May 13, 2007 - Wall Street Journal Now Featuring Commentary from Anarcho-Capitalists? Yes, Indeed!

No, dear readers, that's not a tag line or a teaser designed to lure you in. Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University and the maintainer and host of the Anarchy FAQ website was featured in Saturday's edition (both print and on line ) of the Wall Street Journal with a short guest column on why the majority of people in America actively support (or at least don't actively oppose), government actions and policies that are against their own interests. (Bottom Line: Heart over head; meaning sentiment over reason. Sorry for the spoiler. And I highly recommend you follow the link and read Caplan's article.)

“Behind every policy that does more harm than good,” says Caplan, “there's a special interest that favors it anyway. The [2003] steel tariff was bad for consumers, steel-using industries and foreign steel producers, but the steel lobby still pushed for it. Farm subsidies are bad for both taxpayers and unsubsidized farmers, but in 2002 the American farm lobby got a 70% increase in government support. The minimum wage is bad for consumers, employers and low-skill workers who get priced out of their jobs, but unions are hard at work to raise it again.”

Caplan has written a new book (which I've ordered but not read yet) on the same general theme (see pic) that shows the public as a herd of marching sheep of all things. Talk about anarcho-libertarian themes, eh? We've been using that one for years.

Technorati Tags: economics, political_economy, laissez-faire, anarchism, Bryan_Caplan, tariffs

A reader wrote me to say that you can get access to the full article from the WSJ by signing up a for a free "netpass" here: http://www.congoo.com/netpass/install

May 10, 2007 - Ol' Bob Hasn't Lost His Touch

Bob Dylan from his Modern Times CD.








Bob Dylan Workingman's Blues #2 Lyrics

There's an evenin' haze settlin' over town
Starlight by the edge of the creek
The buyin' power of the proletariat's gone down
Money's gettin' shallow and weak
Well, the place I love best is a sweet memory
It's a new path that we trod
They say low wages are a reality
If we want to compete abroad

My cruel weapons have been put on the shelf
Come sit down on my knee
You are dearer to me than myself
As you yourself can see
While I'm listening to the steel rails hum
Got both eyes tight shut
Just sitting here trying to keep the hunger from
Creeping it's way into my gut

Chorus:
Meet me at the bottom, don't lag behind
Bring me my boots and shoes
You can hang back or fight your best on the frontline
Sing a little bit of these workingman's blues

Well, I'm sailin' on back, ready for the long haul
Tossed by the winds and the seas
I'll drag 'em all down to hell and I'll stand 'em at the wall
I'll sell 'em to their enemies
I'm tryin' to feed my soul with thought
Gonna sleep off the rest of the day
Sometimes no one wants what we got
Sometimes you can't give it away

Now the place is ringed with countless foes
Some of them may be deaf and dumb
No man, no woman knows
The hour that sorrow will come
In the dark I hear the night birds call
I can feel a lover's breath
I sleep in the kitchen with my feet in the hall
Sleep is like a temporary death

(chorus)

Well, they burned my barn, and they stole my horse
I can't save a dime
I got to be careful, I don't want to be forced
Into a life of continual crime
I can see for myself that the sun is sinking
How I wish you were here to see
Tell me now, am I wrong in thinking
That you have forgotten me?

Now they worry and they hurry and they fuss and they fret
They waste your nights and days
Them I will forget
But you I'll remember always
Old memories of you to me have clung
You've wounded me with your words
Gonna have to straighten out your tongue
It's all true, everything you've heard

(chorus)

In you, my friend, I find no blame
Wanna look in my eyes, please do
No one can ever claim
That I took up arms against you
All across the peaceful sacred fields
They will lay you low
They'll break your horns and slash you with steel
I say it so it must be so

Now I'm down on my luck and I'm black and blue
Gonna give you another chance
I'm all alone, I'm expecting you
To lead me off in a cheerful dance
I got a brand new suit and a brand new wife
I can live on rice and beans
Some people never worked a day in their life
Don't know what work even means

(chorus)

[Lyrics found on http://www.metrolyrics.com]
Words and music by Bob Dylan
Copyright 2006 Special Rider Music

May 10, 2007 - The Naked Economist

As in "the emperor has no clothes." It's not hypocrisy on the part of conventional statist economists that makes them so weird but that they can't see a phenomenon for what it is. So says unconventional economist Dean Baker, anyhow.

