We’ll have more on the economics of the Global Warming debate soon. In the meantime, these scientific questions are well worth the read.

Now it seems to be: “Vote for me and I’ll give you other people’s money.”
Count me among those Americans “struggling to return liberal ideas to our public discourse.”

This is hard to believe. Don Harris seems to suffer from the Fatal Conceit. One wonders what kind of takings our councilors will think of next?

1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God’s chosen people.
2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
Christian world.
4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.
HT: Wayne Unze

According to USA Today taxpayers nationwide “will soon get a surprise bill that could exceed $1 trillion for the cost of paying future medical benefits for state and local workers who retire.” I wonder what NM’s bill will be??? This will be fun to watch taxpayer reaction.
HT: Asymmetrical Information

Thomas Sowell asks the question.

As a result of the Wall Street Journal’s good editorial (sr) today on immigration, I have discovered this online record of President Reagan’s public papers. Liberty, opportunity, prosperity: check it out.

Greg Mankiw is one of the more interesting economists around. He is known in the field as one of the leading exponents of “new-Kenysianism.” These are folks who believe that the macroeconomy occasionally suffers from large-scale failure and that government intervention is occasionally necessary to put the economy back on track. Unlike old-Keynsians, however, new-Kenysians are not single-mindedly fixed on aggregate demand shortfalls. Many largely accept the lessons of the “new classical” and “real business cycle” schools of thought and believe that fluctuations in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply determine the economy’s path.
In my mind, the single most important contribution of new-Keynsian analysis was to provide microeconomic theoretical and empirical justification for the notion that occasionally prices and wages do not move as fluidly as might be ideal. This seems far more realistic than the mathematically-precise but unrealistic assumptions which dominated the profession for so long.
One of the most interesting things to note about the new-Keynsians, though, is their ideological diversity. As one might expect, their ranks include a number of old-style Kenysians who prefer that government take an active role in the economy. These are folks like David Romer and Joseph Stiglitz. They also include a number of relatively free-market economists, however. And in this camp, one must surely put Greg Mankiw and the new fed chair Ben Bernanke.
Mankiw, of course, recently served a stint as President Bush’s economic advisor. He has a new blog here which is very readable and very interesting. He also has a forthcoming article with Weinzierl in the Journal of Political Economy. In it, he finds empirical justification for “dynamic scoring,” the old supply-side notion that when you estimate the impact of a tax cut on treasury revenues, you should account for whatever boost the cut will provide the economy. While tax cuts hardly pay for themselves (sorry conservatives), they do find that 17 percent of the revenue loss from a reduction in labor taxes is recouped by the treasury because of greater economic activity. Moreover, fully 50 percent of the revenue loss form a cut in capital taxes is recouped. Personally, I think tax cuts are good for their own-sake, irrespective of their impact on the treasury. Still, this is a powerful refutation for those who say that tax cuts will bankrupt the government.

Here is a column by Doug Powers that is well worth the read.
HT: Newmark’s Door

Competition and freedom of choice are the institutions necessary to make us prosperous. They do so by compelling each of us to make decisions individually that result in coordination of our actions in a way that leads to improvements in our lives. In fact, the improvements resulting from the process of competition and choice are far superior to those resulting from the alternative institution of government control. We at RGF call it “liberty, opportunity, prosperity.”
Of course, this goes for education as well. The endless “reforms” that always manage to maintain government control of education will never result in improvement. Writing in today’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Professor Boudreaux predicts that government run K-12 schools will continue to fail; and he explains why by contrast to the process of competition and choice:

Government K-12 schools, as now run everywhere in the U.S., will never excel at educating students. The reason is that each school gets its students and its budget without having to compete for them.
Imagine if, say, supermarkets were run the same way we run schools. Everyone in my county would pay taxes to fund the county supermarket system; each one of us would then be assigned one specific county supermarket at which we are allowed to shop.
Of course, once in our assigned store, all the groceries that each of us gets are “free” — meaning, we don’t have to pay for them on the spot. If the products and services supplied by the supermarket are of poor quality, we’re not allowed to switch to other county markets; we must, instead, complain to politicians.
The managers of the supermarkets will agree that their stores offer abysmal service and undesirable products; they will assert that this sad fact is caused by underfunding. We will be warned that only by paying higher taxes will we have any possibility of getting better supermarkets.
So our taxes will rise and funding for supermarkets will increase. But quality will remain poor — and the excuses offered by the government-employed managers of the supermarkets will remain that they need yet more funding.

Wake up, New Mexico!

Paul and I visited the construction site at Paseo-Journal Center station. Something seemed to stand out when we read the sign explaining the project:

Here you will find a good economic perspective on the prospects for oil and gasoline markets. The article has a supply emphasis:

Having oil is one thing. Delivering it to a growing market is another. World economies differ greatly in their capacity to organize enterprises, adopt new technologies, raise capital and supply what consumers want. When it comes to increasing oil production, economic systems matter quite a bit. More oil would flow onto world markets and prices would be lower if major oil resources were in countries where producers responded freely to market incentives. The extent of economic freedom in the countries with the world’s oil supplies will greatly affect how well that oil is delivered to consumers.

