Almost Classical

My wife and I are among what I've heard one economist call "the lesser rich." We are in the top ten percent of households, but we are not wealthy. We don't drive luxury cars, live in a McMansion, or even own a big screen television. My computer is several years old, our phones are not "smart phones," and we've never been on a cruise. Yet, according to the statistics, we are "rich." I'm sure that explains why my last clothing purchase was a $9.99 pair of store-brand Khakis from Target. Where do you fall in the eyes of political leaders (and the public to whom they are pandering): http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0694.pdf Less than $10,000 7.3% $10,000 to $29,999 23.3% $30,000 to $59,999 27.5% $60,000 to $74,999 10.1% $75,000 to $99,999 11.5% $100,000 to $149,999 11.9% $150,000 to $199,999 4.4% $200,000 to $249,999 1.8% $250,000 and More 2.0% More than half of U.S. households (58.1%) have combined income...

Following my last post, a friend asked if I was "coming out" as a Republican. No. That's not going to happen, since I am deeply offended by the influence of the religious conservatives within the GOP. I have no interest in supporting candidates or a party that isn't willing to "live and let live" on most social issues. But, I'm also not going to embrace a party that wants to regulate an even broader range of behaviors I consider to be personal choices. If I want a greasy burger or a buttery croissant, leave me alone. "Sin tax" is one of the more idiotic phrases in government revenue collection. Given a choice, I am more likely to support and even work for "conservative" Democrats, but I'd also consider a "liberal" Republican. However, I tend to focus on issues as a scholar and adviser rather than individuals. I don't like or trust politicians, but I can support a cause. If you want me to collect data and report o...

For the last few years, I have found myself using the phrase "I am not a social conservative" before explaining my positions on a number issues. The last thing an academic within some disciplines wants is to be accused of being a conservative. It would be career suicide within some university humanities departments to be a self-identified Republican, and I cannot imagine being an outspoken "Tea Party" supporter within some fields. You might as well admit you also don't want publications, conference invitations, and the all-important tenure. I'm a free-market capitalist, vehemently opposed to both crony capitalism and overzealous central planning. We have allowed the elite to control both government and commerce, strangling the true free market. Big companies get the regulations they want, while pretending to oppose them. It costs pennies per customer for McDonald's to comply with laws regulating nutritional disclosures, but that same law costs dollars ...

I have several broader topics on the "to-do" list for this blog, but this week a colleague's observation reminded me that too many people see issues from stark, all-or-nothing, positions. Since joining the faculty at a private, non-profit, university, I've been publicly stating that the union isn't starting its negotiations for a new three-year contract from a position of power and authority. That bothers me. "How can you be in a union? You've detailed union corruption, negative effects on employment, and complained about public employee unions. I thought you hated unions?" I do not "hate" all unions. I dislike many unions, definitely, primarily because of their leadership. But that does not mean that I am opposed to all unions. If anything, I want to reform unions and help guide change to make them relevant. Unions, as they are, represent the past — a romanticized past that often overlooks the problems of unions. I am opposed to th...

This week, a CNN/Opinion Research poll found only 43 percent of potential voters favor Obama's jobs plan. That means 57 percent aren't convinced this plan will do much. In another poll, 51 percent of likely voters said the plan was likely to have no effect on unemployment. "But… but… but…" the President's people stammer. "Economists like Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi says it will create 1.9 million jobs!" That's the problem. The public is starting to realize that economists are "unexpectedly" useless when it comes to forecasting the economy. If you want evidence, do a search on the word "unexpectedly" and any combination of "unemployment," "housing," "prices," "wages," or "inflation." Today's top story on CNBC: The weekly jobless claims number, which is closely watched as an indicator for employment trends, unexpectedly rose 11,000 to 428,000, well ahe...

I have written in the past that I doubt the "multiplier" effect some economists and politicians cite when promoting federal spending. I believe this column makes several good points: The Myth of the Multiplier - Reason Magazine There are "indirect" multipliers, which I do believe are real — though not perfect. Money spent on roads and highways, for example, enables transportation of goods. The problem is, even spending on transit systems is seldom wisely managed. Government is not efficient. Even what it should do, such as providing for the national defense, it does inefficiently. I admire the military, but it isn't efficient. Any "multiplier" effect from military spending is long, long term and often hard to quantify versus the waste. NASA has created technologies that do provide economic benefits, certainly, but the NASA of today cannot even replace the space shuttle program in a timely fashion. The private contractors linked to NASA ...

Paul Krugman Is Still Wrong about Texas - By Kevin D. Williamson - Exchequer - National Review Online Kevin D. Williamson, deputy managing editor of National Review, makes several points I have been making to individuals when they suggest that the Texas economy is either "dumb luck" or simply an illusion. Left-leaning commentators, and I include Paul Krugman in that category (he long ago surrendered his economics qualifications, as I've explained in previous posts), are avoiding serious comparisons of economic models across various states. The right is no better, but I used to expect better statistical analyses from Krugman. What, indeed, does population growth have to do with job growth? Professor Krugman is half correct here — but intentionally only half correct: A booming population leads to growth in jobs. But there is another half to that equation: A booming economy, and the jobs that go with it, leads to population growth. Texas has added millions of people and ...