What Paul Samuelson wrote about the Soviet Union is a sham and a shame.

Bryan Caplan wrote: "I learned my Econ 1 from Samuelson’s 1989 textbook which told us that 'the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive'!" Dr. Samuelson pioneered the modern approach to economic theory. However, he lacked a good grasp of history; perhaps ideology led him to see what he believed.

Biden's claim that tens of millions of people would lose insurance coverage if he ended the public-health pandemic emergency is a sham and a shame

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) report, “Although Medicaid enrollment is expected to decrease significantly,” CMS explains, “many individuals who were not disenrolled from Medicaid during the public health emergency already had comprehensive coverage from another source (such as through an employer) and thus remain insured even when disenrolled from Medicaid.”

Hat tip to the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal.

Gerad Leval says that reparations for slavery is a sham and a shame

In this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Gerad Leval discusses the reasons NOT to pay reparations to descendants of slaves some 150 years after the cessation of slavery. Two key passages follow below.

"It is appropriate to punish a perpetrator or exact restitution from an individual who may have benefited directly from the acts of the perpetrator. Yet more than 1½ centuries’ distance makes such punishment for slavery incompatible with justice. Similarly, individuals separated by many generations from a vile act suffered by distant ancestors can’t have a justiciable claim for suffering they didn’t endure directly or indirectly."

"The best and most equitable reparations lie not in cash payments but in remembering and teaching the lessons of slavery—of its terrible consequences and of the suffering of those who endured it. Such an approach is fundamentally just, constructive and unlimited by time."

The EB of the WSJ says that focusing on median wages to measure discrimination is a Sham and a Shame

The Editorial Board (EB) of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) notes that the median woman on Biden's staff earn 80% of what the median man earns. It goes on to point out that this one statistic does NOT demonstrate discrimination or sexism. Here are three nuggetts.

1. "How can this be, since the salaries are public and people with equal titles get equal pay? The answer is that there’s a composition effect: Among 269 female and 179 male White House staff in Mr. Perry’s spreadsheet, there are more women in lower-paid roles such as staff assistant." 
2. "Many trends feed into the aggregate wage gap, including people’s free choices. To take one example, more than 90% of workplace deaths in 2021 were men, and dangerous jobs like repairing power lines command a wage premium."
3. "Lumping all these people together and then cutting the data set by gender is not a way to understand what’s truly going on in the world."

Leor Shapir fears that the Systematic Review of "Gender-Affirming Care" will be a Sham and a Shame

Leor Shapir asks "Two key questions: Will the systematic review follow a transparent, impartial scientific process? And what should the [American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)] do in the meantime?"

Mr. Shapir's fears that the process will not be a transparent, impartial scientific process and that the AAP will make a bad decision in the meantime stems from several factors. The grounds for his fears are:

1. "The AAP is, first and foremost, a trade union ... [and] has strong incentives to defend its own interests and those of member doctors—especially those who have publicly endorsed or facilitated sex-trait modification—even when that is harmful to patients."
2. "The existing systematic reviews on the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, conducted by health authorities in three European countries, all found “very low” quality evidence for these interventions."
3. "the AAP should immediately recommend extreme caution in the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in treating youth gender dysphoria. This is a no-brainer; health authorities in the U.K., Norway, Sweden, Finland and France have done it. 'There is not enough evidence to support the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness to make the treatment routinely available at this time,' said the statement from England’s National Health Service."
4. The process will exclude or demean the comments from opponents of gender-affirming care.
5. "The organization’s consistent attempts to suppress debate on this sensitive issue, the recent remarks of its chief executive, and its profound conflict of interest as a trade association don’t inspire confidence that it will act scientifically and in the best interests of children and families."

Harold Hamm says that Government Interference in Energy Markets is a Sham and a Shame

Here are seven nuggets from Harold Hamm. 

1. "Every time government intervenes in unpredictable energy markets, politicians get it wrong."
2. Proponents passed the Fuel Use Act of 1978 because because so-called experts were sure the U.S. was running out of oil and natural gas.
3. "When Ronald Reagan let the market work by deregulating energy, oil production soared and prices tumbled. No one worried about running out of oil anymore."
4. "Mr. Obama said that 'we can’t just drill our way out of the problem' [because he] worried that America was going to run out of places to drill" and "spent millions on now bankrupt propositions such as the solar-energy company Solyndra."
5. "The politicians weren’t paying attention to the amazing shale revolution." ... "Yet Mr. Biden still says wind and solar are the future."
6. "I like to call the shale revolution the 'trillion-dollar swing.'”
7. "We can all agree that when it comes to the most valuable natural resource—energy—it’s far smarter to trust markets than politicians to ensure a bountiful future."

