Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

McCain-Feingold has had a much greater negative impact than CU.

[Da Geezer]

Don't you think we're being controlled by the oil industry now?

I am not sure that we are causing climate change, but even if it is happening (I believe that it is) and is nothing more than natural weather cycle, doesn't it make sense to quit dumping shit into our environment?

Putting extra C02 into the environment is far different than "dumping shit into the environment".

And I feel absolutely no threat of control by "big oil". The fundamental difference between government and any public corporation is that government has the guns. They enforce their will by force, like prosecuting those who disagree with them. No corporation does that. Besides, I see corporations that are indeed powerful but are circumscribed by markets. I'm now paying about $ 2.00/gal for gas, but the price can go up by 50% or down by maybe 10% depending on supply. There are many powerful players in the oil industry who don't always have the welfare of other players as a primary concern. The government, by definition, always gets its own way, and if they don't, they apply force

You guys just didn't experience the wonders of price controls under Nixon and Carter. You didn't experience the "public utility" of "new oil" versus "old oil", or of rationing by only having certain days in which you could purchase gasoline. With controls, supply shrinks, and prices climb, at the whim of bureaucrats who care only about their jobs and the next election.

[hack]

If wealthy individuals had nothing to do with corporations -- their fate and fortunes entirely divorced -- that would be a good point. But you're not stupid. You know that there is at *some* overlap between wealthy individuals and corporations, and perhaps even a whole lot. Logical to conclude then that the myopia in your comment is by design. It's getting regular. You noted yesterday that laws are passed and sometimes corporations don't like them, so therefore the billions spent are therefore irrelevant to the entire process. Of course you can do just as well as I can naming scenarios in which the existence of a law is in no way a meaningful change in any direction.

What's the purpose of all this? This thread isn't an electorate, so who are you trying to fool?

[iam416]

Putting extra C02 into the environment is far different than "dumping shit into the environment".

To most people. But not the alarmists. There's no room for anything other than complete agreement. It's so very Maoist. Or Stalinist.

[hack]

Geezer I think you're tending there to overestimate government powers, or even its ability to ``want'' something. It's not a monolith and within it there are turf wars and appropriations fights that make it inherently at conflict with itself. I also think you are underestimating the ability of the private sector's tools -- buying politicians and legislative or regulatory outcomes, using the courts, etc. Obviously this is a push-and-pull. Ultimately you're describing a balance of power -- you would call it atomized. Individual outcomes aren't always just or ideal, but failing what is ideal at the very least we do not have a scenario in which there's one actor with all the power.

In the specific scenario of price controls on oil, there's no scenario in which bureaucrats set it arbitrarily, i.e. Wartime rationing is one thing, but the way consumer fuels and power are subsidized today is generally on a cost-plus basis, in which distributors are allowed a margin. Done wisely that's not a death sentence. A legal process to define how that margin is built can on paper accomodate or even encourage investment. But I do agree that this is where government moves from my preferred activity of providing a level playing field and nothing else to the picking of winners. Even if you have laws designed to manage the price-setting process, it's the opportunities for graft that eventually kill the system. You're licencing distributors, which is a form of picking winners, and then taking on the regulatory responsibility of making sure their accounting is legit. This is all needless complication and graft.

[Da Geezer]

Where I differ from Libertarians is that I recognize there is an area of policy which involves things that we hold in common. Should an oil company be allowed to shift the costs of production by dumping shit into the air or water? Of course not. Do I feel joy when I see bald eagles fly over my home? Of course.

But my analysis of any issue revolves around the question "Is this the government's job?", which is basically saying "does this involve the commons?" I only claim expertise is the area of land development, but I can tell you that "bulldozing landscapes" will cost the developer money at the end of the day. In well over 50 years of doing this, I have followed the market and provided what I thought would make me the most money long-term. On Lake Michigan, that meant big lots and long setbacks for homes during a time when trying to maximize the density of any lakefront parcel was in vogue. I'm proud that when the Lake's level rose, I had no cottages that had any form of erosion control on the shoreline (for couple miles of frontage) because I required a safe setback. That came from using common sense and not listening to the engineers and consultants who proposed to double my profit by making more and smaller lots.

[iam416]

Aside from the NY primary, yesterday also saw a 4th Circuit panel rule that a school violated Title IX's prohibition on discrimination based on sex by failing to allow a girl who identifies as a boy to use the men's room. The school allowed her to use the women's room or one of the "unisex" single stall restrooms the school had created to accommodate transgender students. The 4th Circuit was unimpressed. The court ruled that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is discrimination on the basis of sex, and that Title IX “requires schools to provide transgender students access to restrooms congruent with their gender identity.”

The decision was 2-1 with a strenuous dissent based on, you know, commonsense and the obvious meaning of the statute. The 4th Circuit will almost surely take this issue up en banc and then perhaps it will filter its way up to the SCt.

