Falling Awake

Fed Plans New Rules to Protect Future Homebuyers

[The mortgage rules] would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower’s ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home’s value.

This is a rule that shouldn’t need to exist.  But if lenders stop lending money to black and hispanic prospective homebuyers based on their ability to repay, expect Congressional hearings.

————-

Frozen Embryos Better Than Fresh, Study Shows

Infants born from embryos which were frozen and then thawed before being implanted into a woman had a higher birth weight and were less likely to suffer abnormalities.

Perhaps all embryos should be frozen?  Oh, wait…

“We think the reason for the differences is probably positive selection of the embryos for frozen embryo replacement, [said Dr. Anja Pinborg.] 

 ”Only the very top quality embryos survive the freezing and thawing process.”

That which does not kill you makes you stronger.  Of course, the embryos that had been frozen still had malformation rates of 7.1 percent.  They’re obviously not killing enough of them.

————-

Higher CO2 Levels May Be Good for Plants: German Scientists

How many German scientists does it take to prove the obvious?

————–

Stealing Recyclables Is Good Business

With prices for aluminum, cardboard and newsprint going up and an economic slowdown putting added pressure on people’s pocketbooks, curbside refuse has become a hot commodity.

A truck piled high with mixed recyclables can fetch upward of $1,000; newspapers alone can grab about $600.

Why is my city–Stamford, Connecticut–spending $1.5 million next year on recycling when ”thieves” will do it for free?

Zimbabwe bans bulk buying amid frenzy

The latest (but not last, I’m sure) in a long line of fiascoes caused by ignoring basic economics:

Zimbabwe authorities ordered businesses on Thursday to stop selling basic goods in bulk to avert shortages after an official price freeze triggered a frenzied buying spree that has emptied most shop shelves.

Over the past week shoppers have been buying sugar, cooking oil, flour, salt and maize-meal in bulk, leaving shelves empty while manufacturers have stopped producing. They say the price freeze is not viable given the price of other goods and raw materials continue to skyrocket.

So to counteract runaway inflation, Mugabe institutes price controls.  As a direct result, food becomes impossible to find, because people understandably want to buy food in bulk at below-market prices.  To counteract that Mugabe bans buying in bulk.

Now, imagine that Zimbabwe is run by a responsible government.  Minimal corruption, the rule of law, the whole shebang.  Now–for whatever reason–prices skyrocket for basic staples.  What happens?  High prices for goods draw more goods to Zimbabwe.  Prices then fall because of increased supply.  No one needs to order anyone to do anything, because it’s in everyone’s self-interest to get food where it’s needed.

It’s the invisible hand at work.  And guess who else is ignoring the invisible hand of market economies?  The US federal government.

Senate passes energy bill, boosting mileage standards

…and outlawing “price-gouging:”

[The bill would make it] unlawful to charge an “unconscionably excessive” price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.

Who decides what is “unconscionably excessive?”  Central authority.  Not the consumer, who could decide to conserve more energy and pay less that way.  The government wants to decide how much you’re going to pay for a gallon of gas.  And the lower the price is, the more likely the next step will be long lines and rationing.

And don’t try the objection that high gas prices mean that the rich can afford more gas than the rest of us.  That’s life.  The rich can afford more of everything than the rest of us.  They can afford to hire someone to wait in line to gas up the car, too.

And by the way, while our representatives in Congress fume about oil industry profits, check out this chart from the Department of Energy website:

I couldn’t find more recent figures on the site, but these are from one year ago.  They show that the oil companies’ profits plus refinery costs equal the taxes our state and federal governments exact.  Who’s doing the gouging here?

The problem with not trusting the invisible hand is that it’s got to be replaced with a visible one.  The hand of government, backed up by the threat of fines or jail for those who don’t obey.

Now, imagine the United States is run by a responsible government…

Normally, I give you the link to the site I’m quoting right up front, so I don’t forget to do it.  This time I’m going to show you where I found this article at the end, because I suspect it will be a surprise.

Michael Moore’s “Sicko” has been out for a couple of weeks now, and it’s made $7 million.  Not exactly a blockbuster.  The critics love it, however, and it received a 91% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  Of course, reading the blurbs you get the sense that these critics didn’t so much love the film as agree with it.  So, if you already agree with Michael Moore, you’ll love the film.  Ipso fatso, as it were.

I did stumble across an in-depth look at the actual substance of Moore’s film, and I’d like to share some excerpts with you:

One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we’re told, we want to burst into the company’s executive suites and make a mass citizen’s arrest. This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000 people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools.

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can’t be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that’s already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles).

What’s the problem with government health systems? Moore’s movie doesn’t ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they’re inevitably forced to ration treatment.

