Laissez Faire - by Don Boudreaux

I have struggled, and failed, for the last 5 years to express what Don Boudreaux says here in just three paragraphs. 
Why in the hell would anyone opposed to The Religious Right or The Ultra-Secular Left want a larger, more intrusive government? 

If you are a modern “Progressive” and cannot abide the notion of conservatives, Christian or otherwise, having a say in who you sleep with and who you may marry, when and why you may get an abortion, what sorts of scientific research and artistic projects should be funded, what school curricula should and shouldn’t include, or when and why Uncle Sam goes on world-policing ventures, then why do you wish to expand the scope of government authority? Doing so in a society with a wide franchise, such as the U.S., inevitably invites those rubes to intrude their antediluvian superstitions and dogmas onto you and onto all that you hold dear and sacred.


If you are a modern conservative, Christian or otherwise, and cannot abide the notion of “Progressives” having a say in how you school your children, what your tax rates are, what size Big Gulps you may buy, or whether or not you may fill in ditches and water puddles on your land, then why do you tolerate – indeed, frequently applaud – activities such as government’s ‘war on drugs,’ Uncle Sam’s interventionist foreign policies, strict immigration restrictions, and tariffs on imports? Doing so – by creating a large and discretionary state – only encourages those obnoxious know-it-alls to use government against you and against all that you hold dear and sacred.

Here’s why I ask the above questions: every time I’m in a supermarket check-out lane and catch the headlines of the reading materials on sale there – soap-opera digests, magazines featuring Oprah and other entertainment celebrities, and the like – I literally get a bit of a queazy feeling in the pit of my stomach. It somewhat sickens me that people care who Jennifer Anniston is dating, what Oprah is eating, or why male hunk du jour just ditched female sex-goddess du jour for some other equally vacuous if va-va-va-voom!-inducing babe. I don’t wish to prevent anyone from reading about or caring deeply about these matters about which I truly couldn’t care less. But it scares me that people who read that nonsense – because they care about that nonsense - have a say in how my life is conducted. I resent the fact that such people, if only through the ballot box, have influence how government orders me about.

The more expansive is the scope of government authority, the more my life is subject to commands issued in part under the influence of people who read Us magazine.

Scary.

Not just scary.  Terrifying.  But people vote for more of it every 2 years. 

Warren Buffett, sleep easy

"(G.M.) is again losing market share, and its stock, of which taxpayers own 26 percent, was trading Thursday morning at $21, below the $33 price our investor in chief paid for it and below the $53 price it would have to reach to enable taxpayers to recover the entire $49.5 billion bailout."  - George Will

Simply allowing G.M. and Chrysler to declare bankruptcy would've allowed them to restructure their truly godawful union arrangments, rework their deals with suppliers, and would've let them make the multitudes of changes necessary to compete in a world that's changing every day. 

That was politically impossible. 

But somehow, some way, our investor in chief likes to declare that G.M. is "roaring back". 

Incredible. 

I'm not saying the government is too big, but....

I'm not saying the government is too big, but....

if it really is too big, what would it look like? 

Here's the Samizdata quote of the day -

What if we have reached a point where the scale and scope of government have become absurdly large? What you would observe is a growing gap between the theories used to justify government expansion and its practical impact. You would observe the cost of education and health care rising, without commensurate benefits. You would observe stimulus programs that increase employment according to computer models but not in reality. You would observe crony capitalism. You would observe budgets distorted by public-sector unions. You would observe fraudulent accounting that shifts costs for pensions onto future generations.


- Arnold Kling

Well, if you're going to put it that way....

Picture of bloated guy came from here. 

Big Business loves Big Government

From Tim Carney with the Washington Examiner, with a fresh coat o' Whitening to Instapundit:

The most dangerous enemies of capitalism today are capitalists. This is becoming clearer every day to people committed to free markets.

