Category Archives: politics

The point of government isn’t just to spend money

It’s election season, so I’m being inundated with election spam on every social media and traditional media I use. I know election posts probably aren’t people’s favorites, but this is the streams of my consciousness and I just wanted to vent.

To start with, some of the twitterati are pulling an absolute masterclass in doublethink. Centrists in the commentariat have been crowing for the last 4 years about how Biden has pumped more oil than any president in history. They’ve been dunking on Republicans about how despite Trump and the GOP’s rhetoric, Biden is more carbon friendly than Trump was.

Now, every words of this is true. I pointed out years ago how despite a small pandemic dip oil production has steadily increased during both Biden and Trump’s presidencies. Biden has inherited a fracking boom, and has not done anything to clamp down on it, so record-setting oil production is to be expected.

But the same commentariat that will crow about Biden’s oil boom will screech in anger and confusion when climate groups like the Sunrise Movement announce they won’t support Biden’s re-election. How can they do that? How can they refuse to support the president who has pumped more oil than any other in history? Gee, maybe because Democrats have said that Climate Change is an existential threat for years, and these folks actually believe it? Seems pretty obvious to me why the Sunrise Movement and other climate groups wouldn’t be happy with Biden’s energy policy.

As a defense, the commetariat likes to point to Biden’s massive spending bills. Billions and billions of dollars are being pumped into the green energy sector, and Democrat columnists are producting hockey-stick graphs comparing Biden’s green spending to previous presidents as proof of his climate success.

The problem with this is that the point of the government isn’t just to spend money. The point of the government is to get results. How much has that billions of dollars actually achieved?

For example, we all know that switching to electric cars is hard when there’s so few charging stations. Biden’s climate bills were supposed to build charging stations across the country to combat this. How many charging stations have Biden’s Billions actually created? As of May this year, just 8. But don’t worry, that number is growing! In March it was just 7! With a rough estimate of 1 charging station every 2 months, can anyone say these billions (trillions!) of dollars are being well spent?

This is exactly the kind of thing that If We Can Put a Man on the Moon… discussed. Politicians are incentivized to declare victory immediately for their re-election campaign. This leads to them touting metrics like “amount of money spent” instead of something actually useful like “miles of track laid” or “amount of actual EV infrastructure.” And since “money spent” is the only metric politicians are focusing on, that money gets spent extremely badly.

Years later, when the money is all spent and the infrastructure is still crumbling, a new campaign will of course arise, saying we now need to spend even *more* money to fix this thing that should have been fixed with the first tranche.

Let me be clear: I believe that climate change is a problem we need to address. But I do not think government spending is the best way to address that. In the last year, Tesla has built around 40 times more EV charging stations than Biden’s infrastructure bill, and they didn’t use taxpayer money to do it.

So why does it *have* to be government spending? I think it’s honestly because a lot of politicians don’t believe that companies can ever accomplish things. When you spend your entire life in government, every problem looks like a taxpayer-funded nail.

The government *can* solve these problems, but it doesn’t need to spend billions to do so. You really want to improve charging infrastructure? Tax gasoline. Tax oil. Tax every step of the refinement process. You will see how quickly consumers shift to electric cars, and how quickly companies spring up to service those electric cars. Hell, a network of gas stations already exists all across the country. If gas was taxed and consumers switched to electric cars, those stations would quickly be forced to switch from offering gas to offering fast electric charging.

You may say that a gas tax would hurt American consumers, but it would hurt them no more than the spending-fueled inflation that America has right now.

Here’s the funniest thing: politicians have adopted the language of the market and claimed that government spending is an investment. We are investing in green energy. But investment expects a return, and if the return on billions of dollars investment is 8 or so EV stations, that isn’t an investment, it’s a ripoff.

Biden chose to keep oil cheap and burn money on 8 EV charging stations. Is it any wonder climate activists don’t appreciate him? When success if measured in dollars spent, then failure is assured.

China is getting the trade war it deserves

And the US is getting the inflation it clearly wants.

Contrary to the title, this post will only be about America, because I don’t have any real insight into the CCP that hasn’t been covered elsewhere. But I read this article running cover for Biden’s disastrous policy of protectionism, and wanted to post my thoughts.

The central premise of the article is that cutting off trade with China is good because they’re a fascist and expansionist foreign adversary. Now, that’s also a great reason to cut off trade with Saudi Arabia, but America’s trade policy isn’t actually about foreign policy, as you’ll soon find out.

