Monthly Archives: December 2007

Those Stupid Europeans

Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Economics

The next time you hear some politician telling you that America should be more like Europe, remember nonsense like this:

Amazon.com may not offer free delivery on books in France, the high court in Versailles has ruled.

The action, brought in January 2004 by the French Booksellers’ Union (Syndicat de la librairie française), accused Amazon of offering illegal discounts on books and even of selling some books below cost.

The court gave Amazon 10 days to start charging for the delivery of books, which should at least allow the company to maintain the offer through the end-of-year gift-giving season. After that, it must pay a fine of €1,000 (US$1,470) per day that it continues to offer free delivery. It must also pay €100,000 in compensation to the booksellers’ union.

Those familiar with the work of a Frenchman named Frederic Bastiat will recognize the similarity between this lawsuit and the candlemaker’s petition.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Why Capitalism Is Not Anti-Environment

Economics, Environment, Technology, Theory and Ideas

To obtain shellfish, it’s often required dredging the sea floor. That’s a particularly nasty proposition, because it destroys reefs harboring complex ecosystems. And at the same time, it’s not particularly energy-efficient, and the damage done tends to also damage the shellfish recovered. However, a new type of non-invasive dredge is changing that (at least for scallops):

However, in one case—scallop trawling—Cliff Goudey of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reckons he has a solution. He and his team have designed a dredge that can dislodge scallops without touching the seafloor.

The dredge has several hemispheric scoops in place of the toothed bar. As it is pulled along, the scoops direct water downward. That creates a series of gentle jets that can shuffle the scallops from their resting places—but the streams of water are not powerful enough to damage the benthic zone’s long-term tenants. And the scoops swivel out of the way if they encounter anything solid, so the dredge does not destroy such protuberances. Best of all, from the fisherman’s point of view, it takes less effort to float a dredge on water jets than it does to drag it across the uneven surface of the seabed. That makes Dr Goudey’s new device a more fuel-efficient way to fish than the traditional method.

Having assessed a prototype both in a laboratory tank and in the sea off the coast of Massachusetts, Dr Goudey was recently invited by the University of Wales to test his invention against a traditional dredge. New and old designs were dropped from the stern of a trawler and towed across the seabed off the Isle of Man. They each caught the same number of scallops. The new dredge, though, damaged the catch much less than the traditional one.

Most of what humans do is considered damage to the environment, at least by the strongest of environmentalists. And unfortunately, with the old dredging technique, they have somewhat of a point. There was very little way to capture the externality of damage done to the environment. So the environmentalists resort to their only tactic: ban it immediately.

But look at what happens when the market is able to innovate? They find a better way of doing it. It catches the same number of scallops, so it’s just as effective. It uses less energy, so it makes more money. And even better, it causes less damage to the scallops, so they can likely be sold for a higher price (earning more money). So fishermen make more money, the environment is not damaged, and consumers get higher-quality scallops. We’ve all become richer– due to capitalism.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Quote Of The Day — Bush Strategerist Edition

Election '08, Humor, Media, Politics, Quote of the Day

From a “memo” in the Financial Times, where Karl Rove offers Obama advice on beating Hillary:

First, stop acting like a vitamindeficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Wow, is Rove trying to help Obama because he thinks Obama is more beatable, or is just due to how much he absolutely hates the Clintons? Given some of the tone in his article, I think it’s the latter…

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Democratic Des Moines Register Debate Round-Up And Reaction

Election '08, Politics

You would have thought I learned my lesson yesterday, but I actually sat down and watched the entire 90 minutes of the Democratic candidates debate sponsored by The Des Moines Register and Iowa Public Television.

Same moderator. Same format. The only thing that was missing was Carolyn Washburn’s inane attempt to get all the candidates to raise their hand. Oh, the dumb questions were still there. For some reason, she asked Senator Chris Dodd if he was running for President because his father was censured for stealing campaign money, or something like that. And then there was that final question about New Year’s Resolution; here’s a memo Carolyn, we don’t care what Hillary Clinton’s New Year’s Resolution might be (now her resolution back in 1998 might have been interesting, but that’s another story).

As with the Republican debate, I think its fair to say that little of substance came out of this debate and that it served mostly as an opportunity for each of the candidates to repeat their stump speeches ad nauseum.

So, without further adieu and in no particular order, here we go:

Barack Obama: For all the talk about Obama being a breath of fresh air and the voice of a new generation, he really doesn’t say anything that Democrats haven’t been saying for ten years or more. From the budget to education to trade to farm subsidies, there’s nothing that Barack Obama would do that any other Democrat wouldn’t do.

That said, I can understand why he’s caught on in Iowa and elsewhere. He’s an extremely effective speaker and projects a far more pleasant image for the party than, say, Hillary does. In today’s debate, he was helped by the fact that there were no real questions of substance on foreign policy directed to him; that’s one area where he seems to be fairly weak and inexperienced.