The conservative and libertarian grassroots came to deeply distrust big business after the Wall Street bailouts and Obama's stimulus and health care bills, both of which had big-business backing. Tea Party ire focused on subsidy-suckling businesses as much as at big-spending politicians.

Beltway conservatives have also joined in the fight against corporatism. Last spring, the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation all lined up against the Chamber of Commerce and pressed GOP congressmen to vote to kill the Export-Import Bank, which nonetheless was reauthorized by an overwhelming margin.

Republican politicians, despite being lobbied hard by their big-business donors and K Street advisers, are nevertheless moving slowly away from corporate welfare and toward free-market populism. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan wrote an op-ed in Forbes in 2009 titled "Down with Big Business" (a headline he borrowed from a 1979 Wall Street Journal op-ed).

And now academia's free-market players are getting in on the game, beginning to rebuild the intellectual infrastructure to argue against corporatism. George Mason University's Mercatus Center this week is kicking off a series of papers on cronyism and business-government collusion.

"The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism," written by Mercatus senior research fellow Matt Mitchell, is the first installment.

(Go here for the download.  It'll make your head hurt.)

Here's how Carney closes his review of the research:

The research Mitchell brings together helps show why government-granted privilege is so important to big business and so costly to the rest of society. In one key finding, he highlights research indicating that free markets, with fewer barriers to entry and fewer bailouts to prop up failed giants, make it harder for dominant businesses to maintain dominance.

Mitchell cites a 2008 study in the Journal of Financial Economics that found "big business turnover ... correlates with smaller government, common law, less bank-dependence, stronger shareholder rights, and greater openness [to trade]."

Further, in Mitchell's words, "those nations with more turnover among their top firms tended to experience faster per capita economic growth, greater productivity growth, and faster capital growth."

Big business wants safety, but big-business safety hurts the rest of the economy.

Disdain for bailouts and corporate welfare has resided primarily in the populist corners of the Left and Right. But the scholarly case against systemic privilege is strong and growing, too. The subsidy sucklers, bailout barons and regulatory freeloaders may soon face a challenge on a broad political front.

Lord hasten the day.  If Libertarians know one thing that the rest of the populace doesn't, it's this:  Big Business loves Big Government. 

Go here for the T-shirt. 

Ron Paul's campaign disrupted by Occupy Wall Street

You'd think that a politician who has been sounding the alarm about the relationship between Washington and Wall Street for a few decades would get a pass on this, but....

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Police arrested more than a dozen Occupy protesters Thursday in Iowa who are targeting Democrats and Republicans just days before the state's closely watched lead-off presidential caucuses.

Five protesters were arrested outside the Iowa campaign headquarters of presidential contender Ron Paul in Ankeny before the group moved on to the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters in Des Moines, where 12 more were taken into custody. All were ticketed for trespassing and released.
The protests are part of an Occupy the Caucuses effort launched this week in Des Moines that has attracted activists from around the country. Many of them have promised to interrupt campaign activities, and organizers promised more confrontations on Friday with campaign offices of Republican presidential hopefuls.

Here, according to Patrick at Popehat, are the reasons the Occupy Kiddies could've been upset with Ron Paul's platform:

1. Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank – oops, already on the platform
2. End federal payouts to banks - oops, already on the platform
3. End federal payouts to large corporations that aren’t banks - oops, already on the platform
4. End foreign aid to Israel (and for that matter every other country) - oops, already on the platform
5. End the war in Afghanistan - oops, already on the platform
6. Withdraw American troops from Kuwait, South Korea, and Germany - oops, already on the platform
7. Abolish the Transportation Security Administration, along with a number of other federal departments and agencies - oops, already on the platform
8. End the War on Terror - oops, already on the platform
9. End the War on Drugs - oops, already on the platform
10. Establish a National Drum Circle on top of Mount Rushmore – not on the Ron Paul platform

Popehat.  You really should read these guys every day. 

