You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
|
|
« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 » January 31, 2007Romney's Pro-Life RumblingsIt appears that Mitt Romney has tapped Indiana's own James Bopp to advise him on pro-life issues. Bopp, you will recall, has been instrumental in the recent partial-birth abortion cases. From my perspective, this is a clear move on Romney's part to legitimate his more recent pro-life stance, not to mention his faith, in the eyes of the Evangelical and Catholic communities. While I have not assessed the issue, some claim that there are substantial considerations with regards to the LDS Church and abortion. Thoughts? Posted by Seth Zirkle at 04:20 PM | Comments (1) The Devil Has Come to RoostOn Monday the International Criminal Court (ICC) ordered Thomas Lubanga to stand trial "for war crimes consisting of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15." This will mark the first trial of the ICC, and a giant leap backward for democratic autonomy. The ICC officially came into existence on July 1, 2002, after being created under the 1998 Rome Statute, an international treaty signed by almost 140 countries. Despite strong opposition by the Bush administration, 99 countries have ratified the Statute to date. The significance of the ICC cannot be understated. Hans Corell, a Swedish judge and international lawyer, aptly told NY Times columnist Barbara Crosette, "A page in the history of mankind is being turned." The Court will claim jurisdiction over American citizens whether we ratify the treaty or not, and that itself should give cause for alarm. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan tried to allay our fear by saying, "The court will prosecute in situations where the country concerned is either unable or unwilling to prosecute. Countries with good judicial systems, who apply the rule of law, and prosecute criminals and do it promptly and fairly, need not fear. It is where they fail that the court steps in." The problem is that the court decides when a country "fails." Simply put, the Court will step in when a country is out of line with its expectations. As with most big government creations, a large fear centers on the "slippery slope" it could send us down. Currently supporters argue the ICC will be limited to only the most heinous crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. But the ICC treaty already covers such vague offenses as causing "serious injury to mental health" and committing "outrages upon personal dignity." Moreover, amendments to the treaty and expansion of its jurisdiction are almost certain in the future. Indeed, just what are the benefits to such a Court? Will we be better able to prosecute murderers such as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Not likely. The international community has already condemned these sorts of criminals. The ICC will only be another body working to prosecute them, without the enforcement to do any good. It will have, however, the opportunity to go after individuals not yet labeled criminals by the international community, such as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. So now we're left with a power hungry, unaccountable World Court that claims vast jurisdiction. What is our recourse? A couple years ago the Bush administration's initial response was to threaten withholding US troops in UN peacekeeping missions unless the troops are shielded from the Court's reach. Congressional Republicans even threatened to withhold US funds for UN peacekeeping missions altogether. Considering the US already owes millions to the UN, withholding more funds may not yield the most leverage. The threat of the ICC will not go away simply by refusing funds. The ICC is the realization of a long-time dream by Europeans, born first through the EU and now through the ICC. The ICC represents an ideology bent on matching or besting American might, and evolving into consolidated governments as part of humanity's march toward utopia. The threat is deeper than an unfair trial for Americans, or even the loss of some autonomy. The ICC is a great leap forward toward subordination of the American political and legal system into a global order. This should be cause for alarm; the threat is real and dangerous. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:55 PM | Comments (0) January 29, 2007Haggard follow-upMike Jones, the (in)famous male prostitute who outed New Life Church founder Ted Haggard, was welcomed to that church on Sunday. "I had read a lot about the church, but there's nothing like seeing it for yourself," he said. "It wasn't to rub anyone's face in it by any means. I was wanting to get some perspective, to see where they are coming from, what the magnet is." Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:29 PM | Comments (2) Enslaved on the ABA membership rolesToday I received in the mail my "FREE American Bar Association membership" which is allegedly a $125 value. I'm not special though. The ABA offers free membership to every first year lawyer in the U.S. That's a big reason why the organization is able to boast 400,000 members. I have twice before declined membership into the ABA, yet each time I'm left on their roles. I can assume that I haven't been mistakenly re-added because the membership/identification number has remained the same throughout. At first blush a free membership into such a seemingly benign organization would be welcomed. But I'm not so eager to join their ranks. For starters, the ABA has taken upon itself the task of advocating a host of issues which, in my opinion, have nothing to do with representing the interests of lawyers and judges. For instance, the ABA has taken decidedly left-wing positions on abortion, capital punishment and gun control. I have no interest in helping the ABA appear bigger and more powerful than it really is, even if the membership is free. To make matters worse, the ABA has a monopoly-like grip on law schools across the country. Without the ABA's approval (aka accreditation), graduates of a non-accredited law school cannot take their state's bar exam. Unfortunately the ABA's accreditation process is antiquated, and arguably racist. I will once again cancel my "FREE ABA membership," but there's no guarantee my cancellation will be honored. When organizations like the ABA claim to represent the collective interests of hundreds of thousands of people, it's important to remember where those numbers come from. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:15 AM | Comments (3) January 28, 2007How Rudy Will RunRudy Giuliani's 140-page dossier on how he will run for president allegedly has been leaked to the internet and is available for download here (PDF). Partly hand-written, the document has finance plans, org charts, and list of state-level campaign contacts. Not much there for most outsiders like us, though the extremely well-connected might want to take a look. One name not mentioned in the document is blogger Patrick Ruffini. Patrick, like ITA's own Joshua Claybourn, was one of the early pioneers of the young conservative blogosphere. After stints with the Bush 2004 campaign and the RNC, Patrick's personal blog is back in business, and he has signed up to be part of Giuliani's web team. Any doubts remaining that Rudy is in? Posted by David Darlington at 10:59 PM | Comments (2) January 27, 2007America Runs on PremiumA North Carolina molecular scientist has developed a way to add caffeine to baked goods, without the bitter taste of the stimulant. Now each bagel or donut you have with your morning coffee can have the equivalent caffeine of about two cups worth of joe. The scientist, Robert Bohannon, has approached Krispy Kreme, Starbucks, and Dunkin' Donuts about carrying the buzzed pastries. Who needs an off switch anyway? Posted by David Darlington at 10:57 AM | Comments (3) January 26, 2007Mea Culpa, Mea CulpaThis past Sunday, the Third Sunday after the Epiphany (or Third Sunday in "Ordinary Time") was Respect Life Sunday in the Catholic Church here in the United States. For some time, the USCCB has designated the Sunday nearest the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1972)) a day of ecclesial prayer for the souls of the slaughtered innocents. Ostensibly, it also affords an opportunity for clerics to reassert the Church's doctrine (and indeed all of orthodox Christianity's) on the sanctity of life. Unless you are a deacon in the Diocese of Buffalo (NY). Deacon Tom McDonnell took the occasion to "call out" Rep. Brian Higgins (D) on his voting record supporting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. This past election Rep. Higgins also received the endorsement of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Rep. Higgins and his family apparently left the church, St. Thomas Aquinas, during the homily. Rep. Higgins earlier this week called the homily a "cheap shot" and was appalled that a "nonpriest" would deign to advance a "political agenda." The priest at St. Thomas, Fr. Art Smith, said that he felt "horrible" that Rep. Higgins was "moved to leave." Not to be outdone, the local ordinary, Bishop Edward Kmiec, stated that the pulpit was not the place for "confronting" a member of the congregation: "It is my belief...that we are more effective when we have substantive, one-one-one conversations with individuals outside the context of the Mass." One might be hasty and suggest that, based on Rep. Higgins' voting record, such substantive conversations should take place outside the context of the Church, but I ultimately do agree with the Bishop's appraisal that public, harsh words do not make soft hearts. But both Rep. Higgins' and the Diocese's responses to this imbroglio deserve clarification: 1. The Deacon, Priest, nor the Bishop have any reason to apologize for publicly enforcing Church doctrine. Under Canon 392, s. 2, it is the duty of every ordinary to "exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline." This is not to suggest that the Deacon's method of exercise was the most prudent or effective, but Fr. Smith's mens horribilis is, in his professional capacity, out of place. 2. Rep. Higgins' suggestion that a "nonpriest" has no business catechizing the faithful is absurd. Proclamation of the Gospel and expostulation of Church doctrine are the primary roles of the deaconate. The prevalent misconception that the deacon is a "mini-priest" hinders this reality. See, generally, CCC 1559. 