Even more importantly, tariffs don’t hurt the country you’re tariffing, or at least they hurt them *less* than they hurt your *own country*. Even Biden knows that, just ask the Biden of 2019

Tariffs are a great way to push up your own country’s inflation by taxing supply without reducing demand. Furthermore, even if you don’t buy Chinese products you will be paying for this inflation because of substitution effects: someone who is no longer able to buy a Chinese EV may instead purchase an American car, increasing demand for American cars and therefore driving up their price.

There’s two great ways to understand how terrible tariffs are. First, think of the oil shock in the 1970s: middle east nations cut off America’s access to oil and gas from their countries, causing spiraling prices and runaway inflation. By blocking America’s access to energy, they were able to put an economic squeeze that defined the decade.

China is being tariffed on solar power, wind power, and green industries of all kinds, and China makes up more of our imports than the middle east ever did. Spiraling prices are yet again on the menu.

Furthermore, think of Britain’s strategy against Germany during both World Wars. Britain used its powerful navy to prevent Germany from importing goods. This caused shortages and spiraling inflation, leading to riots that overthrew the government in the First World War and overwhelming shortages during the Second.

Tariffs are a way for us to do to ourselves what our enemies would do to us in war: restrict the import of needed goods.

Finally, consider Biden’s empty words about the “existential threat” posed by Climate Change. If Climate Change is dire, then why is Biden raising tariffs on solar power, wind power, and EVs, rather than Chinese oil and Chinese airplanes? Biden is essentially setting up an “anti-carbon tax,” in which polluting industries are exempt from a tax being paid by green industries.

The truth is that none of this is about national security, anymore than the Japan Scare of the 1980s was about national security. Just look at how Japan’s peaceful economic expansion was seen back then:

“The Danger from Japan.” Mr. White warned that the Japanese were seeking to create another “East Asia Co‐prosperity Sphere”-this time by their “martial” trade policies, and that they would do well to “remember the course that ran from Pearl Harbor to the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Biden is a 1980s style politician, with the (failed) economic outlook of that time. When he sees foreigners being successful it makes him scared, so he raises tariffs to “protect” American industries. But far from protecting industries, tariffs only harm them.

Industries rely on consumers to sustain them, but tariffs are a tax on consumers, sucking up consumer surplus and leaving less money for consumers to spend on domestic industries. Politicians think that domestic industries can magically appear to replace all the foreign ones, but simply put: no man is an island and nor is any country. Autarky is the failed economic policy of fascism, not an economic model for democracies.

Just look at a country like Brazil. Heavy tariffs were supposed to promote domestic industries and help consumers. Instead, consumers pay exorbitant prices for things like video games, while Brazil’s gaming industry remains anemic relative to the nation’s size and wealth. Brazilian cars, Brazilian microchips, and Brazilian steel are not the envy of the world.

And it isn’t because Brazilians are bad at industry, its because their government is doing everything it can to stop them. The high tariffs on everything from steel to cars to microchips are supposed to spur domestic industry, but who’s going to open up a factory when you have to pay those high tariffs just to import the machines and inputs needed to make your products?

Biden is a protectionist because he’s a protectionist. Not because China or Canada are scary or because he needs to fight climate change. But to be fair, Trump is just as protectionist as Biden if not more-so. It’s clear that the current crop of American politicians supports higher inflation and poorer consumers. And that bodes ill if you want to see America succeed and its enemies fail.

Chickenhawks

Jingoism is a hell of a drug.

20 years ago during the end of Bush’s presidency, military intervention was anathema to most of the Democratic party. New interventions were treated with suspicion, and getting out of current wars was seen as paramount.

5 years ago, during Trump’s presidency, military intervention was again evil and bad. Trump’s assassination of an Iranian general was yet another reckless decision that would lead us to world war for little to no gain.

Yet today, the Democratic party is again making common cause with many of the foreign policy “hawks” that drove support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And somehow no one sees what’s wrong with this.

In 2023, the Houthis in Yemen began attacking ships transiting through the Red Sea on their way to the Suez Canal. The Red Sea and Suez Canal bring an enormous volume of trade to Europe, Africa and Asian. Shutting off this passage means ships have to take the long way around Africa, which greatly raises prices and increases shortages.

Then in January of 2024, Biden put the Houthis back on the Global Terrorism list (he’d removed them from the list as one of his first acts as president), and announced the USA would begin bombing Yemen to stop the Houthi attacks.

Social media lit up with stupid talking points about America’s military might, and how “the Houthis are going to learn why America doesn’t have free healthcare.” Social media is overwhelmingly populated by the young and left-leaning, so seeing the same demographic group that protested the Iraq War now beating their chests over a bombing campaign was jarring to say the least.