"Alan Blinder, a Princeton University professor and former Clinton administration economist, had a lengthy piece in the Washington Post Outlook section that told readers that offshoring "rattles" him. After reading this, and other pieces Blinder has written on the topic, I am still at a loss to understand what he finds rattling.

It is important to keep in mind that Blinder is not retreating an inch from his support of free trade, as he clearly states in the column and the title, "free trade's great, but offshoring rattles me." Offshoring appears to be rattling because it is not just less educated people like manufacturing workers who lose their jobs due to offshoring, but also some highly educated workers like software engineers.

But where is the problem here for a committed free trader? We told the autoworkers and textile workers who lost their jobs or get lower wages because of trade that life's tough, get used to the global economy. Is there any reason that we should treat more highly educated workers differently? After all, who should be better prepared to compete in a global economy than a person with an advanced degree in a cutting edge field?" [Links in original text]

Baker makes some very good points and I recommend his article.

Read it all here.

May 09, 2007 - Why “Public Ownership” is a Disaster for Newspapers.*

I found this opinion piece at Salon.com (registration required?) after I wrote my previous blog entry today. And while it doesn't pertain directly to what I wrote about the dinosaur media and the Internet the author makes a pretty interesting point; privately owned media is more likely to be diverse, independent and is more likely to stay that way than are the big corporate media conglomerates, who in the end, are only about the bottom line for their shareholders and Wall Street analysts.

“Public ownership” says Gary Weiss, “has been a disaster for newspapers not just because it invites hostile takeovers. Quite simply, much of what newspapers do has no clear investment rationale. Entire segments of the business -- such as foreign bureaus and investigative reporting -- are inimical to profitability, particularly when viewed on the quarter-by-quarter basis favored by Wall Street. [CNBC pundit James] Cramer nailed down the shareholder value view of the newspaper biz a few weeks ago, when he said, 'These are diminishing assets. They don't need to exist. Younger people rarely read them.'

Cramer is not wrong or cynical; he is simply being realistic and refreshingly free of hypocrisy. Viewed from a shareholder value perspective, the newspaper business is a dinosaur. And that is why the shareholder point of view needs to be eliminated from the newspaper business. The shareholders, not the newspapers, are the ones who don't need to exist.

A free press has a purpose in society. Shareholders, bless their hearts, deserve to make money without being screwed. But they should find another way of turning a profit. Columbia Journalism Review put the case against public ownership mildly in a recent editorial, saying, 'Public ownership of newspapers no longer makes the kind of sense it made when the industry was rapidly shedding labor costs thanks to new technology, and when the money that stockholders poured in was invested partly in editorial.' " [link in original]

Hmmm... Maybe this will all shake out in the marketplace, but it is kinda sad to see all the independently owned papers get gobbled up by Gannet, NewsCorp, and the Rupert Murdochs of this world, but maybe their aggregation will usher in newer and better kinds of media like the Drudge Report, independent political and cultural websites, blogs, Radio Pacifica, and the other forms of news reporting and opinion voicing that are currently taking root. I hope so anyhow.

*A “publically owned company” as is used in this context means this.

Technorati Tags:
newspapers, media, mainstream_media, independent_media

May 10, 2007 - Old media turns combative against new media

I was heartily amused to hear this whistling past the graveyard bloviating from all the “old media” executive types reported in this Reuters.com new story. What fookin' crock! Newspapers are losing circulation and ad revenue left and right, the ratings for the TV news ditto, and yet the Internet just keeps chugging along.

The last gasps from these media plutocrats who are foolishly trying to maintain their monopoly on “real news” as opposed to say the blog you're reading now, and the like are just plain wrong. Sure the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric reaches far more people than I do, but when you sort it all out and then look at the big picture, the honest truth is that more and more people are reading, looking at, and posting to web forums and blogs than ever before, and in all likelihood, this tread will persist and increase. Viacom, the RIAA, MPAA and the rest can sue for royalty payments, damages, and otherwise try to suppress what we read and look at all they want, but in the end it will all be futile. Their tough talk is just BS, and everybody knows this by now, even them too, when they're being honest.