Later on in the AP article, someone claims that Paul got occupied because of his opposition to the EPA. 
Well, there is no bigger friend to Big Business than the EPA. 
Here's one of the Popehat commenters on Paul's rationale for shutting down that gaggle of unelected Warmist kickback artists:

....the problem with the EPA is that its unclear as to how much of their protections are actually effective. You see quite frequently how well connected companies get extensions and exceptions to rules where smaller companies are held to very strict or even non-existent standards. I used to work for a soil and water testing facility, and it seemed a very random process that the agency had for going after businesses, a gas station with a minor leak could be fined heavily within a month, but an industrial facility would be far out of safety ranges for the better part of two years and not get much more than a strongly worded letter. The agency standards seemed very divorced from any reasonable threat assessment.


The concept of a federal agency, which has power at its sole discretion to shut down, fine, or harass any business without judicial oversight is pretty glaring constitutional issue. In many cases the day in court doesn’t come until after the damage has been done and the victim has lost their business and in some cases much more.

None of this is saying that environmental protections are unnecessary, just that the EPA as vehicle for fairly enforcing the laws (which themselves are pretty obtusely written, but that’s a separate issue) has been very bad at it. The fact that many of it’s powers are unconstitutional is Ron Paul’s primary concern with the agency.

Yeah.  What he said. 

Person Of The Year for 2011 - the nomination standards

The Person Of The Year for 2010 was Thomas J. Perez, the Justice Department's unelected menace who refused to allow state college textbooks to be made available on the Kindle because they discriminate against blind people. 

The Year Of Our Lord 2011 will require different standards.  The Teleprompter Jesus is being more careful these days and isn't regulating, banning, forbidding, subsidizing and porking quite so blatantly with another election looming.  Therefore 2011's POTY will be selected by other guidelines, guidelines that reflect the spirit of the last 365 days. 

Here goes: 

1)  All successful people avoid paying taxes, much like all sane people avoid drinking diesel fuel.  But to be honored and praised in the year 2011, one must lobby for higher taxes for the wealthy, even if one is wealthy.  Warren Buffett, for instance, lobbied for higher taxes while his Berkshire-Hathaway firm was fighting the government (for two years) over a billion-dollar tax bill.  The successful applicant for POTY2011 must rise to this level of hypocrisy.  

2)  I believe that it is none of the government's business if I send jobs to North Dakota, Canada, Mexico, China, the moon, or the ice planet Nekthar.  It saves money for my customers, and THAT is what helps an economy grow.  This is a minority opinion, though.  Some Republican presidential candidates are being pilloried by other Republicans for committing similar Acts Of Capitalism. 
Obama has thoroughly condemned anyone who sends a "job" overseas. 

To run a large business efficiently, one must seek out the lowest labor rates. 
But to gain favor with The Obamessiah, one must blather on and on about saving American jobs. 
The successful applicant for POTY2011 will do both. 

3)  Green, Green, Green !!   This is one area where our government Lords'n'Masters still insist on more and more regulation and control.  My trucking company is about to jump over some truly idiotic hurdles because of these bundles of red tape.  (And oh yes, oh yes, I'll be posting about them.) 
They're pointless. 
The planet isn't warming. 
But these regulations are nice symbolic gestures that keeps little government toads, gremlins and hobbits employed and feeling righteous.  The POTY2011 must subsidize, manufacture, market, lobby for, or mandate a product or activity that is nothing more than an expression of Cultural Sanctimony. 
He must also profity handsomely from this activity. 

4)  There has been an unhealthy overlap betwen Obama's Big Government and Big Business for the last year.  Well-informed political junkies call it Fascism.  Others call it Crony Capitalism, or a rebirth of old-school British Mercantilism. 
I generally describe it as Fascism because, of course, that's what it is. 

Therefore, the Person Of The Year for 2011 must work for the government and for a major corporation. 
At the same time.   

Those are the standards by which the Person Of The Year for 2011 will be chosen.  I eagerly await the Committee's decision. 

Fascism pic came from here. 