And what happened? After months of bombing, the Houthis are still attacking ships. Shipping companies are still avoiding the Red Sea. Transit through the Suez is still down and prices due to circumnavigating Africa are still up.

And America still doesn’t have free healthcare.

The bombing campaign has clearly failed at its goal of ensuring safe traffic through the Red Sea. So much so that Biden has now offered a ceasefire where he will again remove the Houthis from the global terror list if they will stop attacking ships. America’s military might could not silence the enemy guns or enforce America’s will, and so we are once again forced to negotiate with terrorists.

To be fair to Biden, this may be the right move. He openly stated that he was only placing them on the global terrorism list because of their attacks against ships, removing them from that list if they stop attacking ships is only natural. It is a low-cost concession to the Houthis, as removing them from the list makes it easier for them to access international markets, but doesn’t do much to harm America directly.

But it’s still obvious that this was a failed bombing campaign, and it raises the question of if we’re negotiating with terrorists now, why didn’t we *start* with negotiations *before* bombing them? The bombing does not seem to have done anything to reduce the frequency or intensity of Houthi attacks, if anything it has only given the Houthis greater credibility in Yemen as it has galvanized the populace to “rally ’round the flag.”

Hawks will complain that I’m being unfair: the bombing campaign was *not* a failure, America just wasn’t even trying to win. And it’s true, America has the capacity to conduct Dresden-level bomb campaigns and Desert Storm level ground campaigns nearly at-will. Neither of those happened, so America clearly wasn’t using its full might.

But was there any political will for carpet bombing or a ground invasion? Absolutely not, a tepid bombing campaign was all that would have been acceptable in an election year. And so if you take America as both a military and political entity, then yes this bombing campaign was about all America was capable of.

But none of the chickenhawks who beat their chest in January will ever admit that the campaign was a failure, ever admit that we are negotiating with terrorists, ever admit that there were other options or other solutions. Thousands of politicians and military aficionados went to their graves believing that the War in Vietnam could have, should have been won, and if we’d just stayed in a little longer (or nuked Hanoi), we could have won it. I have no doubt this campaign (much much smaller as it is) will also be remembered thus by many.

But the fact is that there are not always military solutions. It’s a classic slogan to say that “we don’t negotiate with terrorist,” but it’s just not true, we negotiate with terrorists all the time.

An FBI negotiator brings a suitcase full of cash to a terrorist who has hijacked a plane.

There are times when terrorists have leverage over you, and the problem with leverage is that it exists whether you want it to or not. Whether that leverage is hostages, military might, or geographic position, you can’t just wish it away and pretend it doesn’t exist. Nations also have constraints: budgetary, political, logistic, which can constrain their military response significantly.

So while it’s true that in an open field with no holding back the American military would destroy the Houthi military without a single casualty, that’s not the war that Biden fought. Trying to remove terrorists from their own country that supports them without a ground invasion or naval blockade will always be a challenge. And if a nation is politically, economically, or logistically incapable of doing that, then they need to look hard at what they are *actually trying to accomplish*.

I have seen precious few cases in my adult life of military intervention leading to a lasting improvement in the situation. The best example would be the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia from nearly 3 decades ago. The second best example would be the few years of near-normality that the American military gave to Afghanistan, prior to the Taliban returning.

But one success and one partial success is a terrible track record for the number of military campaigns we’ve been engaged in. And it seems the Houthi campaign will be yet another mark in the failure column, as it has done nothing to eliminate Red Sea attacks which will almost certainly be ended only by negotiations if they are even ended at all.

So the next time social media lights up with chest-thumping about how American military might should be directed at a problem, think for more than a few seconds about whether a military solution is even possible.

Vibes and the economy

I don’t want to get too political, but it’s an election year (in several countries) and The Discourse is inevitable. But I want to quickly push back on something I’ve seen all too often on social media recently.

In America, the numbers for the economy look “good.” Unemployment is low, *really* low. Inflation is high, but wage growth is higher. And the stock market is up. So why are Americans’ perceptions of the economy so poor? Why is consumer confidence lower than it *should* be?

Some partisans and twitterati have decided that Trump Was Right and the problem is fake news. Legacy media and social media are both driving relentlessly negative press and this is brainwashing people into believing that the “good” economy is “bad.”

But instead I’d like to take take a step back and see if polls are telling us something that “the numbers” just aren’t. And I think I have good evidence that they are.

First, here’s a graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. It shows that housing affordability is lower than at any time since the 80, lower even than during the housing bubble that precipitated the Great Recession. If you’re a millennial or a zoomer, *never in your life has housing been less affordable than it is today*.