John Edwards: If you closed your eyes when Edwards was talking, it was like you were transported back in time to the 2004 election because there’s nothing that Edwards is saying today that isn’t identical to what he said back then. It’s all about attacking the rich, the evil corporations, and of course the faceless elites. He mentioned that he’s been fighting these forces all his life but didn’t mention that he did so as a lawyer; probably a wise decision considering the esteem his profession is held in today. As for me, I just can’t get over the irony of a multi-millionaire trying to start a class war.

Hillary Clinton: Hillary came into this debate with her campaign in serious trouble. She is struggling to come in second in Iowa, has lost her lead in New Hampshire, and can see Barack Obama gaining on her in the national polls. At this point, she needs to defy expectations in Iowa, which means winning and winning decisively. This debate was her last chance to reach Iowa voters en masse before the holidays divert everyone’s attention and I just don’t think she did it. Her responses were formulaic and non-specific most of the time and, well, let’s just say that she clearly isn’t the best public speaker in the family.

Sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton lost Iowa and used his charisma (and the benefit of a relatively weak field of candidates) to win in New Hampshire and earn the title “The Comeback Kid.” Based on what we’ve seen from the Hillary Clinton campaign to date and what I saw at this debate, it’s clear that she’s doesn’t have Bill’s magic.

Bill Richardson: Beyond saying that his New Year’s Resolution was to lose weight, I can’t say that there was much of anything memorable about Richardson’s performance in this debate. He’s an able technocrat, no doubt, and I’m sure he’s done a passable job as Governor of New Mexico, but he’s just not Presidential. Heck, he’s not even Vice-Presidential.

Joe Biden: Biden gave us what was perhaps the most uncomfortable moment of the debate when Washburn asked him about the various comments he’s made over the years about Indians, inner city schools in Washington, D.C., and Barack Obama. Basically, she asked him if he was racist. Biden responded by saying that he just shoots his mouth off without thinking. Yea, that’s what we want in a President.

Chris Dodd: As noted above, Dodd participated in the most bizarre moment of the day when Washburn asked him if he was running for President to rehabilitate the legacy of his father, who was censured by the Senate back in 1970. Other than that, there really isn’t much else to say about Dodd other than the obvious — why are you running Chris ?

If today’s debate proved anything, it proved that yesterday was not a fluke. Whoever was responsible for the debate format has no idea about how to make interesting television — not surprising considering it was produced by PBS. The YouTube debate may have been silly, but at least it was interesting. These debates were like watching a group of philosophy professors debate Immanuel Kant. Important ? Perhaps, but completely and totally passionless.

Finally, there is one thing that is exceedingly clear to me after watching this debate. For all the talk about libertarian Democrats and all the faults of the Republican Party, there is no home in the Democratic Party for someone who believes in individual liberty, limited government, and free-market economics.

The differences between these candidates are mostly cosmetic and stylistic. They all believe in the same basic core principles and those principles involve increasing the size and scope of the government, involving it more in our daily lives, and taking away freedom of choice and property rights. There was no Ron Paul, or anything close to him, on that stage and the prospect that such a person will be welcome in Democratic politics anytime soon seems pretty non-existent.

Like it or not, if liberty minded Americans are going take over an American political party, they’ve really only got one choice.

Cross-Posted at Below The Beltway

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

The Ron Paul Republicans

Election '08, Politics, Strategies For Advancing Liberty

Today’s Washington Post reports on something that I’m pretty sure is a first.

There’s a guy in Maryland campaigning for the Republican nomination for Maryland’s 4th Congressional District as a “Ron Paul Republican”:

In the past few election cycles, Republicans haven’t made much headway in Maryland’s 4th Congressional District, which includes part of Montgomery County and most of Prince George’s County.

But Peter James, 52, isn’t running as just a regular Republican for the seat held by Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D). James is running as a Ron Paul Republican.

James said he is one of five congressional candidates running in Maryland at least in part to draw attention to the Texas representative, whose presidential campaign has been something of a grass-roots phenomenon. Paul advocates libertarian positions, including the abolishment of the federal income tax and the closure of many federal agencies. He opposes the war in Iraq.

James, a businessman from Germantown, said Paul will need allies in Congress if elected president. But, James said, even if his presidential candidate loses, the “Ron Paul message is stronger than the man himself.”

James acknowledged running with an “R” after his name will be tough, but he said at least a third of those who attend local weekly Ron Paul meet-ups identify themselves as liberal Democrats concerned with the growth of the federal government.

“We’re seeing disenchanted Democrats, who say ‘whether I elect Giuliani or Hillary, I’m getting the same thing,’ ” James said, referring to Republican hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). “I believe there’s a very strong contingent of voters out there who have been woken up by this message.”

I know I’ve been critical of the Paul campaign in the past, but this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to happen if things are going to change. Change isn’t going to come from the White House down, it’s going to come, as it always has, from the bottom up; and that means starting at the local level with City Council races, state legislative races, and Congressional races.

Now, let’s make no mistake about it; thanks to the political and demographic makeup of the 4th District, James has almost no chance of winning in a General Election against an incumbent like Wynn. But that doesn’t matter because even a losing campaign can accomplish something. It will be interesting to see if other Republican candidates across the country adopt this same strategy.

For those who are interested, James’ website can be found here.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 14