Pseudepigraphic Epistemology will be re-launching with a new design next week! (hopefully)
In the mean time, here's three things to keep yourself occupied.
1. "New boss, same as the old boss" - The Who
Perhaps in honor of The Who playing the halftime show at the Super Bowl, or perhaps due to his inability to speak well when not in front of a teleprompter, Obama defended himself this week by saying (in so many words) that he's the same as Bush. Um, Mr. President, sir, I'm not sure if anyone told you, but no one liked him. That means you don't want to be like him. And, by the way, you got elected because you were the un-Bush candidate. I seem to remember something about "change" being promised, but, well, if you want to be just like Bush, you're doing a pretty good job of it.
2. Do They Understand Why This Won't Work?
The state of South Carolina now has a law that requires all "subversives" to register with the government (and pay a $5 fee to do so). I think this is supposed to target the various "tea-party movements that are cropping up across the country, and presumably in South Carolina as well, but before going into why this is a huge violation of First Amendment rights, can I just ask if anyone in the South Carolina General Assembly has access to a dictionary? Because I have to wonder what about the word "subversive" makes you think the people who can be described that way would line up and pay a fee to the government.
Also, the law states "every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State." So they are lumping in foreign dignitaries and embassadors with terrorists. Talk about painting with a broad brush.
3. They Must Make Some Awesome Windows
Perhaps you've heard of Serious Materials, which happens to be the only window-making company to make the Obama Administration's list of green-energy companies. Both Obama and Biden have personally endorsed the company, and Inc. Magazine recently featured the company's CEO on their cover.
So what makes them so special? Well its not because they make better windows than their competitors.
As John Stossel reports, the "vice president of policy" (whatever that is) at Serious Materials is married to Cathy Zoi, who just so happens to be one of the higher-ups in the U.S. Department of Energy. Oh, and she was in charge of distributing more than $16 million in stimulus funds. What a funny coincidence that is.
--
Showing posts with label John Stossel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Stossel. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Deserving Nobel Prize Winner
With all the hoopla surrounding President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, we should not lose sight of the other award winners who have actually done something to earn their Prize. In the case of Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics this year, that means proving that normal people are actually better at solving complicated economic problems than politicians and bureaucrats.
Ostrom is the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the 24th American to win that award since 1980. But it's what she did to earn the Prize that's really cool.
The Nobel selection committee had this to say:
"Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes."
In other words, free people work things out. Ostrom has shown that people who have a direct interest in solving problems do a better job than governmental agencies that follow prevailing theories on conflict of interest. Not only do they do a better job of handling disputes, but they produce more successful outcomes.
John Stossel takes a deeper look:
"Ostrom's work concentrates on common-pool resources (CPR) like pastures and fisheries. Policymakers assume that such situations are plagued by free-rider problems, where all individuals have a strong incentive to use the resource to the fullest and no incentive to invest in order to enhance it. Analysts across the political spectrum theorize that only bureaucrats or owners of privatized units can efficiently manage such resources.
Few scholars actually venture into the field to see what people actually do when faced with free-rider problems. Ostrom did. It turns out that free people are not as helpless as the theorists believed...
...Not only is government help often not needed, Ostrom says it usually screws things up because bureaucrats operate in an ivory tower ignorant of the local customs and the specific resource.
Political theorists assume away the problems of political control, but the problems are real. There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot, who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right. Unlike bureaucrats, they bear the costs of their mistakes."
It just makes sense, doesn't it? When people need to solve a problem, they usually do. But in this era of government-rides-to-the-rescue-again, it's great to see people like Dr. Ostrom (political scientist at Indiana University) rewarded for defending freedom. The 10-million Swedish kronor prize -- about $1.4 million -- that she'll share with University of California professor Oliver Williamson must be pretty sweet too.
Ostrom is the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the 24th American to win that award since 1980. But it's what she did to earn the Prize that's really cool.
The Nobel selection committee had this to say:
"Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes."