And housing isn’t just a “nice-to-have,” it sits at the bottom of Mazlo’s Hierarchy of Needs for a reason. A stable housing situation is (for most people) a necessary ingredient before they feel confident starting a family, putting down roots, or just feeling like they “belong” to where they live.

Now, you *can* have a stable housing situation in an apartment, but it’s much harder. Rent increases can drive you out, and rent-controlled apartments are hard to come by. Apartments also aren’t always conducive to the types of living that people want in their life.

So the price of housing is driving a *real crisis* in millennial and zoomer living, as people with otherwise high earnings are unable to obtain what lower-earnings folks could get in the past, namely a house to live in.

Then there’s the fact that datapoints about “all” millennials are missing key differences *between* millennials. See the next graph

The *median* millennial is doing worse than the median boomer was at this point in their life, in terms of net wealth, net assets, and housing. But the top 10% of millennials are doing way better than the boomers ever could, so taken together it seems like millennials are doing well overall. It’s like looking at a city where 1 person is a billionaire and 99 are destitute and saying that overall the city is very wealthy.

These kinds of mean/median differences are well-known to people in liberal circles, because they signal high inequality. But because a liberal is currently president, these differences are ignored by much of the twitterati.

I could say more about this topic, and I wish I had the energy to, but I’ve been so tired lately with my new medicine. Nevertheless, next time you see someone like Will Stancil screech that the kids are all morons and that everyone is rich, note that he is a member of that top 10%, not the median.

When people’s answers in polling are different than what “the fundamentals” suggest, it may be that the people are just stupid. But it’s far more likely that polling is capturing something that your data is ignoring. And right now that’s housing costs and growing inequality.

Social Media is a click-farm, it shows you only what you are most likely to click

Yet again the topic is raised that social media is harming our youth. Just as Seneca of Rome once complained that reading too many books was corrupting the youth, so too do we moderns complain about our own technology. But now it comes with a twist: social media has been anthropomorphized into a sentient being, force-feeding out children propaganda to turn their brains to mush and their muscles to puddy.

Let’s get one thing straight: social media gets money through clicks. Without clicks, advertisers won’t advertise, because they know that users aren’t engaged enough to read the ads. And the social media can’t force you to click, the user has to do that themselves.

So what do users click on? Overwhelmingly it’s exactly what they claim to hate and avoid. This is a classic case of revealed preferences, people like to claim that they are moral and high-minded, that they spend their time on science and philosophy. Overwhelmingly they prefer to spend their time on video games, celebrities, and politics. So if social media is feeding you mindless garbage, it is because you have revealed through your click habits that you prefer to eat trash.

When you first log in to any social media website, it has no idea what you like. By default, it will start sending you a very random and scattershot selection of everything it has on offer. But very quickly, you will start clicking on the things that interest you, and ignoring the things that don’t. And so social media has learned that the vast majority of us won’t click on a science post if our life depended on it, we’d rather read about Taylor Swift instead.

Next time a politician complains that their social media feed is nothing but trash, and that they have legislation to regulate social media more, tell them about revealed preferences. That politician is advertising to the world that they themselves are a trash human being.

Surge Pricing and Dirty Deals

I’m sorry I haven’t been posting weekly like I promised to. February has not been kind to me. But I wanted to quickly fire off a post relating to two topics I’ve recently seen in the news.

The first has to do with the infamous Wendy’s “surge pricing” announcement which the company has already walked back on. As I know not all my readers are American, I’ll explain both Wendy’s and surge pricing.

Wendy’s is a fast food burger chain just like any other American chain. Surge pricing meanwhile is what Uber and Lyft do when there is a very high demand all of a sudden, prices shoot up during that time, leaving customers to balk at paying 50$ for a ride home from a baseball game, when getting into downtown may have costed just 30$. Many Wendy’s customers likewise were furious at the price of a burger going up and down during the day, possibly meaning they’d pay for their food than someone who’d walked in just a few minutes earlier.

The story got so much traction that Senator Elizabeth Warren even tweeted about it, trying to play up her corporate greed narrative. Little does Warren know that we’re now living in the era of Corporate Generosity.

Nevertheless I’m always surprised that someone with the credentials of Warren is so economically illiterate. Surge pricing has been going on for decades, perhaps centuries even. The earliest examples I can think of are matinees, theatre productions (or movies) that are shown during the daytime for a cheaper cost than the evening. It costs exactly the same to run the shown at either time, so why is the daytime show cheaper? And if you’ve ever seen a bar with a “happy hour” or a restaurant with an “early bird special,” or Halloween candy sold half-off in November, you’ve also seen surge pricing in action.

