If we start shooting around there [the other gang's territory], nobody, and I mean you dig it, nobody gonna step on their turf. But we gotta be careful, 'cause they can shoot around here too and then we all fucked.--- Chicago Gang member
I suppose it's possible that a few ambivalent souls may pick up Dawkins' book The God Delusion and see "the empirical light." But just a few--and these folks were already predisposed for conversion. How do I know this? Because no self-respecting, god-fearing person would ever pick up a book that so openly condemned and ridiculed their belief system. Dawkins is so blatant in his scorn for religion, so unequivocal in denunciation of belief in all its forms, that he makes room for only two types of readers: the like-minded, and the masochistic.
It seems to me that history has a direction. For some good things to happen other good things needed to happen first. The transistor had to be invented before the computer could be (well pretty much). I want good things to happen sooner so the other good things that depend on those first good things might happens sooner so that those things can lay the ground work for subsequent good things and, well, you get the picture...
I think John’s substantive point regarding time preferences is that marginal benefits are discounted over time at the individual level because individuals fear they may die before they can consume in the future, but this reasoning doesn’t follow for the everlasting society, thus society shouldn’t have time preferences.
But we should think carefully about what we mean buy ‘consume’. What is the thing that’s providing us the marginal benefits, today and tomorrow? What is the thing that we’d be giving up today in exchange for it in the future?
That I value the marginal benefit of eating today higher than my marginal benefit from eating tomorrow (i.e. I’ve discounted my marginal benefit) seems to follow from my fear of death in the next 24 hours. I might not get the chance to eat tomorrow.
That I value the marginal benefits of ‘consuming’ new knowledge today, on the other hand, doesn’t follow from my fear of death. Knowing something today means I can know more things tomorrow. I have a time preference for learning today versus tomorrow because my consumption of learning today determines my consumption of learning tomorrow.
(The assumption of time separability has precluded my example, but it shouldn’t preclude it from the discussion… We, society, do and should have time preferences independent of our individual fears of death.)
-- Thomas Sowell
What does the history of thousands of years of price controls tell us?
The first thing undermined or destroyed is self-rationing. When you pay the full price of going to a doctor, you go there when you have a broken leg but not when you have the sniffles or a minor skin rash. When the government makes health care "affordable," you go there for sniffles and a minor skin rash.
The underlying reality has not changed, however. The doctor's time is still limited, and the time that you take up with your sniffles or skin rash is time that somebody else with a broken leg -- or perhaps cancer -- has to wait to get an appointment.
Government-run health care systems in countries around the world have longer waits -- sometimes months -- to get medical attention. In other words, the rationing goes on, but more haphazardly, because prices do not force people to ration themselves according to the seriousness of their problem.
It is the same story when housing prices are controlled by government. Rent control has allowed some people to take up more housing space than they would if they had to pay the full price that reflects other people's demand for housing.
The net result, whether in New York or San Francisco or elsewhere, is a lot of apartments with just one person living in each, and lots of families who cannot find a vacant place to move into. Housing shortages have resulted from rent control in cities around the world.
Housing shortages mean that some people are forced to live far from their jobs and commute, and some become homeless on the street. Homelessness tends to be greater in cities with rent control -- New York and San Francisco again being classic examples.
Economists have long been saying that there is no free lunch but politicians get elected by promising free lunches. Controlling prices creates the illusion of free lunches.
|Your Brain is Yellow|
Of all the brain types, yours is the most intellectual.
You crave mental stimulation, and your thoughts tend to very complex.
Your thoughts tend to be innovative and cutting edge, though many people don't understand them.
You tend to spend a lot of time thinking about science, architecture, and communication.
Next, concoct plausible explanations for your new, statistically significant anomaly. ... Under no circumstances should you test these explanations... In other words, your explanations, though plausible, are false. The result is probably due to random variation. This should not discourage you from completing your article. Write up your doubts in a separate note several months later.
Finally, check the literature to make sure your idea is original. If it isn’t, which is likely, mention your predecessor prominently in your acknowledgments, and include a footnote in which you pick a few nits.
In my opinion, public policy on greenhouse warming needs desperately to steer a middle course, which is not yet there, for dealing with possible climate-change disasters. This middle course emphasizes the option value of waiting for better information, takes seriously whether or not possibilities exist for nding out beforehand that we are on a worst-case trajectory (and knows how much early-warning sensors cost to install), confronts the possible options of undertaking politically-incorrect emergency measures if a worst-case nightmare trajectory happens to materialize, and otherwise attempts constructively to have some kind of a game plan for what might be coming up. The point is to supplement traditional mid-distribution analysis of, and action on, climate change by putting research dollars into early detection of rare disasters and beginning a serious public dialogue about contingency planning for worst-case scenarios akin to the way Americans might debate the pros and cons of an anti-ICBM early warning system. It may well turn out that the option value of waiting for better information about catastrophic tail events is negligible (because early detection is impossible, or it is too expensive, or it comes too late, or because nothing practical can be done about undoing greenhouse warming anyway), but these are conclusions we need to reach empirically, rather than postulating them initially.--- Martin L. Weitzman
Until we start seriously posing and trying to answer tough questions about rare global-warming catastrophes, we will not make real progress in dealing constructively with the nightmare scenarios and we will continue to cope with them inadequately by trying to shoehorn disaster policy into an either-or response category where it won't fi t. The Stern Review has its heart in the right place --- it is not nice for us to bequeath to our great-great-grandchildren the enormously unsettling uncertainty of a very small, but essentially unknown (and perhaps unknowable), probability of a planet earth that in hindsight we allowed to get wrecked on our watch. However, the Review does not follow through formally on this really unsettling part of the global warming equation which a generous interpretation of its bad economics might say is the underlying motivation for its overall alarmist tone except indirectly, by choosing [unrealistic model parameters] in order to reverse-engineer the drastic slowing measures that it intuitively wants to impose on greenhouse gas emissions to neutralize the nightmare scenarios.
I have said and I repeat it here, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he is misplaced and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us.--- Abraham Lincoln
Before I go on, I must be explicit that I have long been skeptical of "green." Unlike "green" folks, I am not especially inspired by nature. Yes, often nature is pretty and soothing to visit. But to get my blood pumping with excitement and awe you must show me a cityscape -- Manhattan's skyline, above all -- and not forests or mountains or beaches. My tastes run decidedly in favor of those amenities of civilization that allow me to escape nature. So the reason I am skeptical of "green" is that "green" people, more and more, seem to elevate their taste for nature into a moral proposition -- which, because I don't share their taste for nature, causes them to regard me and others like me as morally deficient.-- Don Boudreaux
Right now, many people are uninsured because ... insurance companies "game the system to cover only healthy people." So the Edwards plan, like Schwarzenegger’s, imposes "community rating" on insurers, basically requiring them to sell insurance to everyone at the same price...
[M]arketing and underwriting — ... screening out high-risk clients — are responsible for two-thirds of insurance companies’ overhead. With insurers selling to government-run Health Markets, not directly to individuals, most of these expenses should go away, making insurance considerably cheaper...
So this is a smart, serious proposal. It addresses both ... the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system.(emph added)