Moore’s most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks’ vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who’s reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he’s finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave — and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can’t have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?

Fidel Castro’s island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” He and his charges make their way — their pre-arranged way, if it need be said — to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to “give them the same care they’d give Cuban citizens.” Then he adds, dramatically: “And they did.”

If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be.

Now, here’s the weird thing.  This rational, intelligent, fact-based, economically correct essay wasn’t published in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times or even the New York Post.

It’s on MTV’s site.  And that just made my day.

Paying taxes is a pleasurable duty - being-human - 14 June 2007 - New Scientist

Paying taxes feels good, say researchers.

The surprising discovery, based on brain scans, can also predict which people are most likely to donate cash to charity.

Bill Harbaugh at the University of Oregon in Eugene, US, and colleagues gave 19 female university students $100, and told them some of this money would have to go towards taxes.

(Apparently, it’s only women who have been shown to like paying taxes.  Let’s double their taxes and eliminate taxes on men.  That way, everybody’s happy.)

Each volunteer then read a series of 60 separate taxation scenarios involving $0 to $45 in taxes, knowing that one of the scenarios would be selected at random and the related amount be subtracted from their $100.

As the participants viewed the tax scenarios, their brains were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Surprisingly, whenever the students read the taxation scenarios, scientists saw a spike in activity within two of the brain’s reward centres – the nucleus accumbens and caudate nucleus.

This is either sloppy reporting or a sloppy experiment.  The scenarios range from $0 to $45, and they all make women happy.  Are they happier with $0?  Or $45?  It doesn’t say.

Harbaugh says that people probably like paying taxes more than they admit. He believes the results of his new study help explain the widespread compliance with tax laws. “We like to complain about it, but based on what we do, we are not as opposed to it as we like to say,” Harbaugh says.

Okay, let’s test this sucker out.  Let’s eliminate withholding from paychecks.  Send us a bill every year for the taxes we owe, and let’s see how happy and compliant Americans can really be!

Chavez orders supporters to give up extra possessions - CNN.com

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told his supporters to give away possessions they do not need such as an extra refrigerator because he only wants true socialists to be members of a new single party he is forming.

“Whoever has a fridge they do not need, put it out in the village square. Whoever has a truck, a fan or a cooker they do not need, give something away. Let’s not be selfish. I demand you do it,” Chavez said at a milk producing cooperative, in remarks released on Monday.

So you won’t have to rack your brain trying to remember why this sounds so familiar, I’ll tell you:

We Are All In It Together, Clinton Says

That’s Hillary Clinton.  I talked about it here.

Harry Potter magic spells losses for booksellers | U.S. | Reuters

Harry Potter has no spell for bookstore profits.

Millions of people will descend on stores for a copy of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” in July, but deep discounts mean many will struggle to turn a profit from the jamboree.

“Everywhere you go there is huge, ridiculous discounting by the chains,” said Graham Marks, children’s editor at the British-based trade magazine Publishing News.

“They are literally not going to make one penny out of the book. It is stupid — just throwing money away … The world has gone mad.”

The world hasn’t gone mad, but when the release of a major title means trouble for booksellers, there’s clearly something wrong with the business model.

Brick-and-mortar bookstores cannot compete with Amazon on price.  They also can’t compete with Costco, Wal-mart, or your local supermarket on bestseller prices.  Customers feel cheated if they don’t get the same markdown on bestsellers at their local bookstore as they do in a supermarket.  So, the very books that should be paying the rent are being sold at a deep discount.  The supermarket pays the rent by selling milk–the few cents they make on every book is just gravy.

You’d think booksellers could make it up by providing good customer service–but Amazon beats them there, too.  No clerk can have read every book in the store, but just about every book Amazon carries has been reviewed by an Amazon customer.  And ask yourself this: has a bookstore employee ever done a great job finding you the perfect book, which you then proceeded to buy on Amazon to get a better price?

I see a day coming when there will be two types of bookstore: self-service megastores and small “boutique” stores in areas where customers are not price-conscious.  Or you can always go to Amazon.

I read a paper by Bryan Caplan called “The Myth of the Rational Voter.” (It’s a .pdf file)  (The introduction is here in html.)  Reading the paper wasn’t the waste of time, but it did lead to it.  Here’s how.

The paper begins:

In theory, democracy is a bulwark against socially harmful policies. In practice, however, democracies frequently adopt and maintain policies that are damaging. How can this paradox be explained?

The influence of special interests and voter ignorance are two leading explanations. I offer an alternative story of how and why democracy fails. The central idea is that voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational—and they vote accordingly. Despite their lack of knowledge, voters are not humble agnostics; instead, they confidently embrace a long list of misconceptions.