What’s going in here is simple supply and demand. The price of a good or service is *not* based on the cost to make it, the price comes from the interplay of supply and demand. The price fluctuates even if the cost does not because sellers are trying to clear the market. Lower demand? Lower price.

But a restaurant also has service and shifts. Any server serving one customer must necessarily be not serving another. Yet at the same time, servers paid for 8 hour shifts, and few people would work a job where they’re only paid minimum wage for 2 hours. The cost of transport alone would eat into your wage. What this means is that if everyone only comes to eat during dinner (let’s say a 2 hour period from 4-6pm), then the servers are sitting around for 6 hours doing nothing, then madly scrambling for 2 hours. During those 2 hours, many customers might come in only to find the line is too long, or they might be able to eat but find the service poor due to overworked servers.

Thus, for decades restaurants have lowered prices during the “slow” parts of the day to entice people to eat at those times instead of during the rush. This is exactly the same mechanism as Wendy’s “surge pricing,” only it’s framed differently. But it’s still the case that they’re charging more at dinnertime even though their costs are the same.

Surge pricing like this is actually a very good thing. It evens out demand in service industries, allowing more people to be served during a day while still letting the wait staff work full 8-hour jobs. And certain customers can take advantage of this, getting a lower price at the cost of not eating during a “normal” time. Warren (and other outraged twitterati) are simply jumping on a poorly framed policy to score very stupid political points. In fact, Burger King decided to dunk on Wendy’s poorly framed surge pricing policy by highlighting their own better-framed surge pricing policy. Every restaurant is like this, and it’s actually A Good Thing.

Speaking of restaurants but not about Good Things, Gavin Newsom is quite nakedly corrupt. I had only heard mild criticisms of Gavin before, but there were some Democrats I know claiming he was basically the candidate-in-waiting should Biden not run. He is Governor of America’s largest and wealthiest state, and would surely win election because the only thing Republicans could ever say against him were tired tropes about “Commiefornia.” But actually it turns out here’s corrupt.

I know this because he handed a political kickback to his buddy who owns at least two dozen Panera Bread restaurants. California is set to raise the minimum wage to 20$/hr, except at restaurants that serve freshly bread baked. No, bagels and pastries do not count as “bread.” Panera is one of the very few restaurants that does this, and so they will still be allowed to pay their employees just 16$/hr.

You might think this would cause many restaurants to start opening up bakeries, but it gets even more corrupt: the restaurant must have been serving freshly baked bread in September 2023 to qualify. So only Panera is grandfathered in. Essentially, Gavin Newsom decided to directly use a government law to enrich his friend and confidant, and no one seems to really care.

Now of course he wasn’t handing his friend state money. But he was writing legislation that imposes costs on every single one of his friend’s rival businesses, while shielding his friend. That will allow his friend (whose name I just looked up is “Greg Flynn”) to profit much more than anyone else from fast food, since he can keep the same prices while paying his staff 80% less than the competition.

Some of the twitterati have tried to defend Gavin indirectly, saying that it’s obviously corrupt but that this carve-out won’t actually do anything. They say that since every other restaurant will have to abide by the 20$/hr minimum wage, it means no one will ever work for Panera for less than 20$/hr either. But that ignores that people take jobs based on more than just the wage. Maybe the Panera is closer to you than the Taco Bell, maybe you hate the smell of fried foods and are loathe to work at McDonald’s, maybe you don’t own a car and the Panera is the only restaurant in walking distance. Or maybe you have classes and Panera can offer you hours that better fit your schedule.

And Greg Flynn knows this. He knows that he will likely be able to find at least some workers willing to work for just 16$/hr, that’s why he asked Gavin to put that in the bill. But corruption and friend-dealing has never been punished too strongly in America, no matter how much partisans rage about how “the other side” is corrupt. Still, the naked corruption on display may have hurt Gavin in a national election, so Democrats are probably happier he didn’t decide to challenge Biden.

Doing the Possible: When is it Impossible?

I recently wrote about “If We Can Put a Man on the Moon,” the book that wants to teach people how to do government well. Some of their message is simple: success in government requires a good plan executed well. But while they want their message to be non-partisan and universalist, I’m not sure it can ever work that way.

The big question I have is this: when is failure because of a good plan done poorly, and when is it because of an impossible plan that would never succeed? For instance, the book lays plenty of criticism at Nixon’s price controls and Ford’s purposeless “WIN” buttons, and it does so by saying that price controls and government nudging cannot control inflation. The book agrees with Milton Friedman than inflation is a monetary phenomenon, solved by Volcker when he hiked interest rates.