Even though the vast majority of current oil production comes from inefficient, socialist state control, the authors are optimistic:

To a great extent, rising oil prices are self-limiting. Higher oil prices encourage conservation and development of unconventional oil resources and alternative fuels. Higher oil prices should also help overcome at least some of the difficulties in developing the vast conventional reserves not fully connected to the market [for example, the tar sands located in Canada’s province of Alberta]. In the long history of natural resources, the prospect of scarcity and higher prices has provided ample incentive for innovation.

An excerpt:

The thing, the state itself, is inherently a threat to liberty. It may be a necessary threat, something we have to live with, but it is a threat nonetheless.
It is really a matter of nature. Think about it: you can’t blame a dog for eating out of the garbage. That is what dogs do. Can’t ask yourself, “Why? Why isn’t my dog a good dog? I can imagine a good dog, one that doesn’t eat out of the garbage. Can’t we just get a better dog?”
No, no you can’t. All dogs eat out of the garbage, and all states coerce unjustly. It’s what they do.

This is a speech that will make you think. Read the whole thing.

In this article, Walter Williams is once again on target in his discussion of the folly of minimum wage hikes.
New Mexico’s politicians should heed his sage advice.

Here is a particularly good article about the nonsense that passes for leadership in both major parties. Only a small minority have been willing to stand on principle: Congrats to Steve Pearce for standing tall and voting against the federal price gouging bill.

The lack of basic economic knowledge in this country is unbelievable. Politicians who should know better (they have easy access to top notch economists) are showing no principle at all as they purport to do something about high gasoline prices. New Mexico is right in there with the worst of them. Here is a great quote from Michael O’Hare describing the situation:

…politicians treat an election, or an office, as the worst thing one can lose, and promise to fix everything with a trick that won’t require any actual work by us; we vote for people who tell us fairy tales that would excuse us from any heavy lifting if they were true, and excuse us from confronting downers and grownup responsibilities if we pretend to believe. This game is being played at a really frenzied level around gas prices, and the mix of ignorance and plain mendacity both parties are wallowing in is–this is really amazing–neck and neck with the immigration performance in the theater next door.

HT: Asymmetrical Information
Update 5/5/06: Kudos to Steve Pearce who was one of the few who voted against the federal price gouging law sponsored by Heather Wilson.

If you have not done so already, check out our new website — nice work by Paul and Ovation Solutions (Pat Riley and Barry Epstein).

In the most recent outrage over the abusive use of eminent domain, the Village of North Hills in New York is attempting to seize a private golf course. Amazingly, the mayor of the town attempting this heist has said that the government should be able to take over the course simply because, if public, it would be “a nice amenity.”
With everything else going on in the world, it is easy to forget that less than one year ago the US Supreme Court decided that any government should be able to take anyone’s property, for most any reason, at any time they like. We cannot rest until every state and the federal government has acted to restore individual property rights.

There is a reason for my lack of posts recently; I got caught. Sorry, ladies, if you want to snuggle up under a radical right wing you’ll have to look elsewhere.

Arnold Kling wonders: Imagine that Mitt Romney were about to sign legislation that said that from now on, all citizens of Massachusetts may leap from the edge of a cliff, flap their arms real hard, and fly. All I can say is, “Try it and see what happens.”
He goes on to raise his specific objections to the new Massachusetts Health Plan:

1. Because it is a political compromise it is not a clean experiment. It is certainly not a market-oriented healthcare reform, but neither is it pure single-payer. I would like to see them try single-payer, since they are hot to do so. Instead, their experiment has been disowned by single-payer advocates, who will blame its failure on the fact that the private sector was left standing.
2. It completely denies that there is any need to re-consider the cost-effectiveness of health care procedures in order to address the issue of affordability of healthcare. All of the painstaking research I did for my book suggests that if there is anything to be done to significantly slow the growth in health care spending, it has to involve cutting back on discretionary spending, particularly on specialists and high-tech diagnostic procedures.
3. A market-oriented health care system would have health insurance policies with high deductibles. For the most part, this plan goes in the opposite direction.
4. It projects a myth that policy wonks can, with sheer cleverness, come up with a way to make health care affordable for everyone. It overstates the benefits of wonkish solutions like electronic medical records. Again, I take great pains in my book to point out that we will have to make difficult decisions to address health care, rather than use wonkish tricks.
Suppose that five years from now, everyone in Massachusetts has health insurance and the cost of the state subsidy is minimal. In that case, I am wrong about the program, and I will gladly admit it. Meanwhile, since none of the critical details have been implemented, I am in the awkward position of telling people who really want to fly that I think they will wind up smashed at the bottom of the cliff.

Read the whole thing here.