In other words, free people work things out. Ostrom has shown that people who have a direct interest in solving problems do a better job than governmental agencies that follow prevailing theories on conflict of interest. Not only do they do a better job of handling disputes, but they produce more successful outcomes.
John Stossel takes a deeper look:
"Ostrom's work concentrates on common-pool resources (CPR) like pastures and fisheries. Policymakers assume that such situations are plagued by free-rider problems, where all individuals have a strong incentive to use the resource to the fullest and no incentive to invest in order to enhance it. Analysts across the political spectrum theorize that only bureaucrats or owners of privatized units can efficiently manage such resources.
Few scholars actually venture into the field to see what people actually do when faced with free-rider problems. Ostrom did. It turns out that free people are not as helpless as the theorists believed...
...Not only is government help often not needed, Ostrom says it usually screws things up because bureaucrats operate in an ivory tower ignorant of the local customs and the specific resource.
Political theorists assume away the problems of political control, but the problems are real. There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well meaning, are better at solving problems than the people on the spot, who have the strongest incentive to get the solution right. Unlike bureaucrats, they bear the costs of their mistakes."
It just makes sense, doesn't it? When people need to solve a problem, they usually do. But in this era of government-rides-to-the-rescue-again, it's great to see people like Dr. Ostrom (political scientist at Indiana University) rewarded for defending freedom. The 10-million Swedish kronor prize -- about $1.4 million -- that she'll share with University of California professor Oliver Williamson must be pretty sweet too.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Health Care Stuff
I don't really want to write too much about the whole health care reform thing going on right now, because, honestly, I don't understand enough of it to offer much. You might want to bookmark this page, because I'm not sure when I will make a statement like that again.
Anyway, I've been using all the attention on health care to educate myself a little bit and how and why the system works the way it does (or doesn't) and regardless of the outcome from Obama's plan, at least I've learned something. Either way, I still think the best plan for me is just to avoid getting sick/serious accidents/being within a mile of an emergency room.
My biggest single problem with the very idea of health care reform is that I'm not convinced that anyone understands the system well enough to reform it, let alone a bunch of politicians. I doubt the people in Congress who are going to reform the system actually understand the system any better than I do. Do we really want, as John Stossel writes, a bunch of people who have most likely never run a small business trying to overhaul one of the most complex markets in the world? What makes them think they are capable of doing it? They do understand that "Yes We Can" was just a campaign slogan, right?
Although there are plenty of well-informed opinions out there on the health care situation, I've found (not surprisingly) some of the most lucid and convincing arguments come from Megan McArdle over at The Atlantic. In particular, these two posts - though long - are worth a read:
A Long, Long Post About My Reasons For Opposing National Health Care
It's Adverse. But is it Selection?
Ron Paul also entered the blogosphere debate today with this post on the Campaign for Liberty site. He makes more good points for why this is a bad idea.
Anyway, I've been using all the attention on health care to educate myself a little bit and how and why the system works the way it does (or doesn't) and regardless of the outcome from Obama's plan, at least I've learned something. Either way, I still think the best plan for me is just to avoid getting sick/serious accidents/being within a mile of an emergency room.
My biggest single problem with the very idea of health care reform is that I'm not convinced that anyone understands the system well enough to reform it, let alone a bunch of politicians. I doubt the people in Congress who are going to reform the system actually understand the system any better than I do. Do we really want, as John Stossel writes, a bunch of people who have most likely never run a small business trying to overhaul one of the most complex markets in the world? What makes them think they are capable of doing it? They do understand that "Yes We Can" was just a campaign slogan, right?
Although there are plenty of well-informed opinions out there on the health care situation, I've found (not surprisingly) some of the most lucid and convincing arguments come from Megan McArdle over at The Atlantic. In particular, these two posts - though long - are worth a read:
A Long, Long Post About My Reasons For Opposing National Health Care
It's Adverse. But is it Selection?
Ron Paul also entered the blogosphere debate today with this post on the Campaign for Liberty site. He makes more good points for why this is a bad idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