Bruce Yandle says CAFE Regulation is a Sham and a Shame

Bruce Yandle writes wisely. Here are two nuggets.

1. CAFE standards imposed in the 1970's had the unintended consequence of increasing demand for SUVs and light trucks.
2. "instead of overhauling the aging fuel efficiency apparatus—perhaps even moving to a straightforward tax on carbon emissions—politicians added more ornaments to the fuel economy Christmas tree." ... "Now we're left with a maze of regulations and rules that I doubt anyone can fully explain. The industrial organization that results is so opaque that no one can tell what anything really costs when factoring for the credits, subsidies, or tax breaks paid for or enjoyed by all involved."
3. "Why not wipe the slate clean, support carbon and other offset markets to reduce undesirable emissions, and let the chips fall where they may? It may take time, but customers and automakers can respond more effectively than the regulatory state has."

Kimberly Strassel and James Freeman say the Jan 6 Indictment against Trump is a Sham and a Shame

"Dishonest politicians who act on dubious legal claims? There aren’t enough prisons to hold them all." Kimberly Strassel then lists people who could be charged with similar crimes.

1. Al Gore for claims about 2000
2. George W. Bush for claims about 2000
3. Barack Obama for his claim about his authority to decree that the Senate was is recess
4. Joe Biden for his claim that he could erase student debt
5. Stacey Abrams for claims about her loss in 2018
6. Dozens of Democrats who objected to slates of electors in 2001, 2005, and 2017
7. Adam Schiff for claims about a classified surveillance warrant application
8. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok for "using a dossier full of lies to get that warrant"

Here is her conclusion.

"There are any number of things as certain as death and taxes. One is that politicians will lie, and act on those untruths. Now that might make them felons."

James Freeman adds "Messrs. Obama and Biden" to the list for the claim "that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it."

The Administrative State is a Sham and a Shame

Using regulation to achieve ends not intended when legislators passed a law is increasing. Revising regulations allows the Executive Branch to exercise unprecedented control over the economy and personal liberties WITHOUT the bother of getting a majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Moreover, costs of many of the revisions will substantially exceed their benefits.

This recent opinion by the Editorial Board of the WSJ identifies a recent onslaught of new and proposed regulations.

1. "The Transportation Department on Friday proposed a 696-page rule raising corporate average fuel economy (Cafe) standards that would effectively require 100% of new cars to be electric by 2032." ... "The Administration claims the proposal will reduce CO2 emissions through 2050 by 885 million metric tons—about half as much as Canada’s wildfires are projected to release this year."
2. "The Administration on Friday also proposed a 236-page revision to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines that will require federal agencies to consider climate change and “environmental justice” in project reviews. If a utility wants to build a gas pipeline, agencies might have to evaluate if a solar plant would better promote environmental justice, however regulators define it."
3. "The Administration is also quietly using collusive legal settlements with green groups to end-run judicial review of rules—a practice known as “sue and settle.”
4. "Last week Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler jammed through a rule requiring public companies to disclose to investors cyber-security breaches within four days of discovering them—no matter if they are still trying to repair their systems." ... "the unprecedented rule could 'tell successful attackers when the company finds out about the attack, what the company knows about it, and what the financial fallout is likely to be (i.e., how much ransom the attacker can get)' and 'will signal to other would-be attackers an opportune time to attack.'”
5. "the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a quasi-private entity overseen by the SEC, in June proposed rules that would vastly expand the remit of auditors under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act."

Regulation to reduce emissions is a sham and a shame

I favor a smartly-conceived carbon tax over regulation of energy consumption. The costs of regulating consumption directly usually far exceed the benefits. For example, the Paris Climate Accord would yield on $0.11 in benefits in climate change for every $1 spent even if every country meets its promise.  A well-conceived carbon tax, on the other hand, could yield up to $2 in climate benefits for every $1 spent. 

For more information, I encourage you to read https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/thinking-smartly-about-climate-change/.

My preferred proposal is the Carbon Dividend Plan. This plan uses the tax to pay administrative costs and then return the remainder to Americans on a per capita basis. The result is to increase the price of carbon-intensive goods and services, reduce the production and consumption of carbon-intensive goods and services, increase the incentive for finding new and better ways to capture emissions and to produce energy. Moreover, since the vast majority of the tax revenues return to people on a per capita basis and rich people tend to consume more carbon-intensive goods and services than poor people, the Plan reduces income inequality and rich people bear the brunt of the cost of reducing emissions. The Plan could easily be expanded to address methane and other emissions that contribute to global warming.

Reducing emissions efficiently requires answers to many questions. What is the best way to produce energy? Is producing energy differently better than using technology to capture carbon as or after it is emitted? Is geo-engineering or painting all roofs with reflective white paint the best solution to climate change?

