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.

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."

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."

Is the WSJ Editorial Board a group of racists who support vigilantes?

An earlier post called the outrage over what Tucker Carlson said about vigilantism a sham and a shame. I wonder if an editorial by the WSJ will generate the same reaction. Here are the first and last paragraphs of the editorial.

"The violent protests of the last three months in Portland, Ore., escalated on Saturday night into a right-left confrontation that resulted in one man shot dead in the streets. This is what happens when political leaders fail to perform the most basic responsibility of government to protect innocent lives and property.

...

"Vigilantism isn’t the cause of the current urban violence, but it could become one result of the failure to control violence. Americans have watched for weeks as rioters burned and looted businesses that people spent a lifetime building. Yet mayors like Ted Wheeler have let it happen. Inevitably, average citizens will move to defend themselves if elected officials won’t protect them. The proper place to do that is at the ballot box, however, not in the streets with guns."

Stating that "average citizens will move to defend themselves" is a more restrained way of asking "[h]ow shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order ... ?"

Is Tucker Carlson a racist who supports vigilantes?

The uproar over what Tucker Carlson said after a teenager allegedly shot and killed two people and shot and wounded a third is a shame and a sham. Here is what he said.

"Kenosha devolved into anarchy because the authorities abandoned the people. Those in charge, from the governor on down, refused to enforce the law. They’ve stood back and watched Kenosha burn." (Tweet, almost verbatim transcript.)

"Are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder? How shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?"

Reaction has been severe. Folks says that Carlson justifies or defends the shooter. Robert Reich says “If they don’t take action after this, every one of Fox News’s executives, directors, and advertisers is complicit in Tucker Carlson’s racist, murderous rants."

I see a difference between what Carlson says and a justification, defense, or racist murderous rant. I see a prediction that 17-year olds with rifles decide to maintain order when the government does not. If saying that people steal more when no one stops them does not justify or defend the thief. Nor does saying that more people defend their property themselves when the government fails to protect the property justify or defend the vigilante. Neither response is surprising because the response is predictable. Neither statement justifies or defends the response. 

I suspect that what Reich says about Carlson is a despicable attempt to attract eyeballs; Carlson does not mention race during the segment and takes care to proclaim both that he does not have all the facts and that a trial will determine whether or not the shootings were murder. Reserving judgement is neither racist nor murderous.  

Carlson is no angel here. The headline, "Two people killed in riots", makes the riots appear to be the cause of death. In fact, the allegation is that a vigilante killed two people. That the vigilante was responding to the riots does not make the riots the cause of death.

Discussing the consequences of violent protests and the governments reaction or lack of reaction to them is an important component of a meaningful analysis of the impact of defunding the police and reforming policing. We need more meaningful analysis of the impacts, not partisan narratives.

What really matters

Much of the debate over what is or is not one of the isms, capitalism, socialism, communism, totalitarianism, etc., is a sham and a shame. Many realities fall between classical definitions and the debate over where a particular reality falls does little to improve our understanding. The key distinction in an economic system is the extent to which it relies on liberty and voluntary cooperation  relative to coercion. My understanding of classical capitalism is that it envisions relying predominately on liberty and voluntary cooperation. My understanding of classical communism is that it relies predominately on coercion - a person works where instructed and consumes what government allocates to her. 

I want my economic system to rely predominately on liberty and voluntary cooperation. and want my government to do things that create liberty and foster voluntary cooperation. For example, a government police force enhances my liberty because it reduces that chance that a thief coerces me through theft or at gun point to give up something I own. 

I recommend this commentary.

Robert Reich says billionaires should fear "us all"

Saying one group in our country should fear another group is a shame.  I expect the leader of a communist revolution to say that some folks should fear "us", but not a former Secretary of Labor. Our constitution is an attempt "to form a more perfect union" (emphasis added) and put in roadblocks to keep one group ruling without having broader support from other groups. If we think that having the 1% fear the 99% is OK, then we have no reason to think that having the 49% fear the 51% is not. We don't want people to fear government coercion; we want government to bring together all people to solve problems that they can''t solve well through voluntary action and exchange.