right. When it comes to land use policies, it really is true that both sides get it wrong.

Having no zoning, no control, can be disastrous — which is what we’re seeing in Houston now. But all too many blue states end up, in practice, letting zoning be a tool, not of good land use, but of NIMBYism, preventing the construction of new housing.

In fact, liberal (in the non-political sense) land use policy is probably the secret behind Texas economic growth: the state doesn’t offer high wages, but it does offer cheap housing even in huge metro areas. Compare real housing price evolution over the decades in Houston and San Francisco (sorry, the blue state is the red line and vice versa):

Photo

Credit

What we need is effective land-use regulation that doesn’t strangle housing construction. But how do we get there politically? No idea.

Now, as is commonly known to the reader(s) of this blog, I generally think that modern "conservative" policy ideas are, in a word, terrible. Nonetheless, the facts are what the facts are. In places like New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago, constructing new residential housing is nearly impossible. The predictable result of this is that the cost of housing skyrockets . . . you know, that old "supply and demand" thing.

Of course, I also have environmental sensitivities, so I don't think that constantly putting, for example, high rise condos on coastal Florida (which is eroding) is a good idea, if for no other reason than it destroys copious amounts of natural wetlands (natural weather buffers and water filters).

I guess it's because I think that zoning is generally both "overinclusive" and "underinclusive" that I have such an issue with people's reactions to the Wilshaw project. I support development, particularly in places that have already been developed once. I think the Wilshaw project should go through, even though I don't think that the Town of Speedway should be underwriting Wilshaw's parking garage: if Wilshaw wants a parking garage, they can build one; if the Town of Speedway wants one, we can build one. "He" who builds it, pays for it; "he" who pays for it, owns it. This is not a difficult concept.

Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I also have some thoughts about the national flood insurance program, which is currently quite deep in debt, but I'll save those for another day.

My Letter to the Editor

For reasons that I cannot explain, I have stopped writing letters to the Indianapolis Star. If I were to speculate, it's probably because I don't like their online platform, but I haven't really put all that much thought into it.

I do, however, write letters to the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette from time to time. I recently had one published (August 22, 2017). Here is the text:

The Journal Gazette ran a letter on Aug. 9 by Richard W. Burridge that is quintessential AM talk radio spittle.

Burridge alleges that “it was never the government's duty to provide us with health care or demand that we buy insurance.” On what authority does he base this assertion? He politely refuses to disclose.

He then says that the government is “to provide help for the poor and needy, but we were to be self-sufficient, not government-dependent.” Again, he provides no authority for his statement.

The fact that Burridge believes something makes it an “opinion.” Things that can be independently verified are “facts.”

Here is a fact: The U.S. Constitution's first sentence gives the federal government the authority to “promote the general Welfare.”

My opinion is that health care is part of the general welfare. Perhaps Burridge's opinion is otherwise. Nonetheless, the Constitution says what it says.

If Burridge has some authority to support his opinions on the proper role of government, perhaps he should cite them. Otherwise, kindly leave the AM talk radio talking points on the AM dial and refrain from presenting opinions as facts.

Back to First Amendment Rights

This is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please note the first word: Congress. That is the entity to whom it is directed: Congress.

I write this in light of a letter published in my old hometown newspaper, the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette. Here is the text of it:

I read the article headlined “Citizens unite against hate” from the Aug. 17 Journal Gazette. Jamie Duffy wrote, “...violence broke out Saturday after a mix of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists assembled to protest the city's decision to remove a statue...” Apparently, these groups fought among themselves. 

There is no mention of the group that arrived to deny the former their First Amendment rights. Regardless of your political leanings, the latter group was there, and they were actively engaged in the violence.

The deliberate omission of the second group spotlights the bias of the author. Is reporting all the facts too much to expect from Journal Gazette writers? 

Now, leaving aside the Trumpian "both sides do it" angle of this, attempting to equate the White Supremacists with those who wanted to counter-protest neo-Nazis, this might be the stupidest thing I've read all day (and I've read a lot of stupid $hi+ today).

Let me say this as clearly as possible: The First Amendment applies ONLY to the government and its agents (who are acting within the scope of their governmental authority). I am not the government, and I can tell you that you MUST refrain from using words that start with "R" when you're on my property. That is my right, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

If a Tea Party or Anti-Trump rally takes place in Meadowood Park, I can, consistent with the First Amendment, bring my guitar and amp out there and drown out the protesters completely. I can bring a bullhorn out there and shout them down. I can bring a white noise machine. By virtue of me not being the government, I have NO ability to deprive ANYONE of their First Amendment rights.

This is not a difficult concept. It applies to other amendments as well.

Who Pays?

Back in November, I would joke with my wife that I was going to run for Speedway Town Council on the slogan of "Make Speedway Great Again," and the main plank of my platform was going to be that we're building a wall and making Indy pay for it.