[iam416]

Finally, this happened last week, but huzzah to Ohio State... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...mpus-crybabies

They ought to distribute the video in that link to every college administrator as a "how-to" guide.

[hack]

You should be delighted, given your interest in protecting commerce as it is. The coming menace of ladies-room trannies will be a great new distraction on the social-issues front.

[Da Geezer]

Geezer I think you're tending there to overestimate government powers, or even its ability to ``want'' something. It's not a monolith and within it there are turf wars and appropriations fights that make it inherently at conflict with itself. I also think you are underestimating the ability of the private sector's tools -- buying politicians and legislative or regulatory outcomes, using the courts, etc. Obviously this is a push-and-pull. Ultimately you're describing a balance of power -- you would call it atomized. Individual outcomes aren't always just or ideal, but failing what is ideal at the very least we do not have a scenario in which there's one actor with all the power.

sorry, I was writing when you posted.

Read what you said. You just said that corporations and moneyed interests have certain tools ". . .you are underestimating the ability of the private sector's tools -- buying politicians and legislative or regulatory outcomes, using the courts, etc.. . " that all involve using the government's power to control its citizens in order to profit the corporation. Economists call this "rent seeking". Your description of what you are against is practically the same as mine. You presume that "buying politicians" and seeking regulatory outcomes are the fault of big money. I see the problem as the whole concept of government being willing to "sublet" its power to compel using force to the well connected. The entity that begins with that power to compel is the state, not the corporation

The problem is your inherent assumption that there is validity in government using its guns to force changes in conduct that benefit the perceived rich or powerful. I say, attack the problem at its root.

[Wild Hoss]

sorry, I was writing when you posted.

Read what you said. You just said that corporations and moneyed interests have certain tools ". . .you are underestimating the ability of the private sector's tools -- buying politicians and legislative or regulatory outcomes, using the courts, etc.. . " that all involve using the government's power to control its citizens in order to profit the corporation. Economists call this "rent seeking". Your description of what you are against is practically the same as mine. You presume that "buying politicians" and seeking regulatory outcomes are the fault of big money. I see the problem as the whole concept of government being willing to "sublet" its power to compel using force to the well connected. The entity that begins with that power to compel is the state, not the corporation

The problem is your inherent assumption that there is validity in government using its guns to force changes in conduct that benefit the perceived rich or powerful. I say, attack the problem at its root.

Well...if its not government guns forcing compliance, it would be corporate guns deciding issues. I think you've argued yourself off the cliff here.

[hack]

I know we're saying the same thing. You and I most often come to the same diagnosis but see different causes.

In a sense, I agree. The model in DC is to be on the hill when you're young, maybe move into the executive, and then on to the private sector to cash in. There's a good reason why that government experience early is so valued by the private sector later, of course, which is, ultimately, that power to compel. Government and commerce are a fine match: government is inherently corruptible and the laws of incorporation remove personal risk and ethics from the calculations of commerce. We should not be surprised that we have the results we have.

How to attack the problem at its root? I don't know, but one thing certain is that the essential features of government aren't going to change. They are in the constitution. Regardless of what it is in reality, this will always be on paper a representative democracy in which each citizen has an equal voice. So if you want to change reality, you have to start with an appreciation for what isn't going to change.

[hack]

Well...if its not government guns forcing compliance, it would be corporate guns deciding issues. I think you've argued yourself off the cliff here.

I think there's a long tradition in the private sector of getting the government to pick up its gun and point it at somebody else.

[Da Geezer]

Hack:

Let's begin with something we have hashed out over time. I believe there should not be any charitable donation write-off in the calculation of income tax. I have reasons that you agree with, basically, that taking the benefit from the government could entitle the government to have a say in what the charity does.

The whole IRS scandal was about tax write-offs for 501(C)(4) entities that were established, in general, to collect tax-deductable funds for "public education", but were really going to promote a political agenda.

The original power here is the government's ability to tax. Well meaning souls thought it would be good to encourage giving to charities, and so the deduction was established. Looked at differently, the deduction facilitated unions, corporate interests, churches, and public entities to do their activities with a federal subsidy. In any case, this country would be better off without any such deduction (IMO), but the cause of the problem is the subletting of the power to tax to politically chosen entities. The problem is not with the unions or the Tea Party; it is the subetting of the power of taxation.

[hack]

I'm at a loss to see where that is an issue. I think those would be good reforms, but marginal. I think with commercial law we're at that point in the cycle where it's time reintroduce executives to risk. At one point, offering executives limited liability for their decisions was a good idea, to catalyze investment. Now, however, the rules for one environment are applied to a very different one, and we have executives across all economic sectors insulated from the potential consequences of their actions. IMO that's what has to stop. Not a perfect solution or the only one, but in this specific context I think things won't change until people go to jail.