Top Ten reasons why the rich should be allowed to keep even more of their money

Here are the Top Ten Reasons why the rich should be allowed to keep even more of their money than they're currently keeping:

1) Because if The Federal Government takes their money, The Federal Government will probably do harmful things with it.

There are no other reasons. 

King Barack declares that fuel efficiency will improve, or we will face his displeasure

Having failed in his quest to lower sea levels around the world, Barack Obama has declared that big rigs will get  better mileage. 

WASHINGTON--President Obama announced the first-ever fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for long-haul rigs, work trucks, and other heavy duty vehicles Tuesday, the second mileage pact with manufacturers in less than a month.

The regulations call for reductions on fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2018 of 9 to 23 percent, depending on the type of vehicle. Trucks and other heavy vehicles make up only 4 percent of the domestic vehicle fleet, but given the distance they travel, the time they spend idling and their low fuel efficiency, they end up consuming about 20% of all vehicle fuel, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These things always puzzle me.  If you're going to go into the business of improving efficiency by Imperial Decree, why stop at 23% ?  Why not declare that "I, King Barack Of Chicago, hereby mandate that all semi-tractors will reduce fuel consumption by 50%, or ye shall face my wrath."

Experts say that a 20 percent reduction in heavy vehicle emissions would boost fuel efficiency to an average of 8 miles per gallon from 6 miles now.

Precisely.  And if the driver could be replaced by the Walt Disney Animatronic Driver, payrolls and other transportation costs would be slashed by 25%.  If tires could be made of Mississippi mud instead of rubber, replacement costs would be lowered by 89%.  If we ever get that big engineering breakthrough, the one where they make diesel engines out of Play-Do, vehicles will be 23% cheaper.  And on and on and on.....

Ok, rather than Fisk the rest of this piece of White House Boosterism, which would become tiresome, I'm just going to highlight the individual words that I think are funniest.  If you have any understanding of how the world works and why auto companies are going along with this crap, and the concepts of "collusion" and "corporatism", you'll get it. 

The announcement comes less than two weeks after Obama and the country’s automakers unveiled new fuel economy rules for passenger vehicles that would boost fleet-wide average gas mileage to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, from about 27.8 miles per gallon now.

The success of the Obama fuel efficiency program (!!!!!!!), some of it hard-won through difficult talks with car makers, stands in sharp contrast to the failure of other environmental initiatives, like climate change legislation.

At a time when nearly all major corporate lobbying groups and the Republican Party insist that the administration’s environmental regulations destroy jobs, the auto makers, the United Auto Workers union and now truck and large engine manufacturers are collaborating on rules they think could create jobs. Most environmental groups also praised the new truck standards.

The automobile industry has been more cooperative with the government since the federal bailout of two major car makers, General Motors and Chrysler. It is also mollified by the fact that the new, 2025 auto rules have what critics consider loopholes that allow the carmakers to improve fuel efficiency on their most popular models at a slower pace.

Moreover, the new standards encourage car and truck makers to use off-the-shelf technology, some of which they have already deployed, rather than invest in scientific breakthroughs.

“We’d be able to meet the standards by reducing weight, using low rolling-resistance tires to cut down on drag, making vehicles more aerodynamic and have less idling: those are available in the U.S. now,” said Jed Mandel, president of the Engine Manufacturers Association, the truck and engine makers’ trade group. The federal government has “done a great job in allowing flexibility for truck makers to build vehicles.”

Sorry.  I've got to interject something here.  The Federal Government has no damn business "allowing flexibility" in anything that doesn't harm someone else.  Period.  They've done a great job in allowing flexibility.  They've done a great job in allowing flexibility.  They've done a great job in allowing flexibility.  That's another way of saying "As long as we behave in the way they like, they'll let us get away with a few things." 

We're a nation of sheep, bleating about how our Master allows us greater flexibility. 

Gag. 