Ha Ha.

Of course, our Tweeter in Chief has recently indicated that if Congress doesn't appropriate the money to pay for his beloved border wall, he may shut down the government.

Wait. What?

I mean, I never really believed ANYTHING coming out of President L'Orange's mouth, but he said it over and over: "Mexico will pay for it."

Videos don't lie:

At the time, a lot of people (myself included) pointed out that this was never going to happen (and was a terrible idea, to boot). Apparently, in a rare concession to reality, The Orange One has now decided that the United States paying for the wall is somehow equivalent to MEXICO paying for the wall.

United States of America = Mexico?

As I've noted, the wall is a terrible idea. What's next? A fence to keep the tide out? I was thinking of an umbrella to hold my basement in place, too.

Anyway, the actual merits of this (terrible) idea aside, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CAMPAIGN PROMISE WAS THAT MEXICO WAS PAYING FOR THE WALL. You can't change that now! It was supposed to punish Mexico, not me!

If we're going to discuss stupid ideas that don't work and will waste money, OK. Let's have that discussion. Why do we have to focus on THIS stupid idea that won't work and will waste money? Better yet, how about expensive ideas that will actually do some good? Perhaps we can put that money into healthcare or education for poor kids (I know . . . pipe dream).

Tax "Reform"

"Reform" is one of those words like "change" or "improvement." The beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I say that in light of all the talk of our national leaders' desire to "reform" the tax code. Call me cynical, but I tend to think that every time they "reform" the tax code, it seems like the well-to-do get a tax cut they probably don't really need, and either the deficit gets structurally worse or those who can't really afford an increase in their taxes get one nonetheless. After all, those school teachers are "lucky duckies" while hedge fund managers have to get by on ONLY a few million per year, but I digress.

I have seen the recent ads on TV and heard them on the radio, trying to influence our lawmakers to "reform" the tax code. There is all kinds of talk about how people can't get good-paying jobs because of our tax code. Disingenuous as ever, particularly given that corporate profits are at a post-war high as a share of GDP, and wages are at an all-time low. 

Corporate profits as a share of GDP since the end of WWII

Wage trajectory from 1960-2012

I thought I was the only one to notice how cynical these ads , until I saw this piece by Matthew Yglesias at Vox. 

Here are a few key excerpts:

Obviously many Americans have lost jobs over the years and often subsequently struggle to get new jobs that pay as well as their old ones. But corporate income tax is a tax companies pay on their profits. If your employer is paying any corporate income tax at all, they are making money. If your employer is being driven out of business by the Chinese, they are not making profits or paying taxes on them.

Can't help but agree with that. I fully recognize that our tax system has too many loopholes. However, I also recognize that every loophole in our tax system has a constituency. There is a reason that big businesses pay so little in taxes.

More excerpts:

A more honest accounting of the case for a corporate tax cut would go like this.
The corporate income tax is, in the grand scheme of things, a kind of tax on capital and business investment. Many people believe — with some support from economic theory and well-known models — that taxes of this sort are harmful to long-term economic growth. With lower taxes on investment income, there will be more investment. And more investment will, in the long run, create a large stock of capital goods and thus more jobs and higher wages for everyone.
The best empirical research on recent tax changes tends to contradict this line of reasoning but it’s certainly a subject about which well-qualified economists disagree.

That said, one subject on which there is very broad agreement is that corporate profits are currently quite high. 

If a business isn't making any profits, it's because the business has a business-model problem. It is not because taxes are too high. Further, when corporate profits are at record highs and wages are at record lows, it seems a little too cute to try to sell the idea that taxes are precluding wages from rising. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here is an interesting data point:

The effective corporate tax rate appears to have largely gone one direction in the past 70 years: down.

As I've said numerous times before: If your policies are so awesome, you should not have to lie about them to get them passed. If you're lying about your policies, perhaps it's because they're terrible.

Too often, people are bamboozled into the following fallacy:

1. There's a problem
2. We need to do something
3. "This" is something
THEREFORE
4. Let's do "this."

As our national leaders debate their tax "reform," let's all be sure to ask what they are doing to reform the system. What is "this"?

Disturbing and Enlightening

I will save my reader(s) from any diatribe I have about the current controversy surrounding monuments to those who would (and did) commit treason in defense of human bondage figures from the Confederate States of America. I do, however, have some thoughts on a disturbing story I heard on NPR on my way home from work a few days ago. Regrettably I do not recall the precise details, so please excuse the broad-strokes nature of this post.