3. It should be noted that the Deacon invited members of the congregation to discuss the Representative's voting record. He did not, as it were, ask the Representative to repent of his sin before the congregation. Nevertheless, while the prospect of being "called out" before the congregation for sin (and causing scandal by publicly frustrating the Faith is considered a sin in the Roman Church) seems farouche to our modern sensibilities, it was common practice in the early Church to account for sin publicly, before the Body of Christ. The practice of private confession appears to have been introduced by missionaries in Northern Europe and was typical to churches of the Gallican Rite by the eighth century. 4. The Deacon's statements were "political" only in the discontinuity of Rep. Higgins' public profession of the Catholic faith and his political record. The statement that embryonic stem cell research is incompatible with the Faith is not a political statement; it is an objective Truth. 5. Finally, the reported aim of the Deacon's comments - that parishioners should discuss the Representative's voting record with him and, hopefully, bring the Representative to see his error - is paradigmatic of what it means to be ekklesia. We are called to bear all things as the Body of Christ, not as His finger or as His toe. If we truly do believe in the Communion of Saints, both on Earth and in Heaven, the conception that his sin is disconnected from my sin fails. An offense against the Body of Christ is just that - an offense against the Body. Just as our earthly bodies work as one entity in deflecting the infection of an extremity, we are called to defeat sin. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 06:53 PM | Comments (8) Can Freakonomics Influence Public Policy?It has been almost two years since "rogue economist" Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner first published Freakonomics, their wildly popular romp through Levitt's unconventional research. It's now in its second (expanded and revised) edition and still in hardcover, after spending 88 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list. Is it too much of a stretch to assume that the popularity of the book must have some sort of effect on how people view public policies, which are regularly skewered in Levitt's research? I'm inspired to ask such a question because I was reminded of his work while reading the feature article in the current issue of Washington Monthly by Zachary Roth, which clamors for public financing of campaigns. There are lots of reasons to oppose this policy, but I believe I would be in the minority if I rested solely on the argument that that is not a legitimate function of government. Campaign finance reform is popular, and public financing would stand a good chance of garnering a lot of public support. What could change the public's mind? The sales of Freakonomics suggests that readers are entertained by the smashing of conventional wisdom. The book was written for non-specialists, so this task isn't terribly taxing. And while campaign finance reform is popular, it isn't a dearly-held cause (save for a very few). Both of these work in favour of changing minds on the issue. The trick, then, should be simple, and the authors accomplish it in about three pages (7-10 in the second edition, IIRC). Also summarized here, they pour cold water on the idea that campaign contributions are the cause of electoral victories (the alternate interpretation is that strong candidates attract more money). This is the antecedent of Roth's argument, and without it, his case is tenuous. (There are other arguments as well, such as victors, strong candidates though they were, are still beholden to their contributors once in office, or that the high cost of campaigns is a barrier-to-entry for would-be candidates.) The issues are obviously much more complicated than what can be covered in a few pages in a watered-down pop-research book. But will those few pages, and the overall philosophy of the book, be enough to prompt people to question proposals like public financing of campaigns? Even with the millions of copies sold, how many readers will internalize this skepticism? How many will remember those three pages? How many of those will be inspired to check the endnotes? How many of those will actually go to Levitt's websites, download, and read the relevant papers? OR, how many of those who are familiar with the book stop and listen when some pundit appeals to the authority of those papers? If they do, they would find some reason for pause. Consider the seminal paper (PDF), "an extra $100,000 (in 1990 dollars) in campaign spending garners a candidate less than 0.33 percent of the vote" (780). In a close race, that 0.33 percent, or a few more hundreds of thousands of dollars, might well be significant, but let's remember how very few such races there are. More relevantly, Levitt also applied his model to the policy at hand, viz., public financing (in conjunction with spending limits): [I]t is clear that changing campaign spending patterns is a very blunt tool for affecting election outcomes. A government outlay of $400,000 per candidate would alter the results of less than 1 percent of the congressional elections in the sample while costing taxpayers over a billion dollars. (794)Now, the government could set a higher per-candidate outlay, but the benefits would be marginal while the costs skyrocketed. (It would be relevant to note here that Roth's funding scheme for publicly-financed campaigns doesn't quite make sense.) One could, I suppose, comb the literature for studies in support of some sort of public financing, but that is a slightly different argument. My question here is whether the fact that Levitt has achieved some degree of fame will 1) make him an authority on policy and 2) sway the debate over campaign finance reform. So how about it? Will the Freakonomaniacs heed the lesson from Chapter 1? Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:15 PM | Comments (7) January 25, 2007Tarleton's MLK party
