Almost Classical

The following mixes and matches several quite different groups, confounding Tea Party activists will a long list of varied demographics: The Very Angry Tea Party By J.M. BERNSTEIN http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/ In a bracing and astringent essay in The New York Review of Books, pointedly titled "The Tea Party Jacobins," Mark Lilla argued that the hodge-podge list of animosities Tea party supporters mention fail to cohere into a body of political grievances in the conventional sense: they lack the connecting thread of achieving political power. It is not for the sake of acquiring political power that Tea Party activists demonstrate, rally and organize; rather, Lilla argues, the appeal is to "individual opinion, individual autonomy, and individual choice, all in the service of neutralizing, not using, political power." He calls Tea Party activists a "libertarian mob" since they proclaim the belief "that they c...

Reflections on: Groupthink in Academia Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid February 11, 2009 Daniel B. Klein, Charlotta Stern The Independent Review, Spring 2009 http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2434 I have two reactions to this article and, admittedly, my views are at odds on the surface. 1. We hire people like ourselves and seek to work in a place that mirrors our views. 2. Universities should be different and attempt to encourage debate and discussion. I don't know how to bring these two views into alignment. I would, however, draw a distinction between the humanities and "hard" sciences / engineering. The humanities are dominated by political theoreticians, while the differences in math, science, engineering, and medicine are less "political." This does not mean there are not serious intellectual differences that shape every discipline; from computer science to physics there are debates about which lines of r...

The Subject: When the White House Changes Party, Do Economists Change Their Tune on Budget Deficits? Econ Journal Watch 7(2), p 119-156, May 2010 http://econjwatch.org/articles/when-the-white-house-changes-party-do-economists-change-their-tune-on-budget-deficits This paper investigates selected economists, to see whether their tune changes when the party holding the White House changes. Six economists are found to change their tune—Paul Krugman in a significant way, Alan Blinder in a moderate way, and Martin Feldstein, Murray Weidenbaum, Paul Samuelson, and Robert Solow in a minor way—while eleven are found to be fairly consistent. The good news is that 11 economists were consistent in their theories and writings. Of course, situations change and economics is not a science -- no matter what practitioners claim. Economics is a historically grounded art of sorts, a matter of interpretations and hypotheses. Still, consistency appeals to me. I also don't mind the four economis...

I suggest reading this article: Politicians Cause Downsizing “It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the increase in spending,” says Coval. “Indeed, the firms significantly cut physical and R&D spending, reduced employment, and experienced lower sales.” -- Let's hear it for stimulus spending… The fact scholars were surprised that government spending does not result in improvements to a local economy is pretty sad. Most business owners could have explained this basic of Econ 101: government takes resources from the private sector, whether it is money (taxes) or intellectual capital (employees). Governments compete against the private sector and when the government is losing it can change the rules. Consider the U.S. Postal Service. Each employee of the postal service is also a potential UPS or FedEx employee. But, laws prevent private competition in standard mail delivery. You can buy a m...

Today, I watched yet another MSNBC commentator asking libertarian scholars and a Republican party hack where their plans for national health care were. Here's a clue, MSNBC: conservatives and libertarians both are suspect of federal power and effectiveness. By definition a libertarian isn't going to have a "national" plan with any central authority. To keep asking the question, badgering guests, demonstrates a special kind of ignorance. This line of questioning assumes a center-left alignment in the two major parties that does not exist. Admittedly, the GOP under Bush expanded the federal government and control. You can find plenty of libertarians disgusted by the GOP expansion of federal authority: No Child Left Behind, Dept. of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, and on and on. The GOP gave in to typical Washington intoxication. But, a principled libertarian would not have a national health care plan. Libertarians might offer a plan to allow states to experime...

Democrats think it is a winning strategy to label every opponent as racist, sexist, homophobe. This is a serious mistake, but it is being repeated again and again in editorial pages across the United States. It's easy. Blame opposition to this president and the congress on anything other than their policies. When you scream Racist! you force opponents to either respond or waste time distancing themselves from true nutcases. In some ways, it is brilliant politics. It is a no-lose slogan in the short-run of most political seasons. However, this is a long-term situation and eventually the cries of racism will lose effect. The Democrats will continue to lose the independent voters, especially business owners. CNN/Money reports that a $14/hr employee costs $20/hr and that will continue to rise. Being afraid of going broke isn't racist. Small business is getting hammered. We oppose policies, not a person. At some point, the Dems will have chased away the middle class. The oth...

For something to be a "right," it must be something you have the right and ability to pursue on your own. A right is contained within the self. If you believe in personal property, personal control, personal choice, the end result is a philosophy that rights are individual liberties. A good is something it is nice to have, but to which there is no inherent entitlement. Goods are purchased or bartered for in some way. Health care is not a right. You have the right to pursue a healthy lifestyle. You have the right to negotiate for health-related goods and services, but you are not entitled to the services of other people. We cannot mandate a certain number of medical professionals exist. We cannot mandate that trained doctors treat everyone. A doctor is free to retire and go fishing if he or she wants. Since health care relies on other people taking actions, to force them to do anything is servitude. Is there an ethical reason to have national health care? Sure. But t...