I’d like to thank Scott Adams (creator of the Dilbert cartoons and all-around philosopher) for removing any need or incentive I may have for further posts about global warming any time in the near future:
Adams on Global Warming, Part 1
Adams on Global Warming, Part 2
The Christian Science Monitor and the Cato Institute have recently run op-eds that have prompted me to write about something that has often occurred to me in the past about agricultural subsidies. Without belaboring the details, the government pays huge subsidies to farmers, who then grow less than what they are capable of growing, which in turn raises the commodity prices of various agricultural goods. The fact these programs are effective demonstrates a basic economic truth about agricultural markets - if allowed to be purely competitive markets, the equilibrium price for the otherwise-subsidized goods would be much lower, to the point that many farmers would likely face poverty. However, I submit the subsidy programs are a bad idea. (more…)
Here’s an article about the Iraq situation that I think is superbly written, and to date I don’t think I’ve read anything on this matter with which I find myself more in agreement. And it’s an interesting position to take, too. For those too lazy strapped for time to read the article, the gist of it is that the Democrats could achieve their supposed objective - ending the war - by shifting their focus from “it’s a failure, we should cut our losses now” to “we accomplished what we set out to do a long time ago, so now we can bring our troops home and celebrate our victory”. By so doing, Niskanen argues, enough Republicans could be convinced to essentially change sides. The interesting aspect of this to me is that it highlights something I find at once obvious and little-known (or at least, little-appreciated). (more…)
This is interesting to me. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that global warming, if it exists is a problem, is not understood properly enough for us to discuss rational solutions. There just seems to be too much junk science and disagreement about the causes at this point. I do appreciate the so called “green architecture” movement, and I think we need to do more of it.
I also think we should focus more on recycling. Critics of recycling tend to focus on two problems - it is not cost-effective, and it is not convenient. Assuming most of us agree recycling would be good but for these two problems, I have a solution: we should build prisons next to landfills and require prisoners to separate trash. Reclaimed material would then be auctioned off in lots once a month by the government. Two things that no one wants to live near would thus be located in the same place, and society can realize the gains of recycling at almost no cost and with no additional inconvenience.
Any holes in this theory?
Tax day is coming up soon, which makes me think (again) about how stupid and complicated our tax system is. I’ve always thought a flat tax system was logical, but I’m frankly not educated enough to know whether I’m right. So I’ll lay out my argument and let ya’ll tear into it. The disclaimer is that I have an economics degree but no accounting training. I have experience paying individual taxes (who doesn’t) (don’t answer that) but not from the business side of things. So this may be a way more complicated issue than I’m making it, but whatever. (more…)