Check out Paul’s great article about the socialist interlopers from ACORN in today’s ABQ Journal (SR). Some excerpts:

But bowing to ACORN’s demands without so much as a fight is exactly what this radical outfit wants and, like an unruly child who throws a tantrum until his parents give in, ACORN will view this “compromise” as a sign of weakness. It will quickly move to impose the rest of its far-left agenda on Albuquerque residents and businesses.
First and foremost, ACORN and its activists are, by and large, not locally based, so most of them don’t really care what happens to Albuquerque’s economy once they have their “victory.” ACORN was founded in Little Rock, and has offices spread around the country and Latin America.
While portraying itself as a humble advocate for the poor, ACORN actually promotes an agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology and government handouts.

Here is a picture of the relative size of state and local governments relative to the private sector in our region. It is the ratio of the state and local government component of gross state product to the private component. Note how the prosperity driving force of markets is crowded out by big government in New Mexio:

How much of a difference does the heavy hand of big government make? Check this picture of disposable income for the same states in our region:

I wonder if we will ever get this?

Massachusetts’ new universal health care plan reminds me of a quote from P.J. O’Rourk that goes, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.!” Let’s hope New Mexico has the sense to postpone being a Massachusetts copycat until we see how the new law pans out. We know that Tennessee’s big-government attempt to universalize health insurance was a disaster.
Thanks to Grace Marie Turner for sending us this excellent assessment of the law:
April 13, 2006 The new Massachusetts health plan has dominated the policy conversation over the past week, causing more division among conservatives than liberals.

The law, designed to make the state the first in the nation to achieve universal health coverage, was signed on Wednesday by Gov. Mitt Romney. He was flanked at the invitation-only ceremony by the Democratic leaders of the Massachusetts legislature and by Sen. Ted Kennedy, a long-time advocate of universal health coverage.
The biggest concern among conservatives is the requirement that every individual in the state must purchase health insurance or face financial penalties.
Mandates are almost impossible to enforce, even with the fines and other enforcement provisions in the law. Further, the state must specify what kind of insurance people are required to buy and how much they should pay, taking away the ability of markets to freely compete and for people to purchase the coverage of their choice.
We were also concerned about the back-door employer mandate. The legislature wanted to force employers with 11 or more employees to pay a $295 annual fine for any employee without health insurance. The Governor vetoed the provision, but leaders of the heavily Democratic House and Senate have said they will override.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called the veto disingenuous, saying the law was crafted with concessions and compromise. “To change anything will disturb the delicate balance that made this law possible,” DiMasi said. Note to employers: $295 is only the beginning.
While many conservative groups, like the Pacific Research Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, have been highly critical of the plan, The Heritage Foundation has been very involved in helping the Governor craft the legislation. The Governor credits Heritage with creating the new FEHBP-like insurance connector to offer insurance options and collect and distribute premiums. Bob Moffit of Heritage stood behind the Governor at the signing ceremony. [Harry’s note: yes, you read that correctly; Heritage is partially behind this abomination.]
An integral provision is the requirement that every employer with more than 10 employees – think your local automotive garage – must offer a Section 125 cafeteria plan so employees can use pre-tax money for their insurance premium contributions.
And that’s only the beginning of the reporting requirement, mandates, penalties, and other enforcement provisions in the new law, for example:
The law requires every employer and employee in the state to sign “under oath” a Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure form, testifying to whether the employer has offered insurance and whether the employee has accepted or declined.
It creates at least 10 new boards and commissions to create and run the new health system, such as the Health Care Quality and Cost Council, the Payment Policy Advisory Board, and the Health Access Bureau.
New and existing state agencies will be checking on individuals’ insurance status, monitoring their income to see if they qualify for subsidies, and tracking individual health habits (like smoking and wellness activities) to determine their insurance rating category.
There also is a major expansion of Medicaid and S-CHIP to cover children up to 300% of poverty, and the state makes it clear that it is doing all it can to maximize collection of federal matching funds to help finance the new plan.
My biggest concern is over the financing. The state says it is just moving money around – redirecting about $1 billion in uncompensated care money to subsidize health insurance for those under 300% of poverty (about $50,000 a year for a family of four).
But there is nothing in the law to keep health insurance costs from soaring. Policies offered through the new health insurance Connector must have first dollar coverage and include all of the 40 coverage mandates on the books, with none of the provisions that are working in the private sector to engage consumers as partners in managing health costs. Estimated premiums are unrealistically low and will quickly lead to higher taxes and “assessments” on individuals and employers.
Nonetheless, newspapers around the country are falling over each other in their effusive praise of a Blue state, led by a Republican governor, building a bridge across the political chasm to go where no other state has gone before.
Gov. Romney’s term ends this year, and he is likely to be spending a lot more time in Iowa and New Hampshire than in Massachusetts as this plan gets up and running. But I worry that he has laid the foundation for what can become a very intrusive, onerous, and expensive health plan for Massachusetts. Other states, which are firing up their Xerox machines now, should wait to see how this works out before rushing to follow the Bay State’s lead.

The 2006 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators has been released. Find it here.