The new standards would increase the cost of heavy duty trucks, which cost tens of thousands of dollars, by several thousand dollars each, depending on the vehicle. But the administration and the manufacturers’ group estimated that the higher costs would be recouped very quickly, often within a year or two, because of savings at the pump, one of the biggest expenses for any cargo or trucking business.

The administration estimated that businesses using big trucks could save about $50 billion in fuel costs over the program’s duration.

And in the meantime, competition is decreased.  Barriers to entry are erected.  Choice is eliminated.  Government and trade group alliances are strengthened. 

Mission accomplished.  And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with fuel economy or the environment. 

End of rant. 

The pic of Ozymandias came from here.  The posters came from Dan McCall's Facebook page. 

South Carolina to produce an alternative to ObamaBulbs?

Fed up with the federal government’s ban of the traditional incandescent light bulb, state representatives in South Carolina are pushing for the state to produce and use incandescents solely for its state.


The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, which unanimously passed South Carolina’s Senate panel, would allow South Carolina manufacturers to continue to sell incandescent bulbs so long as they have “Made in South Carolina” on them and are sold only within the state. Other states have floated the idea, and last year Arizona passed a bill that would have done the same thing, but Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed the legislation.

This would be a great idea, and a great example of some long-overdue States Rights civil disobedience if it weren't for the ridiculous "Made In South Carolina" provision. 
But why are people getting so worked up and irritated over these stupid ObamaBulbs? 

When it set up its bulb program in 2006, PG&E Corp. thought its customers would buy 53 million compact fluorescent bulbs by 2008. It allotted $92 million for rebates, the most of any utility in the state. Researchers hired by the California Public Utilities Commission concluded earlier this year that fewer bulbs were sold, fewer were screwed in, and they saved less energy than PG&E anticipated.


As a result of these and other adjustments, energy savings attributed to PG&E were pegged at 451.6 million kilowatt hours by regulators, or 73% less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E for the 2006-2008 program.

One hitch was the compact-fluorescent burnout rate. When PG&E began its 2006-2008 program, it figured the useful life of each bulb would be 9.4 years. Now, with experience, it has cut the estimate to 6.3 years, which limits the energy savings. Field tests show higher burnout rates in certain locations, such as bathrooms and in recessed lighting. Turning them on and off a lot also appears to impair longevity.

But but but....don't the legislators (many of whom actually helped General Electric write this mandate that we use their new product !!!), don't the legislators (who actually proof-read the bill that G.E. wrote, in some cases), don't the legislators know best?  Aren't they the ones who can best tell us how we should conform to Jeffrey Imelt's desires???  You know, the Jeffrey Immelt who is now Obama's business advisor??

Well, no.  The regulators don't know shit.  Here's David Kreutzer, from the same link, explaining why different government/G.E. divisions have mandates to "save" energy by different methods.  Helping in one area sometimes hurts in another. 

My 1993 Maytag dishwasher used nine gallons of hot water and took 84 minutes to clean a normal load of dishes. The current model Maytag dishwasher uses seven gallons of hot water and takes 120 minutes to clean a normal load of dishes. This increase to a two- to three-hour cycle is typical and is the result of efficiency mandates that are met by using fewer gallons of water with much longer cycle times.


The cost of two gallons of hot water is less than a dime. For many people, the additional cycle time of an energy-efficient dishwasher will be an inconvenience greatly exceeding the 10-cent savings. Some people would alter their behavior (sometimes washing their dishes by hand, for example), which could entirely offset these gains. However, the regulator’s calculation of savings ignores these costs. Markets, on the other hand, do not.

Remember this the next time you're forced to buy an ObamaBulb.  They're dim.  They're convoluted.  They're hard to get rid of. 

Why Big Business loves Big Government

Just in case you've ever doubted how much Big Business LOVES Big Government, go here. 

Big Business loves government regulation.  Loves it, loves it, loves it.  Regulation is a glorious "barrier to entry" that helps keep out competitors. 

And the dude in the linked article wants to have his industry regulated for YOUR own good....