This got my back up, and I started marshalling the resources to refute the author before I’d read the entire thing.  That was the waste of time.  I flipped through the wonderful book The Wisdom of Crowds, to re-familiarize myself with its argument.  The book’s author, James Surowiecki,  does an excellent job explaining how a heterogeneous group of people of sufficient size can make smarter decisions than the world’s foremost experts.

But then I read Caplan’s article, and I understood what he was saying.

Read the rest of this entry »

Really, though, am I trying too hard to make sense of President Bush’s immigration fixation?  He could simply feel that it’s the correct moral choice.  (Many, if not most, Catholic bishops would agree with him.)  If that’s the case, then Bush wouldn’t care if it’s the smart thing to do.  It’s not like he hasn’t been accused of a “consequences be damned” attitude before.  (As a matter of fact, that’s something I admire about him.  As a person, if not always as a president.)

Of course, if it is a moral calculation, why is it only Latinos who should benefit?  Shouldn’t we just throw open our borders to every person in the world?

On the other hand, if this is an effort to prop up Social Security, would it work–at least in the short term?  I’ve skimmed the Rector study (a cost/benefit analysis of illegal immigration on taxpayers) over at the Heritage Foundation, and this is the only analysis I found of the impact of immigrants on Social Security:

Do Low-Skill Immigrants Contribute to the Solvency of Social Security?

It is often argued that low-skill immigrants have a positive impact on U.S. taxpayers because they pay taxes into the Social Security trust fund. It is true that low-skill immigrant households pay, on average, around $2,900 per year in Social Security (FICA) taxes; however, the average Social Security and Medicare benefits they receive actually exceed the FICA taxes paid. [ME: That's true of most people, not just immigrants.  That's the problem with Social Security.]  Of course, low-skill immigrant households receive many other government benefits as well, receiving ten dollars in total government benefits for each dollar they pay in Social Security taxes.  [ME: That's not really fair--if you're going to talk about total government benefits, contrast them to total taxes paid, not just FICA.  That's what he does in the rest of the paper, of course, but here he's specifically talking about Social Security.]

Even if low-skill immigrants were net contributors to the Social Security trust fund, it would be a serious mistake to look at Social Security in isolation from other government taxes and expenditures. A household that pays a small amount in Social Security taxes but consumes many times that amount in benefits funded by other tax sources does not contribute to the fiscal health of government. In the final analysis, taxpayers, including many Social Security recipients, will face higher taxes in order to subsidize low-skill immigrant households.  [ME: other government benefits are more easily cut than Social Security, though.  Welfare reform WAS accomplished, and many other entitlement programs could be altered in the same way, if our politicians could summon the will.]

Earlier in the paper, Rector said: “The present analysis adjusts the estimated income and FICA taxes paid by low-skill immigrant households downward slightly to adjust for the “off the books” labor of low-skill illegal immigrants.”  Under the Bush plan the immigrants wouldn’t be working off the books anymore.  At least in theory.  Would this make enough difference to Social Security’s solvency?

Even if it would, I still worry about the cultural consequences.  The same thing’s been tried in Europe, and we’ve seen the results…

…stash your savings in an offshore account, and bury your gold.  Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton Hillary!(tm) wants your money!

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

“Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

It’s almost as if she heard about the Pope’s recent remarks in South America, but forgot to check Falling Awake for the substance behind the sound bite.

I’ll lay it out for her again.  Fairness can never be enforced by the government.  Fairness requires that each of us deal with people as individuals, whereas the federal government’s policies are tailored towards groups.

The only “fairness” that government is good at is of the lawn-mower variety, where everyone is chopped down to the same height.

Thank you, no.  But I appreciate the offer!

Joe Kennedy’s friend Hugo Chavez is planning to shut down a television station that inconveniently opposes his totalitarian regime.  Come to think of it, it’s been a while since I’ve seen those television ads that salute our “friends in Venezuela.”  Maybe they’re Kennedy’s friends during the winter, but the rest of the time I suppose their cheap oil is a major contributor to “global warming.”  [UPDATE: Looks like it's a fait accompli.]

——————–

I missed Earth Day!  In all the hustle and bustle of preparing for May Day and Cinco de Mayo, it completely slipped my mind.  Eminent ecologist Bill Maher remembered, though:

Here’s a quote from Albert Einstein: “if the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would have only four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.” Well, guess what? The bees are disappearing. In massive numbers. All around the world. And if you think I’m being alarmist and that, “Oh, they’ll figure out some way to pollinate the plants…” No, they’ve tried. For a lot of what we eat, only bees work. And they’re not working. They’re gone. It’s called Colony Collapse Disorder, when the hive’s inhabitants suddenly disappear, and all that’s left are a few queens and some immature workers — like when a party winds down at Elton John’s house.