No one person or group knows the answers to these questions. I trust the decisions of millions of people making billions of decisions with good incentives more than the decisions of less than 1000 politicians in Washington DC. The Carbon Dividend Plan is a good start to creating good incentives.

Why politics is a sham and a shame

Politicians put party over principles.

Politicians focus on political expediency instead of practical excellence.

Politicians resort to demagoguery and slogans to solve our complicated problems. We need clear discussion and careful analysis.

The minimum wage is a sham and a shame

A high minimum wage is an inefficient method of reducing poverty. Here is a list of disadvantages.

1. An increase in the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities. (David Neumark,Peter Shirley, Industrial Relations, April 2022, Peter Cove, Congressional Budget Office)
2. The decrease in employment opportunities fall disproportionately on the workers with the least skills. (David Neumark,Peter Shirley, Industrial Relations, April 2022, Cato, Sep. 2021)
3. The decrease in employment opportunities fall disproportionately on young and Black people. Lord help the person who is both young and black.
4. Racism helped create the initial minimum wage legislation. (WSJ, Feb. 2021, Sowell, 2009, pp. 94-95, footnote deleted, WSJ, April 2022)
5. A minority of the benefits of the minimum wage accrue to poor people. (Congressional Budget Office)
6. An increase in the minimum wage leads to a decrease in other types of compensation. (AIE, June 2021)
7. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a more efficient way to help the working poor. (WSJ, Oct. 2020, Bloomberg, Oct. 2020)

The REAL solution to reducing poverty is to increase the job skills of the low-wage workers. We could start with improving the education children receive in under-performing school systems and early childhood interventions.

I fear that the political will increase the minimum wage will continue. 

1. The minimum wage gives the appearance of doing something and politicians love to be able to claim that they have done something to solve a problem. 
2. Advocating for an increase in the minimum wage lets politicians posture that they care about poor people.
3. An increase the minimum wage increases the demand for what Joe Biden calls "good union jobs" and unions are a primary base for funds and votes for Democrats. 
4. Politicians love power and the minimum wage puts them in charge.
5. The job losses caused by the minimum wage are not obvious.

I also don't anticipate a surge of support for the actions I think are needed to improve the quality of education in low-performing school systems. Teachers and their unions and associations are another primary base for funds and votes for Democrats.

Focus on reducing emissions is a shame and a

Steven Levitt is wise and knowledgeable. 

TSA checkpoints are a sham and a shame

Kriston Capps reports: "Using the same formula* as the researchers (and some similar assumptions), I estimated the same costs for airport pre-boarding security. TSA checkpoints have an annual cost per life saved of $667,000,000—two-thirds of one billion dollars."

Why does the government require screenings if the cost per life saved is so high? 

1. TSA gives the appearance of doing something and politicians love to be able to claim that they have done something to solve a problem. 
2. Regulation gives politicians the ability to reward some constituents to create a base for funds and votes. 
3. Politicians love power and regulation puts them in charge.
4. The inefficiency of TSA is not obvious and many people say that no cost is too high to save a life. Of course, many of these same people make choices that unnecessarily reduce their expected life.

The Green Agenda is a Shame and a Sham

I agree with Lomborg's assessment of climate change with the WSJ assessment that politicians pursuing the "Green Agenda" insist "on ignoring reason, logic, truth and economics." Here are some key points on which I think we agree.

1. The climate is warming.
2. Human activity is contributing to the warming.
3. How much human activity contributes is unknown.
4. Efforts by the USA and Europe to address climate change will be ineffective unless China and India cooperate. 
5. A smartly-conceived carbon tax is a much more efficient way to reduce emissions than government regulation of production and consumption. 
6. The Carbon Dividend Plan put forward by the Climate Leadership Council is a blueprint for a smartly-conceived tax.
7. The costs of regulating consumption directly usually far exceed the benefits. For example, the Paris Climate Accord would yield on $0.11 in benefits in climate change for every $1 spent even if every country meets its promise. 
8. A well-conceived carbon tax, on the other hand, could yield up to $2 in climate benefits for every $1 spent.
9. I trust the decisions of millions of people around the world making billions of decisions to achieve efficient reductions in emissions more than the decisions made by 535 politicians in Washington, D. C.

I fear, however, that politicians prefer government regulations to reduce emissions to a smartly-conceived carbon tax. Four factors create my fear. 

1. Regulation gives the appearance of doing something and politicians love to be able to claim that they have done something to solve a problem. 
2. Regulation gives politicians the ability to reward some constituents to create a base for funds and votes. 
3. Politicians love power and regulation puts them in charge.
4. The inefficiency of regulation relative to a smartly-conceived carbon tax is not obvious.