After reading the AP story my first thoughts turned toward St. Patrick's Day, when all of America - including those with no Irish heritage - celebrate and mock countless Irish sterotypes. On that day people of all skin colors drink Guinness, dress as leprechauns, wear boxing gloves, and much, much more. Does something distinguish this from what the Tarleton State students did on MLK Jr. day? I think so, and I think it's our relative closeness in time to the civil rights struggle. But perhaps part of the rub comes from our connotations with these stereotypes. We associate black Americans' perceived affinity for chicken and malt liquor as something negative, and Irish Americans' affinity for fighting and Guinness as something humorous. Why? These are erroneous connotations. Liking chicken and malt liquor isn't necessarily a bad thing, and those who think it is are implicitly condemning blacks who do fall in line with the stereotypes. Of course the Tarleton State students may have had malicious motives, and if so their case is certainly undermined. But after briefly looking at the pictures that doesn't appear to be the case, especially when you consider a number of different ethnicities attended the party. Update: As always, Fark.com offers great commentary. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:57 PM | Comments (35) January 24, 2007Public Service AnnouncementFor those of you that use the World Association of Debt Management Offices, their website has been shut down for failing to pay its debt to keep the Web address registered. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:08 PM | Comments (1) Cardinal George, Hammer of the DissentersIn the latest issue of Archdiocese of Chicago's newspaper, Cardinal George took occasion to address the Archdiocesan Pastoral Council's suggestion of six issues diocesan priests should address from the pulpit over the next year. All six of the issues are contested to varying degrees by the laity. Cardinal George is concerned not only with the issues, but also the approach many Catholics take towards them. Assessing the content of the Council's suggestion, George states, "The first impression this list, minus the sixth concern about immigration, leaves with me is that we're back to the Protestant Reformation." More importantly, however, is the Cardinal's concern of the laity's theological disposition towards doctrine: There are many good people whose path to holiness is shaped by religious individualism and private interpretation of what God has revealed. They are, however, called Protestants.In the years since my conversion, I have noticed the irony in how the "Dissenters have a name - Protestants" perturbs dissenting Catholics in a way it does not converts from Protestantism, who more often than not leave the entirety of their family and the birthplace of their relationship with Christ, so to speak, on the other side of the Tiber. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:58 AM | Comments (7) January 23, 2007One Communicant, One VoteA Nigerian bishop has issued a pastoral letter to his diocese stating that it a "sacred duty" to vote in the upcoming national election. In his letter, Bishop Francis Okobo states, "Whoever has not collected the voter's card after February 7 has automatically alienated himself or herself from the community, the Church, the nation and will not be allowed to receive the holy communion." Notwithstanding the questionable prudence of this move from a pastoral standpoint, withholding the Eucharist is not the same as excommunication, as some news reports have suggested. As Canon lawyer Edward Peters notes over at In the Light of the Law, the local ordinary may withhold the Sacrament under Canon 1331 (1983 CIC 1331) for a number of pastoral reasons, but this is not tantamount to excommunication. While the situation in Nigeria is considerably different from those in the United States, I do think that it raises similar questions: When, if ever, should the local ordinary withhold the Eucharist from Catholics who hold themselves out as Catholic yet publicly reject doctrine held to be binding on one's conscience? If, as Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist is the greatest sacramental union of the Church gathered on Earth (CCC 1325), at what point in rejecting the Institution entrusted to administer the Sacrament do we depart from this union? Posted by Seth Zirkle at 02:42 PM | Comments (4) SOTU Address: Triply-WorthlessAs I've often stated, watching the State of the Union First, Wendling's Rule of Oration: Politicians rarely, if ever, state anything important in public. We can expect Bush's speech to be bland, fatuous, and manicured -- essentially meaningless. As a small demonstration of this trend, let's recap the states of our Union over the past 13 years:
Update: It's official: the state of our Union is . . .