Myself, I haven't given up on viewing TV news or reading the mainstream newspapers and magazines, but now only as part of the mix. I'll bet that's the way it is with you too, eh dear reader? But the days when the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the big Three TV networks dominated the news and opinion on the national level and the local paper's monopoly in the local markets is going down fast. Why the hell should I care what NYT columnists Maureen Dowd or Thomas Friedman think about world affairs and such as opposed to say what bloggers, posters, and columnists at Strike the Root.com or the Drudge Report have to say? Why should I put an ad for a boat trailer in my local rag when I can post it on Craiglist or eBay instead? Local people read those websites too, eh?

The old media isn't gonna just die off, but it is gonna get smaller and less influential though; the big shot media are now just going to be one voice among many. And that's a good thing.

Technorati Tags:
mainstream_media, communications, independent_media

May 08, 2007-The Democrats Try to Tackle the “Free Trade” Issue

Perusing the New York Times today, I saw where the labor unions are starting to have some doubts about the loyalty of the new Democratic majority in the US congress. After having been whacked around for the past four decades or so, the American trade union movement is at the point now where it has to prevail on this, or risk total extinction.

“All of this is playing out”, says the Times article, “under the nervous, suspicious gaze of an army of interest and constituent groups, particularly on the left, where many fear the committee will eventually bow to the powerful interests on the pro-trade side. Organized labor in particular has been voicing concern in recent days.

‘Sandy Levin sits on a committee that has tremendous pressure on it from Wall Street,’ said Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio and a longtime critic of American trade policy. ‘I hope he’ll be able to stand up for Main Street, but I don’t know.’

Mr. Levin said fears that Democrats would give up on their core demands, for labor and environmental standards, were groundless. ‘If anyone thinks that after all this work, we’re going to give it up, they’re just wrong,’ he said.

The Ways and Means Committee has rarely been known as a hotbed of economic populism. Its new 24-member Democratic majority has a voting record that is significantly more pro-trade than the House Democratic caucus as a whole, concluded an analysis of 15 trade votes by I.M. Mac Destler, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland and author of American Trade Politics.”

Okay, fair enough. But still, like the late Will Rogers is reputed to have said: “This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” Isn’t that the truth! Because as economist Lew Rockwell pointed out, real free trade doesn’t require any laws or treaties.

Technorati Tags:
Free_trade, laissez-faire, economics, Lew_Rockwell, economics

May 6, 2007 – Some Thoughts on Economic Theory vs. Economic Reality

Brad Spanger put up an interview of Samuel E. Konkin III on his blog wherein he describes the difference between anarcho-capitalism and agorism. I recommend you read it even if you aren’t especially interested in the arcane nuances of economic theory. (A category that includes me for the most part.)

Some paleo-conservatives, anarcho-capitalists, and Libertarians conflate free-market, laissez-faire economics with the state-capitalism that we actually have now when they defend capitalism. But what we have now certainly isn’t a free market at all, is it? The state continually interferes in markets to the detriment of voluntary human interaction and activity.

The Marxoid’s view of capitalism (i.e., an economic system wherein wealth accrues based upon ownership) is largely true in the society we have today. And many defend the privileged position of the ownership classes as free-market economics. Read the LvMI blog, the Tech Central Station website or the Wall Street Journal some time for some glaring examples of this false consciousness.

“In theory,” explains Konkin, “those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists … do not differ drastically from agorists; both claim to want anarchy (statelessness, and we pretty much agree on the definition of the State as a monopoly of legitimized coercion, borrowed from Rand and reinforced by Rothbard). But the moment we apply the ideology to the real world (as the Marxoids say, “Actually Existing Capitalism”) we diverge on several points immediately.”

Indeed.

Technorati Tags:
Agorism, anarcho-capitalism, economics, Samuel_E._Konkin_III