On the other hand, the book criticized many plans for their implementation rather than their ideas. Boston’s failed bussing experiment of the 70s is excoriated for how it was done with no real plan or input from the community. But is bussing ever a good policy for implementing desegregation? Many have looked back and said that no, bussing was never going to work. It was unpopular amongst both white and black communities. Just look at this blast from the past:

A majority of Americans continue to favor public school integration, but few people—black or white—think that busing is the best way to achieve that goal, the Gallup Poll reported yesterday.

Five per cent of the people in a recent survey by the organization—9 per cent of the blacks and 4 per cent of the whites—chose busing children from one, district to another rather than several other alternatives.

New York Times

Most of those interviewed preferred either changing school boundaries or providing low-income housing in middle-income neighborhoods as preferable plans for school integration. 

In the same vein, the book knocks the Iraqi occupation for having no plan for creating a stable, post-Saddam Iraq. But was that kind of “nation building” even possible for the US military to achieve? Especially in a country with such vast cultural and ideological differences to ours? 

I remember going to school with a guy who served in Iraq. He talked about how he was tasked with keeping Iraqis safe by removing weapons and disarming citizen. He once came to the tent of a Bedouin he thought had a gun and ammo. And when the Bedouin refused to let him search the tent, he simply ordered his troops to cut open all the Bedouin’s bags of rice, ruining his food but finding a hidden AK-47.

The soldier then said that he told this Bedouin “look, you should have just made this easy for us,” but all I could think of was “wow, this is why they fucking hate us.” This soldier just proudly violated the rights that we in America would call the 2nd and 4th amendment, and if he’d done that in America it would be a national scandal. Iraq may not have our constitution, but they still probably feel entitled to basic human rights of dignity and property. Even if we amended our constitution to remove the 2nd and 4th amendments, how would any American feel about armed military personnel breaking into their house, upturning all their belongings, and then stealing their stuff? 

So was “nation-building” even possible? Or was it, like bussing, an idea doomed from the start?

This is the difficulty in analyzing good governance, by focusing on the process you implicitly assume the idea is workable. Now, the authors do mention some ideas that they find impossible. They chide Nixon’s price caps because price caps can’t fix inflation, which is a monetary phenomenon. I happen to agree with them, but that’s because both I and the authors ascribe to an orthodox economic framework. A socialist would disagree with us, saying price caps are perfectly valid but that Nixon just used them poorly.

So a socialist might see Nixon’s price caps as a failure of implementation and not a failure of ideology. And while the authors see bussing and nation-building as failures of implementation and not ideology, a school choice advocate and a non-interventionist would disagree and say that for those ideas, a successful outcome was never possible. So how do you judge policies by their process, when people can’t agree on their possibility?

Ultimately, I think “a bad plan” vs “a good plan, poorly executed” is a political question for which there is no agreed upon answer. And to that, while the tenants of the book may be accepted broadly, it won’t do much to change the tenor of governance even if everyone in America agreed with it. All of politics is about the disagreement over “which plan is good,” and “how do we execute a plan well.” So telling people to “have good plans” and “execute them well” is sort of like telling a sprinter to “just run faster.” It’s advice that does nothing.

I think the book is good, I think it’s well worth a read by anyone interested in politics. I just think it’s impact will not be too great even in the minds of its readers.

Doing the Possible: Musings on good governance

I’ve been reading “If We Can Put a Man on the Moon,” which is a book that attempts to explain why some government policy succeeds and some fails. The book outlines how public policy requires a clear objective, a clear plan to reach that objective, and the ability to follow through with it. It all seems rather obvious when you write it out like that, but the book offers some definite insights.

A clear objective seems obvious, but is surprisingly easy to overlook. Gerald Ford promised to “whip inflation now,” but how exactly did he expect to do that? Supposedly the government would politely encourage citizens to do things like grow more food and use less fuel, to increase supply and decrease demand. It’s a nice idea, but polite encouragement doesn’t move the economy, and Fords “WIN” policy went nowhere.

A clear plan is also something that seems obvious, but often gets overlooked. When California reformed its electric grid in the 90s, no one had really thought through how the new system would work. They set mandates to ensure that prices were capped for consumers, but did nothing to ensure adequate supply. It was legal, for example, to buy power at a low price in California and export it for the uncapped price in other states. Then, if California didn’t have enough power, the utility was obligated to import power from other states no matter the cost, but was not allowed to pass this cost on to customers. This lead to companies easily gaming the system by exporting power for cheap, then re-importing it at a higher price. 

