Analytics

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Post #4053 Social Media Edition

Facebook

[As always, red type is an original comment; blue type represents the effort of other people.]

If government baked croissants, they would probably start at $14.

 [The context here is that AOC was complaining that croissants at LaGuardia were going for $7. My response assumes the reader is aware of David Friedman's Law of Spending, i.e., "It costs any government at least twice as much to do something as it costs anyone else." [Note that the government cost should also account for deadweight losses from funding/taxation,]

Technically Friedman is talking costs vs. prices, and the government subsidizes goods and services all the time. Consider, for instance, Romney's famous slip of the tongue about 47% of households paying no net federal government taxes. You have the free lunch program (which my family participated in while I was in high school), SNAP, etc. However, I'm really saying the real price includes the cost of those subsidies because it's underwritten by taxpayers.

I'm also making a larger point targeting AOC's embrace of  "democratic" socialism and the concept of a government monopoly.

More to AOC's point, I expect leases at airport gates are expensive, you have heavy labor costs (e.g., AOC-favored minimum wage policies) and more limited competition given the scarcities of food locations.]

Some clippings on intellectual property:

Stuart Hayashi shared a link to the group: Capitalists for Intellectual Property.
Yesterday at 10:29am ·[5/5/18 reference date]
On the In the closet Objectivists podcast, I gave a two-hour monologue to refute this frequent libertarian attack on intellectual property rights: “IPRs are an attempt to claim exclusive ownership over an idea, but ideas are not scarce. Private ownership only applies properly to values that are ‘scarce,’ meaning that the value exists in the form of a finite quantity. Ergo, ideas cannot properly be private property.” This libertarian case against IPRs amounts to whacking a straw man.
_
Patents are not claims of ownership on a general idea for a product category; a patent is on a specific original design that is practicable. “Practicable design” in this context refers to a detailed description of the design that is normally accompanied by diagrams and schematics and which provides instruction on the production of units which satisfy marketplace demand sufficiently that people will willingly purchase units at a price exceeding the average cost of producing each unit. The creation of such a practicable design involves the investment of hours or years and equipment in running tests—all scarce resources—and, because there is inherent scarcity in the resources that must be inputted to produce such specific original practicable designs, the specific original practicable designs are scarce as well. Hence, the claim that IPRs are an attempt to impose an “artificial scarcity” upon a completely non-scarce value is completely invalid.

 Mr. Anti-IP: “Real estate should be private property, as it’s scarce. If too many people crowd on a plot of land, others can’t enjoy it. But art isn’t scarce. If I illegally download your movie, you still have the original. That is why IP is invalid.”
_
Mr. Anti-IP’s distinction between why land should be private, whereas IP shouldn’t be, isn’t as clear-cut as he wants to believe. I had a friend who had dubious ethics when it came to movie theaters. He noticed that in each movie screening, there were many empty seats. So he would buy a ticket to one movie and, after it ended, he would sneak into a showing of another movie. After that, he would sneak into a third movie. He noted that every showing of a movie had a fixed cost; the cost of each screening was the same regardless of whether he snuck in or not. Hence, as far as he was concerned, when he snuck into that second, third, and fourth movie, the theater lost nothing; no additional cost was added by one person putting himself in a seat that otherwise would have been empty anyway. By his vantage point, room in the theater was non-scarce.
_
Yet it may then be said that if too many people snuck into the theater at once and took all the remaining seats, the theater would be overcrowded and then others couldn’t enjoy the screening. But that is actually not too different from what happens when people make too many unauthorized downloads of a work of art they’re for which supposed to pay. If that artist isn’t reimbursed by those who download her work, she will stop making new art she otherwise would make. That IS an exacerbation of the scarcity of new IP.

 Also, if everyone steals the movie but the owner still has the original, then the original is worthless in practical terms because the owner is not being compensated for having created it. In reality, there is value to all those stolen copies, otherwise why would people seek them? And what would be the point of pursuing artistic creation if you can only sell the original? The time and effort spent on the creation would make it too expensive for most people to purchase and enjoy if only the original can be sold. The value it delivers to anyone who consumes it (viewers of paintings or movies, listeners of music, etc) is not reduced because someone else is enjoying it too. Receiving value from the efforts of another person should be compensated, otherwise what the hell do they think self ownership is? Is your mind not part of your self?

 When pointing out out an inventor creates new economic value and should thus own the value that is the invention's design, IP-opposing libertarians shout that I'm invoking Marx's Labor Theory of Economic Value. According to their strawman, I think the direct cause of the invention's economic value is the hard work that went into it, and that hard work alone makes the inventor own the invention. No, I argue that the invention's economic value comes directly from the intersection of supply with demand. I merely point out the costliness of the inputs that go into creating of an invention or artwork causes "scarcity" in the quantity of new designs, and that this is why there's a supply curve for new designs illustrating how designers are more reluctant to produce new designs when they are not compensated for their work.