The interviewee was a jazz musician, who was the son of a jazz musician. The father had been part of the old Indiana Ave. jazz scene that included such notables as Wes Montgomery, Freddie Hubbard, J.J. Johnson, Slide Hampton, and David Baker (I had the wonderful opportunity to take his History of Jazz class while I was at IU and have been grateful for the opportunity ever since). Regrettably, I cannot recall the name of the father or his son, who was being interviewed on NPR.

What really struck me about the interview, however, was the discussion of this guy leaving Indianapolis at a young age to move to California, probably in the early 1960s. Why did he move?

Racism and fear. Full stop.

Now, let me preface the following with a warning that it deals with race in a way that makes some uncomfortable. For that, I apologize.

This guest on NPR told a story of growing up in Indianapolis. His father was a successful jazz musician, and the majority of his family lived here. His uncle built, with his own blood, sweat, and tears, his dream home in Speedway, Indiana. I can fully understand the allure of Speedway. It attracted me.

Unfortunately, the NPR guest was over at his uncle's home one evening when a large cross was erected in their front yard and set ablaze.

Right here in Speedway.

Now, I was not alive at the time. I have never done something like that, and I never will. Nonetheless, it made me ashamed. Ashamed of our past experience with race. Ashamed that after all of these years, may of us would rather pretend that the problem of racism was solved with the Civil War and MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. Ashamed that we pretend that racism is behind us, was just a small but shameful segment of our history.

Having lived briefly in Canada, I can assure my fellow citizens that slavery and Jim Crow leave a long tail of legacy behind them. Race is a considerably "bigger deal" here in America than it is in Canada, and I assure you there are plenty of minorities in Canada.

I propose that we, as a people, are better than our past and present acts and omissions on race would lead one to believe. I believe that the people of Speedway, black, white, yellow, brown, orange, purple (I guess?), etc., are MORE than simply "races." We are more than our collective heritage. We can do our part to move this world in the right direction.

Speedway could locate the sites of past injustices and place monuments to them; not to celebrate the injustice but to remind ourselves that it happened, to remind ourselves that it shouldn't happen and that it mustn't happen. To remind ourselves that our children and grandchildren (whether they've been born already, or will be in the future) are watching and judging. And they're right to judge.

Don't ever forget that "The Greatest Generation" that fought and defeated the Nazis could have been known as the generation that capitulated. The Baby Boomers could have been the generation that perpetuated Jim Crow. Our Founding Fathers could have remained a bunch of rich aristocrats who weren't willing to upset the lives of (relative) luxury they lived and simply decided to "go along to get along" with the King.

History is watching, and we can, for generations, be known either as the people who made our corner of the world better, made it worse, or perpetuated the same problems without doing anything to fix any of them.

The choice is ours.

Bickering (with a point)

What a week for backbiting and bickering here in beautiful Speedway! Apparently, a long-simmering "civil war" of sorts between two factions of Speedway has lit up our friendly NextDoor feed. I have no comments on any of the substance being debated, other than to note that at some point all discussions can become so "high level" and abstract that they lose all meaning.

I do have something, however, to say regarding one gentleman's reference to a town ordinance setting the speed limit at 20 mph in certain areas of the town being contrary to state law. This, of course, piques my interest, and I have some thoughts, on a variety of levels. Please forgive the scatter-shot nature of these comments:

1. The gentleman referenced Indiana Code 9-21-5, though he failed to reference a particular section. As a practice pointer, when you argue from authority it is best to specify the authority from which you argue. I can only presume that this gentleman, who clearly cares very deeply about his community, was referencing I.C. 9-21-5-6(a).  Here is a link to the statute referenced.

2. There is mention of "if they want to have a low speed limit there, why not everywhere else" type arguments. As a general rule, these arguments are logical fallacies . . . if I'm going to work out my heart, why not also work out my legs? Don't they deserve exercise? Why take Saturday off work? Doesn't my family want to see me on Monday too? The point, as many surgeons will tell you, is that sometimes "better" is the enemy of "good," and "perfect" is the worst enemy of all. Why improve one part of Speedway when other parts also need improving? Because it's our town and it deserves improvement. Let's not allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

3. On a philosophical note, why does this upstanding gentleman side with the State of IN over the Town of Speedway? Does he honestly believe that state Senator Dean Kruse, from Auburn, IN, knows better what is right for Speedway than does the local town council? Why assume that Speedway is the villain here and not the overreaching state government?

4. Continuing on the philosophical point, why is it that "conservative," "small government," "close to the people" Indiana has laws that require a Town like Speedway to undertake an "engineering and traffic investigation"? Is this some sort of a "crony capitalist" racket on behalf of companies like American Structure Point? It is laws like these that stymie economic growth. If a community thinks that Course A is in its best interests, but the State of Indiana says "you can only take Course B," it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict the results.

5. While we're on the topic of terrible laws, neither "engineering," "traffic," nor "investigation" is defined in Title 9. Perhaps, were this to go to court, the Town could merely say that they discussed this with their local police officers, who have been conducting an informal "engineering and traffic investigation" for years. Voila!