People like to blame greedy companies for the failed California power experiment, but companies are always greedy in all cases. The government should create a system in which corporate greed leads to societal good, such as how tech companies have given us ever better computers at lower and lower cost. Failure to plan leads to a system that is designed to fail.

The ability to follow through is a common complaint, but it too has unexpected pitfalls. The political class has different incentives than both the bureaucrats and the people, but they all work together for a plan to succeed. Politicians have an incentive to pass a bill and say they “fixed” something, that’s why most celebration happens on when a bill is pass instead of 5 years later when its effects are being evaluated. Bureaucrats are just career workers like anyone, and have an incentive to do their job and get paid. They aren’t incentivized to go above and beyond for the benefit of a politician who might not be there in four years. 

This is why it’s so common for politicians to take office promising “big changes” but still not accomplish much. Once the bill is passed and the photo-op is finished, it’s out of their hands and they don’t has a reason to keep caring. And when someone comes in saying they’ll “upend the stuffy bureaucracy,” well if they don’t meet the career employees halfway they’ll engender resentment in a group that can drag its feet and wait for the political will to die down.

All told, the book does have a lot of prescriptions for good governance:

  • Have an idea for how to fix a problem, and don’t make a plan of action without a strong idea. Likewise, seek out good ideas from everywhere, and be willing to challenge your own ideas to see if they’re actually appropriate.
  • Make a rational design for how the problem will be fixed. Focus on the design, not just on getting buy-in from the right pressure groups. Stress-test the design and hire people to poke holes in it. Then fix those design holes before passing a new law.
  • Ensure oversight and continued evaluation even after a law is passed. The job doesn’t end after the vote and the signature.
  • Understand that government is different than any other sector, and that you have to meet people halfway. You can’t treat public employees or the public at large as workers in your company or as cogs in a machine. 
  • Don’t assume the success of a plan. And don’t assume that just because it hasn’t failed yet that it won’t in the future. Look for any signs that cracks are forming, and fix them before they get too big. The space shuttle Colombia flew 27 missions, many of which showed problem signs, before the fateful 28th mission that ended in disaster.
  • Keep re-evaluating. If a program is no longer fit for purpose, fix it, replace it, or kill it. Be willing to see that something isn’t working and be willing to change it. And don’t keep trying the same program over and over without change, be willing to go back to the beginning and look for new ideas and new designs.

That, in a nutshell is what the book is about (or at least my reading of it). It’s certainly more uplifting that what you expect from a book about governance, but without ignoring the data and the details. I’ll have more to say on it later, but I think anyone who likes this sort of thing should check it out.

Nationalization

Nationalization (or rather Nationalisation) was a big part of Jeremy Corbyn’s manifesto during the 2017 and 2019 General Elections. If Labour won, it promised that anything and everything would be nationalized, usually at below market price.

I’ve always been skeptical of claims that nationalization leads to any kind of savings. The claim is that since a Government company doesn’t have to worry about profits for shareholders, it can be more efficient than a private company. All the profits that are paid out as dividends are instead re-invested into the company to provide better service at a lower cost.

But there truly isn’t any law saying a company ever has to provide dividends and profits. If Corbyn, McDonnell and co truly thought that companies could run better and more efficiently without profit, they could always just do that themselves without need of the government. Private citizens can always set up a non-profit corporation, they can take money from people (God know’s Corbyn was a fundraising machine) and set up a company that doesn’t pay dividends to shareholders, but instead re-invests everything to provide better service at a lower cost.

If such a non-profit did truly provide better service at a lower cost, then customers would flock to it over the for-profit companies that already exist. And again since this non-profit doesn’t hand out dividends, then Corbyn Co could easily be the fastest growing company in the world as it takes on more and more customers and reinvests into being better and better.

So why did they need nationalization? Why couldn’t they give the British people good services as a low price by just setting up a non-profit company and out-competing the for-profit ones? Why do socialists only ever think they can succeed by taking from someone else?

I think they simply didn’t have enough economic literacy to realize how their whole idea was such a shambles. Non-profit companies haven’t taken over the world because for-profit companies are actually way more efficient. They’re more efficient than non-profits and more efficient than Government companies, but socialists prefer to deny the lessons of history and keep acting like it’s the 1970s.

Not only are nationalized companies less efficient, but the act of nationalization creates inefficiencies. The idea that the government can force a sale of a profitable enterprise creates a chilling effect as investors become less likely to invest knowing it can all be taken from them at any moment. People don’t want to be forced to sell to the government, even at a “fair” price. Most eminent domain projects throughout history were done at a “fair” price, with people being paid the market value for their homes and then kicked out to make way for freeways and whatnot. But “fair” price or not, no one likes a forced sale.