That last line’s actually funny.  I forgot Bill Maher used to consider himself a comedian.  Unfortunately–for Maher, not for us–the whole thing’s untrue.  First, Einstein never said anything about bees.  Second, “Colony Collapse Disorder” is a theory concocted by European beekeepers in order to justify their massive subsidies.  Third, we’ve got plenty of bees.  Maybe too many!  Here’s some more!  Someone’s playing a joke on environmentalist doomsayers.  It’s just like those “marches against global warming” that always take place during blizzards and cold snaps.

Here’s a suggestion to environmentalists who really want the average person to give a crap.  Stop lying.  When you make up figures to create a sense of urgency, rational people suspect that there might not actually be a problem.  If the real data is alarming, why not stick with that?  If it isn’t, maybe you should take up a different hobby.

————————-

Poll: American Muslims reject extremes

How comforting.  Only 26% of American Muslims aged 18-29 believe suicide bombing is justified.  If it were 49%, the headline would be the same.  I wonder what the story would be if an equivalent percentage of American Christians aged 18-29 supported the bombing of empty abortion clinics?  Only the “religion of peace” gets a free pass on random murder.  (I’m arguing that Islam shouldn’t get a free pass, not that anyone else should, in case I need to spell that out.)

—————————

Anyone who thinks Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay exemplify man’s inhumanity to man should check out the Smoking Gun’s publication of Al Qaeda torture manuals recently declassified by the Defense Department.  (Obviously, click at your own risk.  The depictions are color illustrations, not photographs, but they are still disturbing.)  Some of the methods are “blowtorch to the skin,” “eyeball removing,” and “loud music.” Actually, no.  Al Qaeda is not barbaric enough to recommend loud music.

Now, I’m not suggesting we treat our captives like this.  We are more humane than they are.  As a matter of fact, Al Qaeda could even earn the right to be treated according to the Geneva conventions if they upheld them themselves.  Until that happens, loud music and excessive air conditioning don’t bother me one bit.

————————-

Google’s goal: to organize your daily life

I’d be a little more concerned about this if Google’s motto wasn’t “Don’t be evil”:

“The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’ ”

The race to accumulate the most comprehensive database of individual information has become the new battleground for search engines as it will allow the industry to offer far more personalised advertisements. These are the holy grail for the search industry, as such advertising would command higher rates.

Mr Schmidt told journalists in London: “We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion.”

I’m sure this is nothing.  “Don’t be evil” is admirably clear.  It’s not like Google would ever give this information to bad guys.  (NYT - reg. req.)

———————

Canadian media needle “Sicko”

Michael Moore’s upcoming film “Sicko” compares US health care unfavorably to the Canadian system.  Canadian journalists who viewed the film in Cannes, however, were puzzled by the rosy picture Moore painted of their country’s health care situation.  Moore responded to their criticisms this way:

“You Canadians! You used to be so funny!” an exasperated Moore said at a press conference in the Palais des Festivals.

So, when pressed, he relies on the “it’s a joke, you morons!” defense.  Then he goes on the offensive:

“The Canadian system, if you look on that list of the World Health Organization, is not that far above us. It’s not like the French system. The French system is the best in the world.”

Maybe he should have figured that out before he made the film.  Now we have to find the flaws in the film Moore didn’t actually make in order to refute his arguments.  That’s not really fair.  Although it is typical.

————————

House votes to make energy price-gouging illegal

I suppose I should get used to linking to this essay every couple of months.  The same author (Ian Murray) elsewhere makes this point more succinctly by way of rhyme:

You’re gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition
If you think you can charge less!
A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don’t try to charge the same amount!
That would be collusion!

——————————

Judge: Spector’s expert hid victim’s fingernail

That expert would be Dr. Henry Lee.  The judge in the Phil Spector trial found that Lee tampered with evidence at the crime scene.  The evidence, a fragment of a fingernail belonging to the victim, would have served to incriminate Mr. Spector by demonstrating that she had been struggling when the gun was fired.

You may recall that Dr. Lee was the most respected witness presented in O. J. Simpson’s defense.  “Something wrong,” was the famous sound bite from Lee’s testimony regarding the police’s handling and testing of the evidence.  Well, there’s also something wrong with a man of Lee’s stature exchanging his honor for money…

…again?

———————–

Good opinion piece here by Bob Kerrey, former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission.  A couple of chunks:

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

It’s all worth a read.

—————————-

And finally, this post by Andy McCarthy sums up my feelings on illegal immigration and the proposed “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” better than anything else I’ve read on the subject.  Maybe better than anything I’ve written on the subject, too.  I’d have to excerpt the whole thing, so just click on over and read it if you want to.