6. Getting away from the text of the law itself, there is also the common law notion of "standing." The gentleman suggested that everyone who ever got a traffic ticket there should form a "class action" lawsuit. Forget for a moment the intricacies of class action law (and there are plenty). Let's focus on standing. Can you identify someone who has been particularly harmed by this ordinance (who would not have otherwise been harmed), how such harm can be specifically related to the offense, and how court action can redress the harm. Without standing, your lawsuit doesn't make it past Day 1.

7. In addition to common law standing (as discussed above), can we even tell whether this statute provides for a private cause of action (i.e. lawsuit)? What if the only party/person that is authorized to sue over this is the state executive? Maybe it's the county commissioners? Maybe its the state legislature?

As I hope I've made clear, I have nothing but respect for the individual who cares so deeply about his community that he is willing to do a bit of research and put his opinions "out there" publicly. This is merely my randomized thoughts on one very small part of what this person had to say.

Disenfranchisement

I saw that the publishers of the Town Press were going to have a meeting of the residents of Speedway who felt disenfranchised. I applaud it! Good for them! Regrettably, it turned into the kind of backbiting that tends to undermine any sense of neighborhood solidarity and has ultimately been cancelled.

UPDATE: I understand that the meeting was held and had enthusiastic turnout.

For shame.

I take no position as to the accusations being hurled among various parties surrounding this meeting. However, I would note that for those who feel disenfranchised, you still have a vote and Speedway, like the rest of the country, is run on democratic (small "d") principles.

The problem is that this is a one-party town. I don't know for sure, but I've been told that no non-Republican has ever been elected to the Town Council. As I've said, I don't know about that. What I do know is that the Republican Party (like all political parties) is a private organization that does not have to answer to anyone but its members. I also know that the Republican party does not have a primary for its Speedway Town Council candidates . . . I believe they are slated by the party.

So, what we have is a town that does not elect anything but Republicans, and a Republican party that selects its candidates based on its own inside criteria, not any sense of the popular will of the Town.

Sounds like a recipe for disenfranchisement if I've ever seen one.

Google Answers

There is a rather large uproar lately about the infamous "Google memo" and its author's termination from Google for the contents thereof.

The snafu started with a Google engineer drafting a memo (disclosure: I haven't read the memo in its entirety; only parts of it) that theorizes that natural differences in men and women explain the paucity of female tech workers.

The utterly predictable, viral response to this memo was that it is res ispa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) evidence of the "sick culture" of Silicon Valley. In response to the viral response, presumably, Google fired the guy who drafted the memo. Thereafter, certain elements of our society were predictably outraged at this engineer's firing, claiming that his 1st Amendment rights were violated, or something like that.

Once again, Google provides an example and answer to a commonly held misbelief. Neither you nor I have 1st Amendment rights with respect to our employers.

That's right.

Your employer can fire you for your views, political or otherwise. If your employer wants to only hire people whose favorite color is red, s/he can fire you if your favorite color is blue.

If your employer only wants to employ Republicans (or Democrats), s/he can fire you for voting Democratic (or Republican, as the case may be).

Do I like this state of affairs? No, not particularly. Nonetheless, the world is what it is, not necessarily what I want it to be.

Thus concludes our talk of one (miniscule) area of constitutional law.

Monopsony

I realize that I used the term "monopsony" the other day.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, a monopoly is a market situation where there is only one seller. When there is only one seller, there is no price control over what the seller can charge and the seller maintains all bargaining power.

A monopsony is a market situation where there is only one buyer. In that situation, the buyer retains all of the bargaining power and can drive the price down.

By way of example, IPL is a monopoly. We don't have the choice to buy electricity from anywhere else. Were IPL unregulated, it could charge 10X what it currently does for electricity. What are we, the buyer, going to do? Go without?

Contrarily, Amazon and WalMart are often considered monopsonies (though they are not TRUE monopsonies, in that there are other retailers who might buy from their suppliers, but they still retain enormous bargaining/market power). If a factory that makes plastic sleds decides to raise the price on WalMart, they go to a different factory and undercut the first one. WalMart and Amazon, if not the sole purchasers of a particular good (you name it . . . windshield wipers, rubber gloves, light bulbs, etc.) from their suppliers, retain enormous bargaining power. WalMart or Amazon can easily tell Factory X, "If you raise the price on your widget, we'll buy the widget from Factory Y." As long as Factory X doesn't go out of business, this works swimmingly for WalMart or Amazon.

Just think of it this way: Is it easier to sell water in the Sahara Desert when you're the only seller, or in the middle of a lake full of fresh water where there are 1,000 other vendors selling water? Who has the bargaining power in each situation?

Market power matters.