And Corbyn Co wanted to take things a step further by paying below market value for the companies they wanted to nationalize. So not only was the government forcing a sale, but they were also committing theft at the same time.

I write all this because nationalization became a big word again during the recent bout of inflation, and I’ve seen way to many people jump on the bandwagon saying we need to nationalize energy companies, housing companies, and everything else to keep prices down. But prices don’t rise because companies are greedy, they rise because of fundamental shortages and inefficiencies. A nationalized company would have just as much trouble with inflation as a for-profit one, only a nationalized company could push its losses onto the taxpayers rather than be forced to raise prices and cut costs.

High prices are a signal that there is a shortage and that alternative avenues should be sought. When the price of gas rose, I decided I couldn’t justify driving to work every day so I tried to bike whenever possible. But would a nationalized American Gas company instead pass that cost onto the taxpayer? Wouldn’t they keep prices low so that I kept using as much gas as I always did? In that case every taxpayer who tries to be a good world citizen and use less carbon would be subsidizing me personally as a drove a distance that I could easily bike instead.

As inflation tapers off, it seems clear that nationalization was not the answer, and we are entering the Era of Corporate Generosity. But I doubt we’ve silenced forever the calls of nationalization, no matter how many times it leads to omnishambles. Still, I hope no serious nationalization proposal is put forward for a long time yet.

“The Crime of ’73”

Boy, these posts aren’t quite coming out weekly now are they?

I might have posted on this topic before, but I wanted to write something down and this was on my mind. It’s interesting how the controversies of yesteryear always fade away, even though in their day they dominated the news and the mind-space of politically conscious voters.

Take the Silver vs Gold movement. When America was founded, it had a bi-metallic standard, meaning that both silver and gold were legal tender. Congress set down in writing how much weight of silver made a dollar and how much gold made a dollar, and so both could be used to buy and sell. But of course, as commodities the price of silver and gold in the market would fluctuate, but congress didn’t understand or act quickly enough to fix things.

For example, silver mines in Mexico continued to run and depressed the price of silver relative to gold. This created an arbitrage opportunity because the price of gold was higher than that of silver:

  • Take 10 silver dollars and exchange them for 10 gold dollars, as they are equivalent
  • Take the gold dollars to Mexico and melt them down.
  • Take that gold and exchange it for raw silver
  • Bring that silver back to the Mint in America and demand to have it struck into silver dollars. Because of the price difference between silver and gold, the silver you brought back will make more than 10 dollars worth, so you can pocket the extra as your profit.
  • Start back from the beginning, trading 10 silver dollars for 10 gold dollars

This happened because congress set a fixed value for a commodity who’s value changed on the market, and as that value changed there was arbitrage created. Gold flowed out of the country and was replaced with silver. When the California gold rush happened, the price of gold suddenly decreased and the whole process reversed. Congress didn’t understand what was happening, and so simply decided to remove the bimetallic standard to stop this from happening.

But now we get to “The Crime of 1873.” When congress removed the silver standard in 1873, silver miners could no longer have their pure silver struck into coins that could be used as tender. The mint was by far the largest purchaser of silver and so removing silver from the standard removed most of the demand and so killed the price. Congress therefore upended the livelihoods of thousands of miners and mining towns by changing the laws on coinage. And those people never forgave them.

For years this “Crime” was the hottest topic in certain political sections. It was the litmus test for candidates and parties. And it was the entire foundation of the presidential candidacy of William Jennings Bryan. For years, certain voters would never vote for a candidate or party who had supported the “Crime,” and they may not have even kept polite company with voters who supported those candidates. In its time, the “Crime” was seen as the greatest betrayal possible, and plenty of people pointed to it as the reason for national or local economic problems. They blamed the “Crime” and hoped that overturning it would fix things.

Of course, America never regained the silver standard. For a time, the Federal government compromised and declared it would still buy silver from the miners directly, but in time even this subsidy was removed. The people affected by the “Crime” probably never forgave the Republicans (who passed the bill) for what they did. Indeed the “Crime’s” authors had a hard time defending their actions in the face of angry voters. Some authors claimed that the bill didn’t do what critics claimed, and that the US had technically been non-silver since 1853. Others claimed that ending the silver standard was an unintended biproduct. But this had the perverse effect of amplifying conspiracy theorists who believed the bill was passed with malicious intend, and giving ammo to those who wanted to overturn it.

In the 1880s and 1890s, the “Crime of 73” was as much a controversial topic as any political topic today. Friendships could be ended by it. But it too did pass. I think most of the controversies of our day shall also pass, these days even American History students will barely remember the “Crime.”