[On an abortion post arguing that abortion is a matter of religious dogma. Even as an agnostic or atheist, I would oppose abortion.]

 I'm Catholic, but I was pro-life before I even knew the position of the Church against abortion. I remember asking my Mom what the word meant, and she described it in clinical, nonjudgmental terms. Horrified, I said, "But, Mom: that's MURDER."

 [As a libertarian, I'm infuriated with progressives/fascists attacking establishments with policies that might reflect their personal preferences that aren't politically correct. For example, photographers or bakers might choose to service traditional weddings vs. say "gay weddings" A policy that requires someone to perform work against his principles is basically a form of slavery. There are in fact multiple vendors, including gay-owned, willing to accommodate specialized needs. This form of intolerance seems to be using government force to persecute business owners who implement policies they don't agree with.

I  think this case involved a pizzeria which passed up the opportunity to cater a "gay wedding". Personally, I wouldn't leave money on the table if I operated a pizzeria. I've also never attended a wedding reception serving pizza.  I live in a small town that has numerous pizza establishments.  Even if one or 2 of them had policies, say, against serving Roman Catholics like me, I can find a number of pizzerias or supermarkets willing to take my pizza cash. Now I might be pissed if I were a regular customer and the pizzeria refused to cater an event celebrating say my mythical daughter celebrating her confirmation; I might respond by taking my business elsewhere from now on, but that's my choice. I'm not going to force the owner to take my business.]

First, there aren't that many gay weddings. Second, I can't imagine gays serving pizza at their reception--too many carbs.
...
You know if you don't like how they make pizza, it's one thing. But you never always agree with other people's opinions on things. Libertarians like me practice TOLERANCE, which means we don't make war with you over your goddamn ideology.
....
Libertarians respect other people's rights to make a living as they choose. You are making war with them. That's not tolerance. You want them to capitulate to your corrupt values.
...
Listen Fascist Andrew. This has nothing to do with the marketplace. This has to do with mob intolerance.

Peter Schiff on another real estate bubble:

Peter Schiff [5/26/16]

 Here we go again. 3% down and 6% brokerage commission to sell equals instant negative equity. Homeowners get a free put on the real estate market. If the value of their house goes up they own the equity. If it goes down they stop making their mortgage and property tax payments, defer any maintenance expenses, and live rent free for a few years until the bank can kick them out. Plus before they leave they can gut the house and sell whatever is not nailed down on Ebay.

 Wells Fargo launches 3% down payment mortgage
The nation's largest lender, Wells Fargo, is offering a new mortgage with a 3 percent down payment requirement. What gives?
CNBC.COM|BY DIANA OLICK

 A nephew's post to my little sister for Mother's Day

To my mother, six-times-over the best mom we could have ever wished for – you’re truly beautiful inside and out. Not yet a parent myself (and not a woman smile emoticon ), I don’t yet, nor will I ever, fully know the extent of your love and sacrifice – the sleepless nights you’ve spent caring for us, the thousands of meals you’ve cooked, the countless hours you’ve spent tutoring us or helping with procrastinated projects; the stress to your body (though no one would ever know!), the way you’ve lovingly prodded us to be successful in all that we might endeavor – there’s nothing we could ever do to adequately express our thanks for all that you’ve done for us. Please know that today and every day, we love and appreciate you!! Happy Mother’s Day!!
Love son #1,
Alan

 A Ben Sasse post from 2016:

AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA
TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:
(…or, stated more simply)
TO: The majority of America:
Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.
I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:
**Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
“What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”
Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”
**Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”
**Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”
**Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
________
I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”
This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”
Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.
I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:
1. 
Washington isn’t fooling anyone -- Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists (for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln -- and I will work to reform and restore the GOP -- but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.
2.
As a result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: “Neither.”
3.
Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for -- but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems. “Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is.
4.
Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.
5.
These two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting to revive the GOP with ideas -- but when people’s needs aren’t being met, they ultimately find other solutions.
6.
In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”
7.
With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.
8.
Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?
9.
So...let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know...an adult?
(Two notes for reporters:
**Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.
**Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the Senate, I'm not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national parties.)
10.
Imagine if we had a candidate:
...who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought
…who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward
…who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment
…who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,
such as:
A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad;
B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;
C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education, and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and
D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks who should be public “servants,” not masters.
This really shouldn’t be that hard.
The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government.
And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.
I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again -- if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things -- in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart.
I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.
What am I missing?
More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?
Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with his pen and phone.
The sun is mostly set on the Platte River -- and the kids need baths. So g’night.
Ben
‪#‎WeCanDoBetter‬

Twitter


As I count down to tweet #17000...







































Posted by at
Labels: