Which issues are important (to me)?
I sometimes say that inequality is not one of the top issues facing America. Several commenters asked me what I thought were the top issues. I find it hard to rank issues as to their relative importance, but as of today I’d say there are 4 issues that I regard as being of primary importance to America. (BTW, I care much more about foreign issues.) I’ll put my own policy views in parentheses:
Most important issues (no particular order):
1. US Military intervention (I’m mostly against it)
2. Immigration (more, more, more)
3. War on Drugs (end it, let out 400,000 prisoners)
4. Right to Die (I’m for it, read Scott Alexander if you don’t think it’s important.)
Second level issues, still very important:
1. Abortion (pro-choice)
2. Health care (deregulate it, plus vouchers for the poor)
3. Arms control (favor reduction in nuclear stockpiles, ideally global elimination)
4. Existential risk (plan for it, don’t know enough to say how)
Third tier, still very important issues:
1. Military budget (cut in half)
2. Monetary policy (NGDPLT)
3. Prostitution (legalize it)
4. Education (universal vouchers, with a dramatic reduction in total spending)
5. Occupational licensing (end it, ALL of it)
6. Global warming (carbon tax, geoengineering as last resort)
7. Tax reform (progressive consumption tax)
8. Economic Inequality (low wage subsidies, end cigarette taxes)
9. War on terror (downgrade to skirmish on terror)
10. Intellectual property rights (weaken protection)
11. Lawsuits (make it easier to sign away your right to sue)
Fourth tier, but still somewhat important:
1. International trade barriers (end them)
2. Domestic trade barriers (car dealers, taxis, etc.—end them.)
3. Financial system (stop encouraging lending)
4. Land use (allow greater density)
5. Farming (end farm subsidies)
6. Water (use market prices)
7. Eminent domain (for infrastructure, not condos)
8. Firefighting (Privatize, and close 1/2 of fire stations)
9. High speed rail (Build the Texas proposal, reject the California project.)
10. $7.25 Minimum wage (against it, and regarding the $15 nation-wide proposal, bump up to a higher tier of importance)
Other issues:
1. Dueling (Too young to have a useful opinion)
2. Microaggression (Too old to have a useful opinion.)
3. Affirmative consent (Too old to have a useful opinion.)
4. Age of consent (How should I know? I came of age during the (dissolute) 1970s, and went on my first date as a junior in college.)
I used a utilitarian criterion. On another day, I’d put many of these in totally different categories, but that’s how I feel today. On many of the key issues I’m not really with either party, but perhaps lean a bit Dem on the top issues. I vote libertarian. I left out some issues like feminism, racial equality, gay rights, etc., because it’s hard to pin down the specific public policy issues that are relevant today. Thus instead of feminism I have abortion and prostitution, issues that especially impact women. Obviously I support the gains that various groups have made over time in achieving greater respect and legal rights. I suspect that animal rights should be high on the list, but don’t know much about the issue.
PS. The importance of an issue reflects the interaction if its intrinsic importance, and the plausibility of changing the outcome with different public policies.
PPS. Regarding inequality, commenter Justin D recently said:
And why concede that income inequality is an issue worth thinking about at all? Shouldn’t the real concern be whether people have basic needs? People are unequal in an enormous variety of ways – attractiveness, health, intelligence, confidence, etc., and some of these are more important than income. I’d gladly trade places with a person earning 20% of my income but in perfect health.
I mostly agree with that, especially the final sentence. But I can’t quite concede that economic inequality is not a problem worth thinking about, even if other types of inequality are far more damaging. Many of those can’t be addressed (easily) by public policy. Yes, poverty in the US is a modest problem (especially compared to other countries, and other periods of history) but it is still a problem. In contrast, forcing Larry Ellison to downshift from a 500-foot yacht to a 400-foot yacht is an utterly trivial problem. If we can solve a small problem by creating another utterly trivial problem—then do it! In addition, addressing the inequality issue makes it easier to promote market friendly reforms elsewhere.
Tags:
13. September 2015 at 06:53
The biggest problem is over-regulation. Looking at the list, many of those issues are simply regulation issues. Adopt a less regulatory regime, and most of those disappear (Prostitution, drugs, taxis, car dealers, health care, etc. Sometimes I wonder if less regulation would do as much as NGDP targeting to improve the economy.
13. September 2015 at 06:57
Great list, I think I agree with everything. Did you know there was no land zoning in the United States until 1916 NYC?
Oh! Add “decriminalize push-cart vending.”
Imagine giving millions of people the chance to start their own businesses, while radically cutting costs for consumers. Imagine thereafter, retail rents falling, cutting costs further. Imagine also, businesses competing for labor.
13. September 2015 at 07:06
I largely agree with Sumner, but there’s a “Senior Moment” in that he repeats in the “fourth tier” what was mentioned in the “third tier”, : “8. Intellectual property rights (weaken protection)” (twice).
Actually a government prize fund for IP would go a long way towards solving problems such as perfecting nuclear fusion, finding a cure for cancer, space elevator, yada yada yada. Government incentives do work, and are ‘cost free’ (if you specify milestones, so that no payout unless certain milestones are met).
13. September 2015 at 07:23
David, Less regulation could do much more to improve the economy, but monetary policy is far easier to fix.
Ben, Good example.
Ray, Thanks, I moved it to third, and forget to delete from fourth,
13. September 2015 at 07:36
I find it curious that you put abortion in the second tier category. What is the motivation for that?
13. September 2015 at 07:42
Ben, That one may fall under ‘occupational licensing’
Scott,
Very impressive list. My first reaction was that it take me quite a while to identify and itemize so many issues. Couple of random thoughts:
– The fact that your categorization of these issues might change by the day highlights the challenge with utilitarian criterion. Likewise, I developed a different list altogether using utilitarian criterion.
– Military intervention is one of the few items on your list for which the policy choice is not well defined. Less intervention toward what end? And what is the decision framework for when to intervene?
– I suspect that if one were so inclined, a cleaner set of ‘root causes’ could be identified as underlying these items.
– I’m surprised you didn’t include any governance-related issues (e.g., term limits, campaign finance, gerrymandering).
– Would you trade off states rights if the policies reflected in this list could be implemented nationally by a central government?
13. September 2015 at 07:54
“War on Drugs (end it, let out 400,000 prisoners)”
-As Scott Alexander once pointed out, they’re almost all only prisoners for a couple days, and then are left with criminal records.
Have you read Bob Murphy’s arguments against a carbon tax?
13. September 2015 at 08:08
‘ People are unequal in an enormous variety of ways – attractiveness, health, intelligence, confidence, etc., and some of these are more important than income.’
As Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe once sang;
‘For a kid from the small street I did very well on Wall Street,
Though I never owned a share of stock.’
13. September 2015 at 08:59
Scott,
It is a bit scary that we agree on this many topics. I find it particularly interesting – that you also have immigration and drugs among the “most important” topics. This is the two areas where I also thing there is the biggest need for reform.
If I should point to disagreement it is probably abortion (where my answer is “it’s complicated” and “global warming” (where my answer is “it is probably not a big deal, but fair enough at least use market based policies”).
13. September 2015 at 09:06
Prof. Sumner,
How consistent is your health care proposal with Singapore’s health care system?
13. September 2015 at 09:18
Other ideas:
1) Recommend moving up military spending to first tier as I do believe the larger the military you have, the more likely they will use it. And this goes for all nations as I believe Saudia Arabia bombing and very likely invasion of Yemen could have enormous implications.
2) Put more pharma drugs especially birth control over the counter. Lower cost, less doctor visits and easier access. I still wonder if Romney in 2012 had said against Obamacare “Put The Pill OTC” that he might have improved his position.
3) Put together a team on electric power utilities. The regulated monopoly worked relatively well to 1980ish but it needs to be broken up. The Ma Bell breakup was one of the greatest achievements of government 30+ years. To be honest I don’t what it should look like but the current monopoly focusing on heavy capital expenditure is definitely wrong.
4) Long term – Think of how very free market economies can better support nuclear families and younger marriage. Continued low birth rates will lower economic growth and immigration has limited impact. (And evidently has negative political implications.)
13. September 2015 at 09:32
Thanks for this list! I really hope that would tempt some other folks into making their own and force some prioritization/trade-off type of economic thinking along the way.
As a side note, given that over-regulation is a recurring theme in many of the issues, have some smart economists learned to estimate the negative value of regulation/the cost of inaction? Would appreciate any pointers on new research in the field.
I remember in the EPA discussion Paul Krugman totally misrepresented the cost of regulation as something like “only X FTEs in the agency and only Y$ in budget”, while totally neglecting the core cost of stifling economic activity.
13. September 2015 at 09:37
9. High speed rail (Build the Texas proposal, reject the California project.)
I have wondered why the High Speed Train in California is not Los Angeles/San Bernandino to Las Vegas.
13. September 2015 at 09:49
“Financial system (stop encouraging lending)”
Then stop encouraging inflation first! Lending is “encouraged” be sure the banks are given a continual stream of additional reserves from the Fed.
Hello!
13. September 2015 at 09:51
@Dustin
Less military intervention towards the end of higher prosperity and security of America, what other end is there?
13. September 2015 at 09:55
“I used a utilitarian criterion.”
Whose utility? Obviously not those who are unfortunate to be in the minority.
What if the greatest number of people would derive utility from you being sent to Guantanamo even though you did not threaten anyone with violence? That would be unjust by any reasonable standard. Obviously utilitarianism does not ensure justice.
Quite a number of those “important” items in your list, to the extent they are problems of the state, are exacerbated because the state prints its own money.
13. September 2015 at 09:59
There’s no policy in this list I disagree with apart from the fact “Land use (allow greater density)” is only fourth tier not first. But that might come from the fact I live in London, where you have to sacrifice a virgin to have a chance of getting an apartment. San Francisco is just as bad but most of America is somewhat better off on this issue.
13. September 2015 at 12:16
“Less military intervention towards the end of higher prosperity and security of America, what other end is there?”
Ask South Korea. Better yet, ask Rwanda. It would be quite the bizarro utilitarian world where a US citizen would suffer more greatly from the loss of a few bucks than 1M Tutsi’s would suffer from being slaughtered.
Anyway, less intervention would probably be a good thing. I’m just pointing out that Scott’s preferred policy isn’t well defined as the others are.
13. September 2015 at 12:20
13. September 2015 at 07:06 Ray Lopez agrees with Scott Sumner. Is this a historic moment? 😉
I agree with most parts except for:
1) US Military intervention.
As Dustin said it: Military intervention is not well defined. Less intervention toward what end? And what is the decision framework for when to intervene? I think most big military interventions in US history were justified. For example the intervention in Europe in 1917 (it ended the war). Or the intervention in Europe in 1942, starting with Operation Torch. In this case it was not too much intervention but quite the opposite: Truman should have gone “all the way” (=freeing Eastern Europe as well) like Patton wanted to. Not to forget the intervention in the Pacific in 1941.
Then Korea 1950 (compare the South and the North today, it’s like day night). Vietnam in 1963 was worth a try, even though not successful (but it’s still fine today). And so on. Iraq in 2003 was the only huge mistake so far. But you only find out by trying. And is it really better to do (close to) nothing like in Syria today? I don’t think so. It’s far worse.
2) War on Drugs / Lower taxes on cigarettes
Ending the “war on drugs” is a popular meme, but what does it even mean? It’s not well defined.
And I strongly disagree that you should lower the taxes on cigarettes. You favor consumption taxes and a carbon tax but lower cigarette taxes? How does this make sense? The taxes on all drugs should be really high. Those are really good consumption taxes that price in many really bad externalities. Taxes are always a penalty so why not actually use them like that for a change?
If you really want to legalize drugs than the US politicians/officials should simultaneously implement the exact same things they did with cigarettes: Total advertising bans, pretty high taxes and smart education about the dangers of drugs.
13. September 2015 at 13:11
Yeah, “end cigarette taxes”? I’d rather expand the drug war to include cigarettes. But raising cigarette taxes is a second-best option.
13. September 2015 at 13:53
Scott,
I agree with just about every position you have, with 2 or 3 exceptions. First, I would not reduce the tobacco tax, as it may have played an important role in helping bring down smoking rates. Especially in the context of federally subsidized healthcare, such “sin” taxes make a lot of sense. I would legalize all drugs, but tax those commonly abused, with a waiver for those using with legitimate medical purpose.
On military spending, I don’t think we’re ready for quite so much disarmament, given challenges presented by Russia, China, and the deteriorating situation in the middle east. Long-term, as a world, we should move toward less militarism. Spending more efficiently is always welcome, of course.
On taxes, I would focus more on “sin” taxes generally. Taxes on high fat and high sugar foods may be a good idea, for example. I also favor a carbon tax.
I agree on educational vouchers, because they largely achieve the same results for less money, except that achievement gaps between whites and various minorities tend to close rapidly. It’s far from a panacea, but would be an improvement.
I’m a liberal Democrat, so this much agreement perhaps suggests you should vote Democratic, if you’re willing to support the lesser of two evils.
13. September 2015 at 13:54
Great list in my humble opinion!
Any ideas for evangelizing the benefits of more immigration to the average voter? In my experience many average voters are very “protectionist” when it comes down to it and believe things like
“Why should we allow more immigrants from poor countries when my own kids might have trouble getting a job” and things like that.
I have tried making personal appeals to my own family’s foreign exchange students and things of that nature but so far I have found it difficult to persuade people (on both sides of the political spectrum) on immigration.
13. September 2015 at 13:59
Scott,
Perhaps if Trump is the Republican nominee, a vote for the Democratic nominee would seem a bit more palatable.
Regarding his chances, and betting markets, I read that betting markets very much discounted the chances of Corbin being elected Labour leader earlier this year. And yet, here Labour has a leader who seems more appropriate for the old communists in east Germany.
13. September 2015 at 14:00
Corbyn
13. September 2015 at 14:06
@Cory
It boggles the mind, how fucking clueless you must be to compare temporary visitors with mass immigration.
13. September 2015 at 14:15
“End it, let out 400,000 prisoners”
The prison population in the US is about 1.5 million. About 300.000 of these inmates have indeed a current conviction involving drugs. About 40.000 of them have marijuana involved, and about 20.000 of them are in for marijuana offenses alone. About 297.000 of the 300.000 are involved in distribution. Less than one percent are in for possession alone.
Now let’s talk about those 297.000 drug dealers. Because that’s what they are: Drug dealers. Why are they selling illegal drugs? Because they love drugs so much? Are they romantic about drugs? Do to they want to help mankind making drugs legal and safe? Do they want great quality and happy customers? That’s not my experience.
My experience is that they sell drugs because they can make a nice profit. They do not do legal work because they don’t see the profit in that. They want easy money. This has nothing to do with drugs. They would sell nearly anything if the profit would be high enough. Legalize drugs today and they’ll most likely switch to another criminal business tomorrow.
Another thing: The criminal record of those guys often resembles the white pages in size. The issue of the 297.000 inmates is not about drugs it’s about violent criminals.
Drug dealers are heavily involved in a very violent circle. In fact drug dealing is one of the most violent businesses of all. Very often the violent actions of drug dealers can not be prosecuted because they are so powerful that you won’t get any witnesses who are brave (or insane) enough to testify in court. Linking those criminals to drug deals and drug money is way easier in a lot of cases and often the only way to get those guys into prison at all.
Long story short: I think releasing 297.000 drug dealers prematurely would be really naive.
13. September 2015 at 14:27
The problem with “inequality” is that it is mostly a rhetorical cudgel used by people to pretend that they are being altruistic when they are really being bigoted. Kind of like someone using “family values” as a cover for homophobia.
In theory, the idea could occasionally be relevant, but in practice, it’s mostly a dog whistle.
13. September 2015 at 14:27
“I would not reduce the tobacco tax, as it may have played an important role in helping bring down smoking rates. Especially in the context of federally subsidized healthcare, such ‘sin’ taxes make a lot of sense.”
That’s exactly right. In times of subsidized healthcare you can not let people smoke like a chimney without a fine.
13. September 2015 at 14:32
Beefcake,
I apologize for not going into more detail so as to avoid an assertion of cluelessness. My families two exchange students are now STEM students at United States Public Universities. They are both very talented, love the United States, would love to become citizens and have been able to live a better life in the United States.
I bring them up against blanket assertions that folks will make such as 1. Immigrants don’t love America 2. Immigrants don’t add value to our country, and things of that nature as I think many average people would see how more liberalized immigration laws could help good people like them.
Are there arguments in favor of more liberalized immigration laws that you find persuasive?
13. September 2015 at 14:49
Scott Freelander,
Externalities: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why do you think that “sin taxes” on smoking, or eating fat or sugar have anything to do with externalities? The costs of those behaviors fall overwhelmingly on those who engage in them. Don’t couch your objection to them in pseudo-economic terminology, call it by its proper name: puritanism.
13. September 2015 at 15:05
@Jim
-No, externalities mean externalities. And we weren’t discussing fat or sugar taxes. Smoking has a strong effect on others’ respiratory health.
13. September 2015 at 15:14
Cory, you really aren’t helping yourself here. (Nice strawman bashing, BTW.) If you expect your family to support the entry of millions of poor Mexicans (the obvious result of the open-borders policy advocated by liberal fanatics like Scott) because they’ve had good experiences with a few middle- or upper-class students, then you should consider yourself lucky they didn’t laugh you out of the house.
13. September 2015 at 15:27
@ Christian List,
Shouldn’t smokers receive a 50% discount on their SS Payroll taxes, especially if they are charged higher Obamacare rates?
13. September 2015 at 15:39
Scott,
One of the issues with immigration is that much of the world serves as a “permanent reservoir” of poverty, violence, and tribalism. One way migrant flows can’t continue forever without consequences.
It would be much better to promote economic and political development elsewhere, than to accept a permanent refugee flow.
Of course I can’t agree with Trump, because while he wants to reduce unskilled immigrants (good), he also wants to start trade wars with Mexico and China (very bad).
Democrats have their own blind spots, as they will excoriate Republicans for opposing gay marriage or abortion, but look the other way for human rights violations elsewhere in the world because, you know, multiculturalism.
So I can’t support either party on this issue.
13. September 2015 at 15:47
Beefcake,
I did not intend to “strawman bash” I was simply trying to provide generic examples of things one hears on this issue. You were the one that chose to resort to using derisive language. Reasonable minds can disagree on immigration policy as with most everything.
And, for what it is worth I was also a Missionary in Haiti and have plenty of experience with the least well off in our hemisphere. There is strong evidence that we can improve the human condition by finding ways to bring more people into rich countries in manageable ways – certainly more so than by sending people like me there.
Most people are sympathetic to improving the lives of other humans.
13. September 2015 at 15:48
Drugs are another ambiguous issues.
Let’s assume we legalize personal use, and (small quantity) possession.
What about sales to a minor? What about large scale dealing? Or selling drugs with unsafe additives/impurities, or misrepresented potency?
All of that starts to sound like…regulation and licensing!
Heh, maybe the anti-gun trigger-lock crowd should pass a law requiring mommy and daddy keep their pot in a drug safe. And if you are too stoned to remember the combination…lol…
13. September 2015 at 15:59
As for “Existential Risk”, if that becomes a policy issue, I can imagine every single lobby group and consultancy adopting the “Dismal Theorem” as the de rigueur economic model.
Military – Prevents existential invasion threats
CDC – Prevents existential viral outbreaks
SEC/CFPC/FOMC – Prevents existential financial bubbles.
Solar/Climate – Prevents existential sea level rises.
Universities – Prevent existential stupidity.
Minimum Wage – Prevent existential social unrest.
Anti-immigration – Prevent existential political decay.
NSA – Prevent existential terror attacks.
Tech Regulation – Prevent existential robot attacks.
Laser Defense – Prevent existential comet strikes.
Pretty much every trend can be ‘hockey-sticked’ into an existential threat if extrapolated far enough.
13. September 2015 at 16:03
Scott, I’m just throwing around some examples for sake of argument…I’m coming from the pragmatism camp, rather than the utilitarian camp.
I’m not even picking candidates based on their policy views this cycle. I’m assuming like every recent president, their views will completely change once they set foot in the White House. Better to have candidates with the intellectual, moral, and communication skills to adapt once in office.
13. September 2015 at 16:50
Well now we’re just dying to know what the most important non-US issues are for you. Also, does this mean you’ll now have [at least] four more blogs covering each of your top four issues, since mon policy doesn’t even make your top eight issues? [Unless, in a twist, you think mon policy affects those top eight issues?]
13. September 2015 at 17:07
Jim, I never used that word once, but given that we have government-subsidized healthcare in this country, there are costs associated with unhealthy living that are borne by taxpayers.
13. September 2015 at 17:17
@Steve
Why? Because they die earlier? It would not give smokers any insensitive as long as smoking is so harmful.
But I do think the anti-smoking-meme got too extreme. Nicotine for example is not the problem. The tobacco industry should finally develop products that allow to consume nicotine in a harmless yet appealing way. For example an improved e-cigarette.
But even if they manage this, it would be a really long way back from smoking is healthy (1950) to smoking is extremely unhealthy (2015) to smoking is fine again(future?).
And I’m not only talking about consumers here. The FDA, the media and so on (even the tobacco industry) now have this mindset that smoking will be unhealthy for forever.
It’s like in the example of the reversed bicycle Scott gave recently: It’s really hard to unlearn things, especially if you were taught that the old way is the only right and everlasting way.
13. September 2015 at 17:48
John, I used a utilitarian criterion. It just seemed to me like an important issue, in terms of human happiness.
Dustin, You asked:
“Would you trade off states rights if the policies reflected in this list could be implemented nationally by a central government?”
I generally don’t favor moving away from democracy just because I don’t get my way at the state level. I take the sweet with the sour, and notice that Switzerland was just named the world’s happiest country. Switzerland is also the world’s states rights – ist country But of course there is the difficult issue of what should be constitutionally guaranteed.
As far as intervention, I don’t really know when it’s desirable, but my sense is that we do far too much of it.
E Harding. I read it a while ago, but don’t recall the details. I’ve read a lot of anti-global warming stuff, and haven’t found any of it very convincing.
Lars, Yes, it’s complicated.
Travis, That’s my favorite system, because it’s so cheap.
Christian, You said:
“I think most big military interventions in US history were justified. For example the intervention in Europe in 1917 (it ended the war).”
It also led to WWII. I wish we had not intervened in WWI, and it ended in a draw. Maybe Hitler would not have taken power.
As far as Korea, what makes you think North Korea would be anything like it is today if we had not intervened. Yes, you might be right, but can we have any confidence in that? What’s the counterfactual in Vietnam? In Cambodia? Does the genocide still happen? Who knows?
Ending the war on drugs means legalizing drugs.
I don’t agree that cigarettes have major externalities.
Scott, I strongly oppose sin taxes. They hurt the poor. The externality argument is a myth, as I’ve explained in other posts.
Good point about Corbyn and betting markets. More black swans.
And what if it’s Sanders? Will you vote for a non-Trump GOP nominee?
Cory, Yes, it’s hard to convince people. The immigrants in the 1890s were also viewed with horror—“they’ll never assimilate.”
Christian, Regarding your second comment on drugs, it seems like you are not well informed. You don’t have the right numbers (are you just looking at state prisons?) And you don’t seem to understand the difference between being a drug dealer and a drug user who occasionally sells drugs to a friend. But yes, I want to release all those horrible drug kingpins. All 400,000 of them. And if people selling alcohol and cigarettes were in prison, I’d want to release them too. Why should selling drugs be illegal?
And you say drug dealers are violent. Hmm, weren’t alcohol dealers violent in the 1920s? Al Capone? I wonder why alcohol dealers are no longer violent. Maybe because alcohol is now legal?
But yes, those myths are what we are up against as we try to legalize drugs.
E. Harding, You said:
“Smoking has a strong effect on others’ respiratory health.”
Actually that’s a myth. Especially outside the home and workplace, where the externality argument doesn’t apply for standard Coasian reasons.
Christian, You said:
“In times of subsidized healthcare you can not let people smoke like a chimney without a fine.”
But they live much shorter lives! Think of all the money we’d save on Social Security. The external benefits. Maybe we should subsidize smoking.
Steve, You said:
“All of that starts to sound like…regulation and licensing!”
Somehow we’ve found a way to NOT imprison 400,000 people for smoking and drinking alcohol, or selling them. It can’t be that hard.
Cory, I wouldn’t waste time talking to Beefcake. He just tries to provoke people.
13. September 2015 at 17:53
Federico, I don’t blog on most of those issues because I don’t know enough about them to put my opinions out there. My opinion on things like abortion or foreign policy are essentially worthless, why would anyone want to read a blog post of mine on those subjects?
Overseas there are obviously much bigger problems than in the US (that is, in many developing countries. Places like Australia have fewer problems.)
13. September 2015 at 18:18
Scott, does “provoking” include asking you to explain how you know the “natural” rate is below 1/4% (so that you’re able to call current Fed policy restrictive)?
13. September 2015 at 18:53
Scott,
“As far as Korea, what makes you think North Korea would be anything like it is today if we had not intervened. Yes, you might be right, but can we have any confidence in that?”
There would be no North Korea. There would be only one Korea. Kim Il-sung and his offspring would rule whole Korea. There is no reason to believe that they would be more sane and less stalinist. What makes you think that? Betraying all those people in Korea who did not want a Communist rule in 1950 would have been so wrong on so many levels and would have meant the sure death of millions of people and the slavery of millions of others.
It’s easy to imagine a world that turns into a paradise just because the US does not intervene. The problem is that it’s just not true. It turns into a nightmare – and when it does the US has a huge problem.
The US has a long history of isolationism and non-interventionism. This has already been tried, it’s nothing new. For example in the 1920s and 1930s. We all know how well this ended.
In my opinion non-interventionism is a juvenile behaviour. In fact there is no such thing as non-interventionism. In the world of today every time the US does give away critical geopolitical positions, those spaces of room and power are instantly occupied by forces that are far worse than the US (Islamists, China, Russia).
Of course interventionism got its limits, too. I think the approach by George W. in Iraq was naive in a similar way. Regimes that are pretty much stable and not too aggressive should be contained not attacked.
The US is a world power. If the US does not use its power, all kinds of rogues are encouraged. There’s a saying in Germany that sums this up pretty well: When the cat’s out of the house, the mice will dance on the table. This is happening right now and if the next American President continues this naive policy it will only get worse and worse.
13. September 2015 at 19:25
“Somehow we’ve found a way to NOT imprison 400,000 people for smoking and drinking alcohol”
Yes, by tolerating 15,000 DWI fatalities per year, and 1.4 million DUI arrests.
I agree with lessening penalties for drugs, and I don’t support longer prison sentences for DUI, especially for 1st time and lower BAC. But there is a balancing act, legalization will mean more ubiquity and a different set of costs.
Also all drugs are not the same, pot is less bad, heroin is terrible. Arguably smoking (in private) is least dangerous of all.
13. September 2015 at 19:38
Scott,
“Why should selling drugs be illegal?”
You are absolutely right. It should not be illegal.
“You don’t have the right numbers (are you just looking at state prisons?)”
Yeah I only looked at state and federal prisons because the stats of local jails are muddy and my sources (Slate, Rolling Stone) did they same thing. I assume that people aren’t locked up in local jails for years and especially not for smoking pot.
Rolling Stone says pretty much the same thing:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/top-10-marijuana-myths-and-facts-20120822/myth-prisons-are-full-of-people-in-for-marijuana-possession-19691231
“And you don’t seem to understand the difference between being a drug dealer and a drug user who occasionally sells drugs to a friend”
I understand this different quite well and you can legalize selling pot to a friend of course. But those 300.000 people I mentioned are not in state and federal prisons because they sold pot to a friend. They are drug dealers, most of them organized in gangs.
“Hmm, weren’t alcohol dealers violent in the 1920s? Al Capone? I wonder why alcohol dealers are no longer violent. Maybe because alcohol is now legal?”
That was exactly my point. You are talking about different persons here. That’s a very common mistake. Do you really think somebody like Al Capone would have opened a little liquor store if alcohol was legal at that time? Are you kidding me?
Al Capone was a criminal way before the criminalization of alcohol and remained a criminal way after. It’s silly to think people like Al Capone become criminals because of the criminalization of drugs or alcohol. I wonder why people mix this stuff up all the time.
People like Al Capone grow up in gangs and don’t care for legal work, because the legal work they get offered, does not promise easy money. Legal work is usually hard work, especially in the places people like Al Capone grow up. Legalize drugs and it will be hard work, too and therefore not interesting for people like Al Capone anymore. To help those kids might involve getting to them before they get into gangs.
So Al Capone got into the liquor business because (!) alcohol was illegal and promised huge profits. The 297.000 drug dealers of today got into illegal drugs because (!) they are illegal and therefore promised huge profits. Those people are criminals. Most of them have no interest in a legal drugstore. They lose there interest in drugs as soon as they are legal. Legalize drugs today and they’ll switch to another criminal business tomorrow.
13. September 2015 at 19:56
Steve,
“also all drugs are not the same, pot is less bad, heroin is terrible.”
I will never understand this very commom urban myth. Marijuana affects your brain in a way that is not even understood until this very day. We know so far that it got brain altering effects, that can be permanent. I would never recommend marijuana at regular basis unless you are very ill or terminally sick.
Heroin is completely different. It’s simply a strong opioid. Opioids are very common in medicine and well understood. I handle opioids all the time for my patients because – unlike all the other analgesics (!) – opioids got no known negative longterm-effects on inner organs whatsoever.
The real problem with heroin is, that it is not legal. You can only buy it illegaly, where it is not clean but stretched with ugly substances. Those substances make you sick and the fact, that a lot of drug users don’t use clean
needles etc.
So I’d say legalize heroin first, then talk about marijuana. But people think not like that: For them opioids are the devil and marijuana is a pretty much harmless substance. That’s so wrong!
13. September 2015 at 20:16
Everybody – notice that Sumner has “Monetary policy (NGDPLT)” as a “Tier 3” issue, on par with weakening IP! LOL, so why this blog if this is such an unimportant issue? I’d like to see if Sumner’s IP stance is as ill-informed as I suspect it is, probably like Alex Tabarrok’s public stance, a cardboard caricature along the lines of ‘copying is good, protection is bad, since people invent regardless of incentives’ (in a nutshell that’s pretty much every anti-IP advocates claim).
@the troll who trolls Sumner on natural rate – like pornography, Sumner’s position is that while you cannot directly measure the natural rate of interest, you’ll know it when you see it, via the effects on the economy: if the economy is still below trend, by definition the central bank is too restrictive. I, as a money neutrality-st, disagree, but that’s Sumner’s position and it’s reasonable if you believe in his priors.
13. September 2015 at 20:31
Steve,
“Arguably smoking (in private) is least dangerous of all.”
Arguably it’s the most dangerous. Smoke for 30 years one pack a day and you can anticipate your heart disease or your cancer quite early. Just look at the lung of a smoker: It will be black. Look at his blood vessels: They are full of plaques. Your passport might say that you are 45-55 years old but most of your inner organs aged so much faster. Your “real” biological age would be more like 65-85.
Take clean heroin for 30 years 2 shots a day the right way (no extreme overdosing of course, that would be a golden shot) and nobody will find any damage on your inner organs whatsover nor will you have a higher risk for serious diseases.
13. September 2015 at 20:40
“Everybody – notice that Sumner has “Monetary policy (NGDPLT) as a Tier 3 issue”
I was wondering about that, too.
13. September 2015 at 21:38
@Robert: yes, from a European perspective, Land use would be much higher (had the same thought too).
13. September 2015 at 21:55
@ Christian List
All I know about heroin is that lots of young people are dying from overdoses, also passing out and causing car crashes. And having trouble breaking the addiction despite interventions. Perhaps these problems could be solved; I am not an expert.
As for cigarettes: I should have clarified not dangerous EXCEPT to the person smoking them (in private).
I suspect you are right about marijuana; the long-term effects of regular use may be very damaging, but what we have is a bunch of elites who tried it a few times and are rebelling against criminalization and imprisonment of casual users.
13. September 2015 at 22:31
Scott, I came here to post an off-topic link for you regarding utilitarianism, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it’s mostly going to be on topic after all.
I realize you probably can’t find the time, but if you do I highly recommend this “Rationally Speaking” podcast entitled ‘Paul Bloom on “The case against empathy.”‘ The author being interviewed (Paul Bloom) clarifies what he means by being anti-empathy. There are links there to written transcripts you can probably buzz through faster. The concept of utilitarianism comes up quite a bit (as an alternative to empathy), which is why I thought of you and what your responses would be.
Paul and the excellent interviewer (Julia Galef, who’s involved with something called the “effective altruism movement”) bring up some interesting issues with utilitarianism. Both are ambivalent about embracing it whole heartedly.
For example, here’s a snippet from the transcript:
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Paul: Look, we’re on the same page regarding the uncertainties over utilitarianism. I haven’t fully drank the Kool-Aid myself.
Here’s something which often bothers me: I have two sons, now teenagers. And I feel this tremendous obligation and love towards them, so much so that I would spend enormous amounts of money to make their lives slightly better.
Julia: Right.
Paul: A better school, books, healthcare and so on. And a utilitarian would say, “This is ridiculous. You could be saving a village with this money. You could be curing a dozen people from blindness with the money you spend to send your kids at a special tutoring or delightful vacation.” To me, at this gut level, I feel I’m doing the right thing. And my feeling, I can’t disavow that.
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
That’s just a taste. (So what’s it for you? Better school for your kids, or cure a dozen blind people? Can you justify your answer via utilitarianism?)
13. September 2015 at 22:34
Scott, I made a mistake of leaving a post with three links, which went to la la land. Basically I was informing you of a very interesting recent discussion involving utilitarianism here:
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs142-paul-bloom-on-the-case-against-empathy.html
Transcripts at bottom.
13. September 2015 at 22:38
@Steve
Heroin and driving is a really bad idea but that’s the case with mostly any drug except nicotine. Endangering the lives of other people for example by using dangerous machines (like cars) while under the influence of drugs should be punished harshly and I hope it is punished harshly. At least in the US.
It is also true that heroin is very addictive. But so is nicotine. Quitting smoking is like quitting heroin. There’s really not much difference. Some people can do it, some people can’t.
To the last point: Overdosing. It’s true you can get a golden shot, meaning you can overdose heroin. But this is true for nearly every substance in the world. You can overdose water if you want to. Drink 2 gallons of water or less in a short time and chances are very good that you’ll die.
13. September 2015 at 23:00
Scott-
For some reason I missed your “Smiling Assassin” post–my brain must have been on drug legalization.
That post deserves 5 stars, plus 5 excess stars. Then additional interest on excess stars, to prevent the stars from being lent out to Keynesians, RBCers, and bubblemongers who might over-inflate non-monetary explanations of the crash.
13. September 2015 at 23:24
In case my original comment is gone for good, here’s an example of one of the many ambivalent comments regarding utilitarianism I would be interested in your opinion on (from the transcript) (Julia Galef is the interviewer and Paul Bloom (“The Case Against Empathy”) is the interviewee):
———————————————
Paul: Look, we’re on the same page regarding the uncertainties over utilitarianism. I haven’t fully drank the Kool-Aid myself.
Here’s something which often bothers me: I have two sons, now teenagers. And I feel this tremendous obligation and love towards them, so much so that I would spend enormous amounts of money to make their lives slightly better.
Julia: Right.
Paul: A better school, books, healthcare and so on. And a utilitarian would say, “This is ridiculous. You could be saving a village with this money. You could be curing a dozen people from blindness with the money you spend to send your kids at a special tutoring or delightful vacation.” To me, at this gut level, I feel I’m doing the right thing. And my feeling, I can’t disavow that.
—————————————————-
So in your opinion, does being a utilitarian extend into personal giving as well? Has Paul framed this dilemma correctly?
Also, do you agree with Paul that empathy (defined as feeling what others feel) is a terrible guide to morality and public policy? Are you anti-empathy? I think he makes a good argument.
14. September 2015 at 04:36
Beefcake, You said:
“Scott, does “provoking” include asking you to explain how you know the “natural” rate is below 1/4% (so that you’re able to call current Fed policy restrictive)?”
According to those who like to use the natural rate concept (which doesn’t include me) the natural rate is below the policy rate when inflation (or NGDP growth) is below target. Right now inflation is below the Fed’s target, and is expected to stay below target.
Christian, You said:
“There would be no North Korea. There would be only one Korea. Kim Il-sung and his offspring would rule whole Korea. There is no reason to believe that they would be more sane and less stalinist.
There is also no reason to not believe that to be the case. We don’t even know they’d still be ruling Korea. Didn’t China become less Stalinist? So we know it’s possible. A united Korea would be a vastly different place, if only because it would be a much larger country. You and I have no idea what it would look like. Maybe it would be like China, or maybe Vietnam, or maybe it would be like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, even worse that North Korea today. We simply have NO IDEA AT ALL.
Christian, You said:
It’s easy to imagine a world that turns into a paradise just because the US does not intervene. The problem is that it’s just not true. It turns into a nightmare – and when it does the US has a huge problem.
The US has a long history of isolationism and non-interventionism. This has already been tried, it’s nothing new. For example in the 1920s and 1930s. We all know how well this ended.”
This is really a moronic argument. Did I claim there would be paradise? If not, why do you imply I did? Wasn’t WWII caused by the outcome of WWI? That’s what the so-called experts tell us. And wasn’t the outcome of WWI heavily influenced by US intervention? I will grant you this. If the US really was going to intervene in Europe in WWI they should not have been isolationist afterwards. The inconsistency was worse than either extreme (either staying out entirely, or intervening in WWI and staying around afterwards with a NATO type structure.)
On the drug issue you seem completely unaware of the facts. For instance you say:
“Legalize drugs today and they’ll switch to another criminal business tomorrow.”
And yet the murder rate in American rapidly fell in half after prohibition was repealed. So apparently it does make a difference in crime.
Steve, I don’t follow your point. Why do you claim smoking is least bad? The experts don’t agree. And I fail to see how the 15,000 DWI fatalities have any relevance to the discussion, unless you are advocating alcohol prohibition. I can’t follow your argument at all.
Ray, You said:
“LOL, so why this blog if this is such an unimportant issue?”
Reread my post, I said tier three includes “very important issues.” Why shouldn’t I blog on very important issues that I am qualified to discuss? Would you rather I blog on war and peace, a subject where I have no expertise, and hence my opinions are worthless?
Thanks Tom, I’ll dig it out.
Thanks Steve.
14. September 2015 at 04:45
Tom, I apply utilitarianism to public policy decisions. That’s where I think policies should maximize aggregate utility, not the well being of friends and family. In my personal life I don’t give away my money to the poor, I’ll give it to my daughter. Even if I was single I wouldn’t give it away. That’s because I’m a selfish bastard.
But it costs me almost nothing to advocate utilitarian public policies, so I do so.
I’ve said in previous posts that it’s unrealistic to expect the public to accept open borders. That amount of charity is not realistic. But it’s still the right thing to do.
14. September 2015 at 04:53
So Scott, if you don’t like the concept of the natural rate, why did you direct me to read the “100’s” of posts you’d written on it? Was that just blowing-of-smoke-up-ass?
So basically we’re back to the good ol’ expectations escape hatch: if activist Fed policy restores economic health, it’s because it did what MM said it should, if not, it’s because of expectations. Heads you win, tails I lose?
14. September 2015 at 05:13
Nope, not a myth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBbQX3Rsu4o
But, yes, standard Coasian reasons may apply to lots of those.
14. September 2015 at 05:42
Scott:
What weakening do you want to see of IP? I, for one, think they should end the patenting of software. It leads to patent trolling and does nothing to spur innovation. We’d be better off limiting ourselves to copyrighting of software.
14. September 2015 at 05:45
I second Steve’s comments on drugs. The liberalization of drugs will yield more drug addicts and more drug related accidents and death. That said the “war on drugs” needs to end, especially all aspects of it that accommodate the militarization of the police and unconstitutional law enforcement activities.
14. September 2015 at 06:05
@Scott
I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. I also never intended to be impolite. I’m sorry if I was. I was not talking about murders. I was talking about criminal activities with a huge profit. Al Capone started his gang career around 1914. His gang was specialized in many activities like racketeering, prostitution and gambling. Alcohol became another activity only in 1920 when Prohibition started. Nothing more, nothing less. Take away from them the alcohol, prostitution and gambling business – and they will still do racketeering (and find something else). Murder was never their main business. It’s not a very common criminal business at all, it’s just a side-effect, I guess. High risk, not much profit.
“And yet the murder rate in American rapidly fell in half after prohibition was repealed. So apparently it does make a difference in crime.”
You can read the data like that if you want to. But it’s really biased to read it like that. In fact homicide rates in the US began to rise at least since 1900 (or even 1850).
This exact trend continues during the prohibition (1920-1933). Prohibition is abolished in February 1933, but the decline of homicide rates seems to start in 1931 already. The decline continues until around 1960, then the rates explode again, rising even higher then during the Prohibition. Around 1990 the rates fall again sharply.
Note also that at it’s height, the homicide rates under Prohibition were not disimilar to modern homicide and non-negligent manslaughter rates (as recorded in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports). These have hovered around the 9.2 +/- 1.0 per 100,000 mark for the past twenty years.
http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-and-england-1900-2000-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm
14. September 2015 at 06:31
@Scott
“You and I have no idea what it would look like.”
So let me rephrase the problem. What are you telling the Koreans of the 1950s that are crying for help when they are being run over by communists? “Sorry we don’t intervene because it could go terrible wrong?” Is that your answer? That’s kind of immoral, don’t you think?
And what will you add next? “Don’t worry too much. Maybe, just maybe (after a few million deaths and few great leaps forward) your country might be healing again. There, there. Have a cookie.”
Would you say the same thing to the British people of 1941 as well? “Let’s see how long Hitler lasts. Maybe we get lucky and his Third Reich will crumble not after 1000, but only after 40 years? And maybe he leaves the US alone?”
I just don’t see how you can fit this kind of mindset into a reasonably moralistic system of values.
What are you saying to the French and the Prussian General von Steuben in the War of Independence? “Please leave our country, foreign intervention is too risky! We prefer not to found one of the greatest nations ever build. Freedom and democracy are really not that important.”
If something sounded impolite I’m sorry. That is not my intention.
14. September 2015 at 07:53
Sumner: “Would you rather I blog on war and peace, a subject where I have no expertise, and hence my opinions are worthless?” – yet Sumner’s “Tier 1” issue is…US Military Intervention (i.e., ‘war and peace’). So, Sumner is rising to his level of incompetence, as the saying goes.
I second everything Christian List says in this thread, he seems to be on top of things, and is using as a pen name either the real Christian List of the LBE or a takeoff of the great German economist Friederick List, who saw through the myth of ‘free trade’ (myth in practice, not in theory of course).
PS–the Philippines, where I’m at now, has the same crime rate the USA had in 1980s (but with a much younger population, so the Filipinos are more pacific) yet I feel safer here than in the USA. At least here crime has a reason, not like in the States were some nut-job randomly kills you.
14. September 2015 at 08:13
I’d like to see some of the way lower tier stuff. Things that are absolutely unimportant but slightly bug you because they just aren’t right. My biggest one is the fact that the day starts at 12 and not 1 or 0 (excluding 24-hour time of course). Doesn’t make any sense.
14. September 2015 at 08:40
Beefcake, I often talk about interest rates because idiots like you insist on it being explained that way. I’d prefer to just talk about NGDP futures prices. If you’d get off your ass and start lobbying Congress for a NGDP futures market we could have a more intelligent conversation about the stance of monetary policy. I could just point to NGDP futures to make my point, instead of the difficult to explain Wicksellian equilibrium rate.
E. Harding, Standard Coasian reasoning applies to ALL of them.
Christian, You make it seem like the costs of intervention are zero. Our intervention in Korea may well have had the near term effect of killing millions of people. (As compared to an easy victory for the North.) And then there are all those who died in the North as a result of later famines, despite our invention.
If you are going to kill millions of people, you better be pretty sure the alternative is worse. Sorry, but I’m just not sure. I presume a united Korea would be bad, but have no way of knowing whether it would have been Vietnamese bad or Cambodian bad or Mao bad or Deng bad, or whatever.
I did not say I was opposed to all intervention, I think America’s involvement in WWII was justified. Regarding other cases like the bombing of Serbia I’m agnostic. I just think that overall we do far too much of this, with too little awareness of unintended consequences. How’d our involvement in Libya work out? How about Somalia? How about our bombing of Cambodia? How about Iraq?
Regarding homicide rates, it’s bizarre you say they start falling in 1931, when the data you link to shows them peaking at 9.7% in 1933. And no, prohibition was not repealed in February, as Hoover was still president in February.
You are also wrong about modern homicide rates, which have fallen sharply in the past 20 years. Don’t know where you get your data.
Jackson, I’d bore you to tears, as I’m an old reactionary. I hate the decline in drinking fountains, for instance. I hate the existence of cell phones.
14. September 2015 at 09:06
@Scott
OK, so the answer to my question is “yes”.
But you raise another point here. So, now you’re going to blame the inaction of others for failure to get your preferred policy implemented, instead of the basic incoherence of the policy?
14. September 2015 at 09:53
Christian List,
You have a very interesting perspective on Opiates. Despite being generally pro-legalization/de-criminalization (I am sympathetic to Milton Friedman’s point that banning substances has the same logic as banning overeating”) but I really do not know about opiates.
As you suggest, they do not have harmful effects on many internal organs however the addictive properties seem very troubling to me. For example I know of people in my own personal life who have used their children to get access to opiates. There is a troubling amount of young people dying.
One might say that the obvious response is create safe environments where people can use but then you have my brother in law who is a police officer in a rough area and all he talks about is how these folks addicted to opiates are slaves to them.
I guess for me I know a lot of successful people who regularly smoke marijuana. On the other hand I’ve known people addicted to opiates that have passed away and suffered tremendously over their addiction.
14. September 2015 at 11:04
Interesting list. I find that I actually agree with you on most of your issues especially on the earlier levels.
On the first level I agree with you on all four items.
I’m glad to see you are not just prochoice but consider it a pretty important issue. Not many realize it but a woman’s right to choose has been largely rolled back over the last 15 to 20 years.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/planned-parenthood-abortion-the-war-is-over
In many Red states there are very few abortion clinics left open.
The issue I find hardest to understand is your position on fire station. If we privatize and close down half won’t this leave lots of people without fire safety?
I would imagine whole neighborhoods would be insecure. Unless you believe that we have a lot of redundant fire departments today?
Also if the FD is privatized wouldn’t this mean that fire safety is only available to those who can pay for it?
Would this leave poor neighborhoods out in the cold?
14. September 2015 at 11:23
you’re underrating land use reform. it’s the key to productivity growth and population growth, and thus crucial to paying for all of the other inefficiencies that we’re not likely to fix politically, as well as to generating surpluses sufficient to throw many hi quality teams at problems like cancer, alzheimer’s
it’s probably also important to distribution of dignity and freedom. if San Francisco is to gays what Canada was to slave and Germany may b to Syrians, then there ought to b more shelter in SF
u can’t win the immigration argument (except maybe by showing lots of cute lil kids on tv). u have to turn down the alert so that rational legislation can sneak thru. raising real wages seems like the way to do that. most other ways to raise real wages seem difficult, distortionary, or small
shelter elasticity would also improve the clarity of inflation measures and the tolerance for pro-growth monetary policy, no?
next best (more likely) bet is credit expansion to continuously improve owner-occupation rates, to improve population growth via birth rate and self-interested immigration tolerance
14. September 2015 at 11:51
Mike & Scott,
Since Mike Sax brought attention to the issue I am wondering if you could square this circle of life & death & dependency.
I trust you accept the science of biology that at a certain point a fetus is alive and, if removed from a woman’s uterus, would live and grow to become an independent, productive human being. So I ask, is your advocacy of abortion absolute and unilateral? If so why does the mother forsake this power when a baby is born?
A freshly born baby is just as dependent as it was before it was born and, in fact, it is an even greater burden on the mother and on society. Yet born, I assume you are willing to grant the baby the right to live and for the government or independent agents to defend the life of the baby. Yet why must a baby leave a uterus to gain these protections? The law that says this is so seems awfully inconsistent with science, let alone basic morality and sense of right and wrong.
14. September 2015 at 12:04
Christian List: About ending the ban on drugs: The reason Al Capone is famous is that Prohibition made the profits on alcohol so big that he was able to acquire lots of money and power. Without prohibition he would still have been an evil gangster but would not have had the money or power if he had been forced to stick to protection and numbers rackets.
14. September 2015 at 12:52
Dan W, I realize I may have kicked the Hornet’s nest in mentioning abortion. In general being an absolutist is a mistake on any issue.
However, I can’t help but notice that the GOP at their last debate was to my mind pretty absolute. Rubio hinted that he opposed exceptions even for rape and incest and Jeb as Governor prevented rape victims from getting abortions.
Then Huckabee said that an 11 year old girl should be forced to bear a pregnancy that was the result of rape.
Scott Walker has to be the most absolutist on the planet as he rules out even the case of the life of the mother.
Ironically on this issue Trump sounded the most reasonable. He’s pro-life-now at least-but he makes the conventional exceptions of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
14. September 2015 at 13:34
please run for president
14. September 2015 at 13:39
@Mike Sax
So, basically you admit that the abortion question isn’t as clear cut as shabby slogans about “choice” suggest, and instead of addressing the question put to you, you take the opportunity to engage in partisanship? (Just so we’re clear, I do not support the GOP.)
14. September 2015 at 13:42
@Dustin “Ask South Korea. Better yet, ask Rwanda.”
Yeah, that would be awesome if facts didn’t point in the opposite direction. Rwandan genocide happened, that huge military budget didn’t save anyone, but it surely created a recruiting heaven for terrorists after all those decades of invasions in far away places.
And what’s bizarre is the wrong equivalency a-la “if you care, kill”, when allowing migration or simple foreign aid done right (which, I admit, is the same fantasy as thinking about increased military budget preventing Rwandan genocides) would bring way more prosperity to outsiders if US citizens wanted to show how much they cared.
14. September 2015 at 14:28
Beefcake:
I don’t think ‘choice’ is any more a ‘shabby’ slogan than ‘life,’ is.
How am I engaging in partisanship by pointing out that the GOP has become extreme on the issue?
14. September 2015 at 14:31
Beefcake:
I will say this: at least the slogan ‘choice’ doesn’t implicitly suggest that its opponents are literally murderers or guilty of murder.
14. September 2015 at 14:31
I meant ‘or guilty of condoning murder.’
14. September 2015 at 14:35
I think you need to separate our military capability from wise and judicious use of it. I think that some think that our superior military is the reason that perhaps it has been used unwisely, but that is like saying that like saying that people should not study survival training because it encourages then to go into the wild and risk their lives.
We live in a very dangerous world with very unsymmetrical threats from people who don’t listen to reason from university professors. We were on the path of greatly reducing our military. The resulting peace dividend created more prosperity and potential for reducing our military even more… then 9/11 hit…
Unfortunately, the US is the only real force for freedom in the world and the despotic forces aligned against it, if it doesn’t lead, there would be a real difference. It is easy to talk in abstracts about the use of force and military spending but then when presidents (like OBama) are actually faced with the threats aligned against the free world they reconsider.
14. September 2015 at 15:32
Mike,
Appreciate your clarification. On the questions of life and death I do not like absolutes either. On the other hand I find late-term abortion repugnant and the defense of the practice corrosive to moral law. I fear “right to death” laws will have a similar outcome where the destruction of innocent life will be industrialized for profit and for sick ideology. Draconian laws are not the answer. I agree with the libertarian sentiment on this! But if a society can tolerate the slaughter of innocent life is there any evil it won’t tolerate? Where would it find the moral courage to say enough is enough?
14. September 2015 at 15:56
“Health care (deregulate it, plus vouchers for the poor)”
Are there any countries that do this?
“Economic Inequality (low wage subsidies, end cigarette taxes)”
A major problem with inequality is that it leads to a small group having outsize influence over the government. A small incredibly wealthy group can have more influence over policy that vast majorities of voters.
“Education (universal vouchers, with a dramatic reduction in total spending)”
Hard to see how you’re going to attract more and better teachers with lower pay. It’s not realistic to believe spending cuts will be absorbed elsewhere.
I’d add antitrust enforcement to the list.
14. September 2015 at 15:57
Otherwise, I agree with almost everything on your list (although I didn’t really focus on the levels of importance).
14. September 2015 at 17:27
@Mike Sax
You only started talking about GOP “extremism” (whatever that means) after you were called out on an issue you studiously avoided. Obviously, the notion of choice as a right is empty without reference to the morality of that choice. Hence the dishonesty of slogans like “pro-choice” vs “anti-choice”. If there are indeed gray areas here (as you admit, if only to side-step), maybe the pro-lifers are right, maybe they’re wrong, but dismissing them as opponents of “choice” is just dishonest.
Just so we’re further clear, I generally support legalized abortion, I just find liberal cant on the issue annoying.
14. September 2015 at 17:55
Mike, Yes, we have an estimated twice as many fire stations as we need, due to improvements in fire safety and stupid voters who romanticize the profession.
Dan, You said:
“is your advocacy of abortion”
I see this post has brought the crazies out. I’ve never advocated abortion, and indeed have no opinion on the practice.
Engineer, I’m afraid you don’t know much about the actual military budget. It is not aimed at threats like terrorists, it’s purpose is to create jobs in the districts of well connected Congressman. Even the Pentagon says many of the weapons forced down its throat are unneeded. We spend trillions on things like jet fighters that are basically useless against terrorists, or indeed against almost any plausible enemy.
Foosion, In recent years the taxes on the rich have gone up and up. Doesn’t seem to me they have much power. On health care, Singapore has my favorite system, Switzerland might be second. Switzerland is also good on right to die and drug prohibition.
Studies show that spending less doesn’t affect the quality of education, voucher schools do just as horribly as state schools. In any case, as Robin would say, schooling isn’t about education. It’s day care and socialization.
14. September 2015 at 18:04
Jesus Scott, you know the issue isn’t about the “practice” of abortion, and your opinion on the issue is clearly stated above. Are you as stupid as you are dishonest?
14. September 2015 at 18:49
I agree with Lars it is a little odd/scary how well-aligned we are (I’d say 90-95%) in policy positions.
Two key differences stand out to me: first, I’d rate land use/zoning reform far higher. Zoning in the US is all kinds of messed up, and really inhibits economic development/growth, especially in urban areas. It’s of course politically infeasible to move much on this, but it really is a meaningful barrier to economic progress in large urban areas, even ones where (by the standards of wealthy/large US cities) rents are relatively cheap. A recent study estimates that restrictive land use regulations cost the US ~10% of GDP every year — it’s no open borders or NGDP targeting, but that is pretty darn substantial: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/growth.pdf
I would also rate a general initiative of “criminal justice reform” quite highly, potentially as high as ending the war on drugs since that is a subset of criminal justice reform. US law sentences people far too harshly to be an effective deterrent against crime. Police and prosecutors have too much discretion and not enough accountability.
From a typical Democrat/left liberal standpoint, I would rate open immigration, liberal land use reform, and criminal justice reform as potentially the three biggest and certainly the three most underrated social justice issues in the US if not world (criminal law reform may apply less in some countries outside the US) today.
Combined, the coercive weight of the law in these three areas crushes millions if not billions of the poorest and unluckiest people in the world, who did nothing to deserve their fate except be born into the wrong circumstances. Those born with the right socioeconomic status in the right neighbourhoods of the right countries have the scales tilted far enough in their favour without the added unearned privilege of discriminatory immigration, housing, and criminal procedures all designed to make the playing field even more unequal.
14. September 2015 at 19:02
@sourcreamus
That is true.
@Cory
“As you suggest, they do not have harmful effects on many internal organs however the addictive properties seem very troubling to me”
Most patients I know are afraid of taking opioids because of addiction. This is indeed partly true. You get addicted to them very easily if you take them “just for fun”, meaning just for pleasure. You usually don’t get addicted to them easily if you are in severe pain and if a doctor is doing professional supervision.
I also do not endorse drugs. Decriminalization is discussable because of the bad externalities of prohibition. I does not mean in any case that healthy people should take any of those drugs we discussed.
I like to talk about heroin to show that marijuana is not harmless at all. I would rather take legal heroin than legal marijuana. The kick is way better and you don’t have permanent organ altering effects. I would never take illegal heroin or illegal marijuana, because on the black market they’ll sell you everything but no clean heroin or clean marijuana. It’s basically junk.
@Scott
“If you are going to kill millions of people, you better be pretty sure the alternative is worse.”
You can never be sure about that. Never. You said that for yourself. So in other words there is no case for intervention in Korea for you in 1950. Okay I go that.
“Regarding homicide rates, it’s bizarre you say they start falling in 1931”
You are right the shown rate fell for good in 1933. I still don’t buy your theory. My main point was that homicide rates in the US began to rise at least since 1900 (or even 1850). This exact trend continues during the prohibition (1920-1933).
A really good theory needs to explain this rise as well. I would also expect that there is a significant outbreak from the underlying rising trendline during prohibition. You can’t really see that in the graph by Steven Pinker.
http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-and-england-1900-2000-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg
14. September 2015 at 19:11
@Mike Sax
“Ironically on this issue Trump sounded the most reasonable.”
I’m saying this for a long time now. He was basically a democrat for years. In my opionion he is still very moderate at the core.
He was the most reasonable on the issue of healthcare also.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/7/9116127/donald-trump-insurance-regulation
14. September 2015 at 19:50
Scott, “I’ve said in previous posts that it’s unrealistic to expect the public to accept open borders. That amount of charity is not realistic. But it’s still the right thing to do.”
Although I think open borders requires a large degree of empathy to be politically viable, I would not say it necessarily requires charity or compassion. Allowing people to move to a new neighbourhood isn’t an act of charity or compassion. That is true whether this move occurs across international political borders or not. I don’t need to feel any sense of charity or compassionate obligation to someone in order to not object to them moving closer to me from where they currently are.
The vehemence with which white Detroiters objected to African Americans moving into their neighbourhoods in the 1940s, or with which well-off urban Chicagoans object to renters moving into their neighbourhoods today, suggest that people’s objections here go deeper than simply refusing to be charitable. Nobody can suggest with a straight face that it was an act of charity for Detroiters to allow African Americans from the South to settle in Detroit, or an act of compassion today for wealthy Chicago property owners to permit the construction of rental properties in their neighbourhood. The problem is that so many of us still see it as morally legitimate to use the force of the law to exclude the “wrong” type of people from our communities; people who are “wrong” not because they have committed any sort of wrongdoing, but “wrong” simply because they don’t fit the “character” of the community.
It’s got little to do with being charitable, if you ask me, and everything to do with having enough humanity and empathy to recognise you don’t have the moral authority to impose your personal preferences on the community at large with the exclusionary force of law.
I previously wrote about this at greater length here: http://openborders.info/blog/i-dont-care-about-immigration-sob-stories-this-is-about-justice-not-compassion/
14. September 2015 at 20:05
Scott, I’m not sure if you’ve followed Johann Hari’s work on the history of the war on drugs, but it more than anything else has shaped my views on the issue. Hari recently wrote a book on the topic (Chasing the Scream) that was highly acclaimed, but I got a good flavour of the topic from two in-depth interviews Hari did while promoting the book: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-war-well-lost and http://www.fivebooks.com/interviews/johann-hari-on-war-drugs
Before encountering Hari’s work I already opposed the war on drugs, but I rated the importance of the issue and the certainty of my views somewhat lowly, due to a mix of some uncertainty about the risks of decriminalising hard drugs and uncertainty about the level of positive impact. Hari’s work significantly enhanced my confidence regarding the disastrousness and vileness of the war on drugs.
One example I find striking and which I think will appeal to you, from the Sam Harris interview:
“Everywhere I went that had moved beyond the drug war, it was hard to find people who wanted to go back. It was like Prohibition when it was over and people saw the alternatives in practice…
“Switzerland, a very conservative country, legalized heroin for addicts, meaning you go to the doctor, the doctor assigns you to a clinic, you go to that clinic every day, and you inject your heroin. You can’t take it out with you. I went to that clinic””it looks like a fancy Manhattan hairdresser’s, and the addicts go out after injecting their heroin to their jobs and their lives.
I stress again””Switzerland is a very right-wing country, and after its citizens had seen this in practice, they voted by 70% in two referenda to keep heroin legal for addicts, because they could see that it works. They saw that crime massively fell, property crime massively fell, muggings and street prostitution declined enormously.”
15. September 2015 at 00:18
@johnleemk
“US law sentences people far too harshly to be an effective deterrent against crime.”
Can you explain that? This sounds counterintuitive.
And is deterrence really the main reason why people get locked up?
15. September 2015 at 04:04
johnleemk,
You do realize that the greatest proponents of open borders are those who live themselves in gated communities and hire private drivers and private security and private schooling so they and their kin do no need to mingle with the “wrong” people. Funny how that is. Perhaps if the globalists walked the walk about the wonders of diversity the proletariat would take their message serious.
“The problem is that so many of us still see it as morally legitimate to use the force of the law to exclude the “wrong” type of people from our communities; people who are “wrong” not because they have committed any sort of wrongdoing, but “wrong” simply because they don’t fit the “character” of the community.”
15. September 2015 at 04:22
This is a very interesting list, thank you for the uniquely thought-provoking post.
Perhaps the spending freed up from the 50% military cut could be reallocated to existential risk mitigation, for instance investment in an asteroid defense shield.
15. September 2015 at 08:48
@johnleemk – “I stress again””Switzerland is a very right-wing country, and after its citizens had seen this in practice, they voted by 70% in two referenda to keep heroin legal for addicts” – do you travel to Europe? You should know the Europeans are pretty mellow about hard drug use and making it (semi) legal. For example, Frankfurt, Germany, hardly liberal, has had for at least 25 years a ‘heroin park’ where addicts shoot up in broad daylight. True for Austria too. Most of EU is like that; Athens, Greece (Omonia Square) for example. Here in the Philippines there are “rugby boys” who sniff glue and take speed, in broad daylight, nobody cares. But this would not fly in Puritanical America.
15. September 2015 at 09:01
Professor…
I’ve spent nearly all my career working on government projects, FAA, NASA, and the Military…I am very familiar with how the system works. Government procurement is broken and could be a lot better. But that is not due to corruption, it is due to the layers of protections against it and the lawyers. Of the three, the military is probably the best, at least you can get someone in the chain of command to step up and make a decision.
Is the pentagon spending too much on fighting the last war…maybe…Is the F-35 worth the money…that is a hotly debated topic with Military experts. It was originally meant to save money over the F-22…
Military spending is like buying homeowners insurance..nobody likes to spend the money…until you need it…Our Military spending is around 3.5% of GDP and falling…levels not seen since pre-WWII days…our military hardware levels are quickly being depleted, since like all systems they wear out. If we do not build the F-35..then we are giving up on fighters all together. Air superiority is required prior to deploying the current generation of UAVs. When I refer to asymmetric threats, I am not just referring to terrorism.
Do we spend a lot more that other nations…yes of course..we have a lot more to insure. We are also providing defense for Japan, Eastern Europe, Nations in the gulf. Maybe the Swiss can afford to have a 9-5 military…I don’t think that we can.
15. September 2015 at 10:33
As always, this is a very interesting list – we’ve seen a lot of these ideas before, but obviously SS has put a lot of effort into thinking about these things. Having said that, I see a glaring omission and a glaring inclusion.
The glaring inclusion is “right to die.” It says, “read Scott Alexander if you don’t think it’s important,” but really, Alexander’s piece only discusses the problem of a person wanting euthanasia in the context of himself. The real problem he describes in the first part of his article is that a lot of people end up in old age with very low quality of life. He describes people in great distress over their condition, but he doesn’t describe them in great distress over not being able to kill themselves.
I think if you read his piece, and the linked article “How Doctors Die,” carefully, the following points emerge:
1. Many old people are suffering from dementia. This is obviously a problem, but as I don’t think a very large percentage of them are consciously wanting to die, it’s not obviously a “right to die” issue. Maybe it’s a “we need to be able to choose to have someone kill us if we get this way” issue. (But who will do the killing?)
2. Many old people are suffering from “futile care.” But not doctors, who know better. For people who can still make decisions for themselves, if they choose futile care, the problem is really an education issue – they don’t want to die, they want to live, they just don’t know any better. If people can’t make decisions for themselves, and their family is making the decisions for them, then we’re back to the “dementia” issue essentially, where people need to be able to make decisions in advance. Which in fact largely they can, if they are prepared – both of my parents set up “do not resuscitate” things in advance. This is not a “right to die” issue, it’s a “make sure everyone is prepared in advance” issue largely.
3. I’d guess that to some extent the “futile care” issue, like so many medical issues, is driven by the “****ed up legal system” issue – because it’s so easy to successfully sue, regardless of a claim’s merits, doctors and hospitals have to do all kinds of things they wouldn’t do otherwise, and one of them is (I’m guessing, perhaps) embrace more “futile care” than they would otherwise. I think a comparison of Europe vs. US outcomes would be illuminating here.
4. Scott Alexander describes in vivid detail the bad turns your health can take when you’re very old. What he doesn’t mention is that these conditions are influenced by your choices – if your diet is poor and you’re unfit, you’re a lot more likely to end up the way he describes, at least at a much earlier age. One of the reasons doctors die better than the rest of us is that not only have they seen the negatives of futile care, they’ve also seen the negatives of being unfit and overweight. Progressives believe smokers should be subjected to things like high taxes and disturbing images because this socks it to Big Tobacco, but you can smoke and live to 100 with relatively few problems compared to eating poorly and being too sedentary. But we don’t make people who make those even worse choices pay extra taxes and view disturbing images, we choose to discriminate against the smokers, because, again, it is so important to sock it to Big Tobacco. Obviously there is an issue here with the “Government Nutrition Complex” which does not have entirely clean hands as they have not given people very good information. But of course because the target we would sock it to, if we were to identify one, would include the government itself in this instance, and not just corporate baddies, this issue gets very little attention.
So I’d say there’s a big problem, but a “right to die” problem it just isn’t. Scott Sumner himself can set up a legal regimen in advance plus inform his family and I think the odds he himself will end up desiring euthanasia and not receiving it are very very very close to zero.
Here my own preferences diverge greatly from Scott’s – one of my “first tier” issues would be eliminating the death penalty, and another would be ending the practice of using drones to kill civilians. I want to get the government out of the death business. And again, I not only don’t think “right to die” is a first-tier issue, I don’t even think it’s an issue. The real issue involve getting the health/death system to work for everyone the way it works for doctors (and many other better informed people), which probably involves legal reform and the use of better scientific practices in educating people about nutrition and health, and perhaps also better regulating the incentives of hospitals – they do make a lot of money from “futile care,” after all….
The “glaring omission” from Scott’s list for me would be poverty, an obvious first-tier issue I would think for everyone. It’s 2015 and we still have an inner-city, largely black underclass that basically (or at least partly) lives in third-world conditions. That’s insane, and I think only is sustainable because both left-wing and right-wing political parties are essentially pessimistic and “oh you poor middle-class person you” in their outlook. Here monetary policy comes in – that pessimism is fueled by economic downturns.
I think the “War on Drugs” and “Inequality” issues would largely disappear if we had a more effective anti-poverty “regime” up and running. I don’t think our efforts to combat poverty are much better than what Victorian England was doing.
15. September 2015 at 11:16
Christian List,
“Can you explain that? This sounds counterintuitive.”
A good summary of the issue here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/sunday/how-to-lock-up-fewer-people.html?_r=0
Basically: “We could cut sentences for violent crimes by half in most instances without significantly undermining deterrence or increasing the threat of repeat offending. Studies have found that longer sentences do not have appreciably greater deterrent effects; many serious crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs, who are not necessarily thinking of the consequences of their actions, and certainly are not affected by the difference between a 15-year and a 30-year sentence.
“For the same conduct, we impose sentences on average twice as long as those the British impose, four times longer than the Dutch, and five to 10 times longer than the French. One of every nine people in prison in the United States is serving a life sentence.”
And to your question, “is deterrence really the main reason why people get locked up?” Maybe not, but from a primarily utilitarian standpoint, it should be the main reason. Others would stress the retributive and/or rehabilitative angles, which are important too, but from both a deterrent and rehabilitative standpoint, it’s clear the US’s sentencing procedures are extremely suboptimal (to put it lightly).
15. September 2015 at 11:22
“You do realize that the greatest proponents of open borders are those who live themselves in gated communities and hire private drivers and private security and private schooling so they and their kin do no need to mingle with the ‘wrong’ people. Funny how that is. Perhaps if the globalists walked the walk about the wonders of diversity the proletariat would take their message serious.”
Funny, I’m an advocate of open borders and have been to the homes of many other open borders advocates — including Bryan Caplan (one of its foremost exponents) and Vipul Naik (who literally founded a website called “Open Borders: The Case”) — yet none of us live in gated communities; nor do we have private drivers or private security guards. The first time I met Bryan, it was in a dingy-looking Peruvian chicken joint where almost everyone in the room was from a Hispanic working-class background. (That Peruvian restaurant was https://griftersguide.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/el-pollo-rico-arlington-va-i-66-i-395/ which I highly recommend if you are ever in the DC area.)
15. September 2015 at 16:58
Beefcake, I said I wasn’t an advocate of abortion. Dan said I was. It’s not complicated . . . I’m also not an advocate of drugs, prostitution and lots of other stuff that I think should be legal. Perhaps that distinction is too nuanced for you.
Johnleemk, Good points. I’ve read quite a bit on the War on Drugs, and am aware that the case for legalization is vastly stronger than the average American imagines. I have a post on Switzerland that I will put up soon, probably at Econlog
Christian, Why do you continually twist my words. Of course there’s a “case” for the US involvement in the Korean War. The North is as horrible as you say. I’m just not sure the case is strong enough to overcome the costs. You act like I don’t think there is any case at all for intervention. I’m actually somewhat agnostic, unsure of the impact in many cases. It’s possible some of the interventions like Serbia, Panama, Grenada, etc. worked. WWII seems clearly justified. I think Afghanistan was justified. I just think it’s really hard to know–err on the side of caution.
Engineer, I don’t think we should be providing defense for Europe, (although I support NATO.) And I don’t think Europe needs us. Russia could barely defeat Chechnya, how would Russia do against Germany and France? China has no interest in conquering other countries. After that there’s really no major threats, other than terrorists, and I’m sure you agree the F-35 won’t stop terrorists.
Anon, There is really no good science on the effects of diet on health. None. Virtually every claim made over the years has been refuted, beyond the obvious “don’t become really obese.” But even mildly overweight is a debatable issue, some studies say it’s not a problem. So I oppose discouraging people from eating certain foods. Cigarettes are harmful, but no reason to make people suffer even more with high taxes. They suffer enough.
Poverty is a tier one issue in the developing world, but certainly not in the US. The poor in the US face lots of serious problems, but the poverty itself is not the main one.
You said:
“I think the “War on Drugs” and “Inequality” issues would largely disappear if we had a more effective anti-poverty “regime” up and running.”
Could not disagree more strongly. If you give poor people (who use drugs) lots more money, I’d expect them to consume lots more drugs. Imagine a poor person (who uses drugs) wins the lottery—what would he do? Obviously this sounds like a cheap shot, and I’m not claiming that poor people are more likely to use drugs than others. I just don’t think solving poverty solves the problem. To be a bit more PC, didn’t Rush Limbaugh have a drug problem? Don’t lots of rock stars and Hollywood stars use drugs?
Right to die is important precisely because most people can’t navigate the complexities of the system. But you make a good point that education (and cultural change) is important. We need to move away from this “culture of life.”
15. September 2015 at 17:36
Don’t worry Christian List, you’re preaching to the Choir on Trump. I totally agree. I mean don’t know that I buy some of his China bashing-and no comment on his immigration stuff- but on most other issues he’s pretty reasonable.
Another thing that shows he’s a lot smarter than the other GOPers is unlike Scott Walker and Jeb, etc. he admits that even if you don’t like the Iran Deal you can’t just say you’re going to rip it up on day one.
He understands the time dependent path of policy
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-sad-thing-is-trump-still-sounds.html
15. September 2015 at 19:27
@Scott
“Why do you continually twist my words. Of course there’s a ‘case’ for the US involvement in the Korean War. I’m just not sure the case is strong enough to overcome the costs.”
It’s not in any way my intention to twist your words. “There’s a case” in my book means that you make a decision eventually. The politicians of 1950 had to make a decision. We should make a decision as well, especially because it’s pretty easy with the wisdom of hindsight. The decision in 1950 was right and it is beyond me how people can say that they are not sure enough to make decision.
“Russia could barely defeat Chechnya, how would Russia do against Germany and France?”
Without the US Russia is taking Europe one by one. Since Ukraine this is pretty obvious. The Baltic nations and Georgia would be next.
“China has no interest in conquering other countries.”
It’s all about spheres of influence. You don’t have to conquer countries to influence or even rule them. Right now most parts of the world are under Western influence. If the US continues to give spheres of influence away, the Russians or Chinese will take over these free spots in no time. You see this already today.
15. September 2015 at 19:34
@johnleemk
Thank you!
16. September 2015 at 03:20
Why are the Chinese building an island off the Vietnamese coast? Why would Russia take over the Crimea and assume all of there debt and obligations?
When you are the bully in the playground, you get the make the rules and pick the leaders.
Do you want the world to break into competing blocks of countries like the cold war and WWII? That is mentality of leaders like Putin. Putin controls the natural gas to Germany and the rest of Europe. He obviously fancies himself like one of the old Czars with 100 Billion in his personal bank account and palaces being built on the Black sea.
It you want to talk about world opinion, the two countries that the US is the most popular are Vietnam and Poland…I wonder why..we are their only hope for independence.
16. September 2015 at 04:35
“I’m sure you agree the F-35 won’t stop terrorists”
Fighter aircraft from the 6th fleet did a pretty good job of keeping Gadhafi in his place…
16. September 2015 at 06:34
Christian, You didn’t address any of the specific points I made about Korea.
China does not want to “rule” over other countries. It just doesn’t.
I support NATO, which will keep Russia from invading any NATO country. Ukraine is not part of NATO.
Engineer, It’s silly to compare China and Russia. Of course Russia is a bully, and a threat to peace, I’ve never denied that. Building a stupid worthless uninhabited island is just a meaningless nationalistic gesture, no threat to peace unless we overreact.
I love the way Westerners assume that a tiny island in the South CHINA Sea could not possibly belong to the greatest power in the region. But somehow Guam is our island.
You said;
“Fighter aircraft from the 6th fleet did a pretty good job of keeping Gadhafi in his place…”
And Gadhafi (who I despised) kept ISIS out of Libya. But they are in Libya now.
Look if I was convinced we could solve Middle Eastern problems as easily as we solved Serbia and Panama and Grenada I’d say go ahead. I’m not an isolationist on moral grounds, just a skeptic. Unintended consequences.
16. September 2015 at 07:45
Gun control?
16. September 2015 at 08:33
1) I grew up in Syracuse and passed the memorial to Lockerbie quite often at SU…Reagan’s actions kept Gadhafi in his place until his overthrow. The relationship between the Libya and ISIS formation is a complicated one, but I would not go back on the decision to help the Libyan people to remove him.
2) We are in Guam to help stabilize the region and all the nations (with the exception of China) want us there. China is building an island to claim their sovereignty over the South China Sea and intimidate their neighbors….nobody wants them there….I’m puzzled how you could possibly make a comparison. I
3)Yes, Isolationism has a long history prior to WWII in the US. Lindbergh was famously apologetic for the German regime…
I think it is simple minded and naïve to think that there are “no threats other than terrorists”. Nuclear weapons are a threat from any number of nations and our ability to enforce any nuclear agreement with Iran with military power is the only reason it should ever be considered.
4) BTW, If Russia decided to take back the Baltic states or Poland there is nothing that Germany or France could do about without our help (and possibly even with our help). I would not underestimate the Russian military. http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp. I remember in the campaign how people laughed when Romney said that Russia was our number one foreign policy challenge and right after the election the Ukraine lite up….
That is the whole point of military preparedness…you and I don’t know what the future holds…not only do we still have conventional threats..we now have non-governmental terrorist threats.
16. September 2015 at 09:44
” There is really no good science on the effects of diet on health.”
I would have thought there was more than “don’t become obese,” at least “stay lean and fit (and relaxed?) enough so that you don’t get adult-onset diabetes and/or high blood pressure.” But I could be wrong. I admit that my belief is that you should stay away from doctors as much as possible.
“The poor in the US face lots of serious problems, but the poverty itself is not the main one.” “If you give poor people (who use drugs) lots more money….”
By “effective anti-poverty regime” I didn’t mean giving poor people more money. I mean turning people in the inner-city underclass into middle-class people.
Okay, by “poverty” maybe I should make clear it’s not just a lack of funds. It’s whatever makes growing up in a poor area in America more harmful to outcomes than growing up in a middle-class one. If China and India can lift their poor into the middle-class, why can’t we? We don’t even have so many.
Perhaps giving the impoverished a lot of money would (after a while) end poverty, but I think this would be an extremely expensive way to do it, as it would inevitably incentivize becoming impoverished.
As always great comments, and a great post.
16. September 2015 at 21:03
Just saw this post a few hours earlier, but I thought I’d throw in a quick comment given that I was referenced in the post. I want to emphasize that I did not mean that poverty wasn’t a problem worth thinking about, but that economic inequality, considered apart from the issue of poverty, wasn’t a problem worth thinking about, for several reasons.
First, nothing can be done materially about economic inequality. The nature of our economy and political system mean that whatever happens, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, hedge fund managers, LeBron James, etc., are going to be worth hundreds of millions or billions, and your typical worker won’t be able to have much beyond a middle class lifestyle. I don’t consider inequality materially changed if the average wealth of billionaires is cut even 50% and the average income of everyone else is raised 20%. A person with $30 billion now has $15 billion, and a household that was earning $50,000 is now maybe earning $60,000 (I know I’m comparing wealth to income, but I’d say most of the wealth of a middle class household is the present value of future income). Even if the billionaire’s wealth was cut to $3 billion and the middle class average income was brought up to $80,000, inequality, for all practical purposes, remains. The billionaire can still own a mansion, several Ferraris, fly on private jets, retire for life, etc, whereas the middle class household is better off than before but not dramatically so. The average worker still has to go to work, will retire in his 60s, still has to deal with a mortgage on a modest house, etc. Maybe the house is a little bigger, or the Ford Fusion is replaced by an Audi A3. It will always feel too unequal if inequality is what you are truly worried about. Even France, despite relatively low inequality, felt compelled to soak the rich with a 75% tax for a spell until economic reality brought it to its senses. The only way to get real and lasting economic equality, I think, is for a change in the culture such that the wealthy begin to see their wealth as a problem rather than an asset.
Second, I think it is generally a bad thing to be envious of others, and focusing on income inequality feeds envy. Anyone who can meet their basic needs and live comfortably, should be content with that. They can certainly try to improve their own situation further, but there is no use worrying about others. There will always be people who earn more, and live far fancier lifestyles, no matter what any politician does. People will never be happy if they spend time worrying about what other people have, and wishing they could have some part of it.
As for good marketing for market-friendly solutions, I’m not sure this works. The political left doesn’t seem to ever be satiated. Despite fiscal problems, many progressives want to expand Social Security. Bernie Sanders is demanding that Obamacare be replaced by single payer. No matter what changes happen, it will always be possible for those on the left to say the rich aren’t paying their “fair share” or that “the top 1% have most of the wealth.” If economic inequality is a problem and even the political right concedes this, then the left will always have the most appealing solutions.
17. September 2015 at 05:08
Jesse, I’m a moderate on that issue—don’t ban guns, but regulate the more dangerous ones. I don’t see it as an important issue, there’s not much the government can or will do.
Engineer, You said:
“I think it is simple minded and naïve to think that there are “no threats other than terrorists”. Nuclear weapons are a threat from any number of nations”
Again, you twist my words into something radically different from what I said. Didn’t I say that nuclear weapons were one of our most important problems? I strongly support arms reduction treaties. I also think we should keep nukes as long as Russia, China, etc. have them. However I’d like to see us reduce the number. I also think Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a really bad thing.
I don’t think US foreign policy is anywhere near as altruistic as you do. That’s not to say I’m anti-American. I’m maybe 80 on a scale where you are 100 and Chomsky is zero.
And regarding Estonia, you also ignored my statement that I support NATO. NATO forces are probably 5 times Russia’s military, it’s crazy to think Russia could defeat NATO, just crazy. If the US insists on having troops in Europe, it would make more sense to have them in the Baltics, not Germany.
Anon, Modestly overweight people live just as long as thin people, if not longer. The data is really murky until you get to very overweight.
Thanks for the comments on poverty, we aren’t far apart. Here’s another way of making my point. Think about stories you read about poor Chinese and Vietnamese immigrant families, who raise kids that turn out to be valedictorians. Now think about all the ways that poor Asian immigrant family experience poverty, which differs from the average poor white, black, Hispanic of Native American family. There must be lots of differences. That’s the idea I’m getting at, but I find it hard to pin down—it’s not any one thing.
Justin, We are not far apart:
1. I also think envy is bad.
2. I don’t support high income tax rates on the rich (I favor progressive consumption taxes.
3. On utilitarian grounds, the big problem is poverty, not the middle—upper gap.
But even with all that I do think utilitarianism provides some justification for taxing ultra high consumption levels at a higher rate than middle class consumption levels. But I agree with you it’s not the big issue the left thinks it is.