Second, while the speech will be a dud, I'll concede that it will at least have some substance. Afterall, the state must have some statism. According to the Washington Times, Bush will ditch the laundry list format in favour of focusing on five major policy initiatives: "the global war on terrorism, health care, education, immigration and energy." Are you at all interested in what he has to say about any of these things? After six years in office, is it likely he will have just now come upon smart, savvy solutions for any of these problems? And that's assuming he's even sincere about anything he says. Third, let's assume that among his proposals are a few good ideas (Arnold Kling expects at least one). Even if anyone is paying attention to his speech, the chances that he could get his policies through a Democratic Congress, especially while his approval ratings are at Nixonian levels, are slim-to-none. The only thing worse than a speech from a lame-duck is one delivered from a decidedly un-bully pulpit. The silver lining to the implosion of the Bush Presidency is that it might usher in a decline of executive imperialism, a disease nicely captured in Gene Healy's annual polemic against the SotU Address, which quotes one Senator lamenting the practice as a "cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty." Indeed. Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:22 PM | Comments (5) January 22, 2007The Colts IndeedWhile I appreciate David's support of the Colts in the post below, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the delicious plate of crow which can be found in a post of his on September of last year. Don't look now, but 7 of the 12 NFL "experts" on ESPN.com picked the Indianapolis Colts to win the Super Bowl this year. Do these guys not realize Peyton Manning is still the Colts' quarterback? I know this is blasphemy, but if your QB can't avoid the rush and can't handle the blame for past playoff letdowns ("idiot kicker" "there were protection issues"), you've got a lot to prove.Granted, the Colts haven't won it yet, but they're at least on the dance floor. Say, how're those Steelers? ;-) Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 03:25 PM | Comments (6) January 21, 2007Because Today's the DayGo Colts! Posted by David Darlington at 03:45 PM | Comments (4) January 19, 2007A Catholic Monarch?The primate of the Anglican Church in Ireland, Rt. Rev. Alan Harper, has suggested it's time to move beyond the Act of Settlement of 1701 and allow a Catholic to be monarch. This public statement comes only months after Queen Elizabeth stated she would allow Lord Nicholas Windsor to marry at the Vatican, a first in nearly 400 years. While the prelate's statement is certainly a welcome development from a Catholic perspective, it is unlikely that it will be given serious discussion. Besides, the prospect of Prince William being allowed to marry a Lutheran and not a Catholic gives wonderful irony to "fidei defensor." Posted by Seth Zirkle at 10:27 AM | Comments (2) January 18, 2007On Dr. KingEarlier this month, I spent some time in Atlanta on business. I also took a few extra days to sightsee, and made it a point to visit the Martin Luther King, Jr. Historic Site and Preservation District in Sweet Auburn, which includes the burial places of both Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott-King, the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Ebenezer Baptist Church (both the one King spoke at and the church's modern facility), the MLK birth home, and the National Park Service historic site. The burial site of Dr. and Mrs. King is a touching tribute to the two civil rights heroes (Mrs. King's legacy is greater than generally recognized). They are laid out in stone tombs in the middle of a pool of water that gently flows from left to right, from the King Center to old Ebenezer, seemingly to remind us of Dr. King's favorite Bible verse, "justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream." (Amos 5:24). My favorite part of the site, however, was old Ebenezer, where both Dr. King and his father ministered, and where people worshiped until the new facilities across the street opened in 1999. It is a simple, unpretentious building, stone on the outside and wood on the inside, probably indistinguishable from 90 percent of urban churches built in the early 20th century. The sanctuary was small, holding maybe 100 people, with room for the choir on a small, 2nd-level loft. The pulpit was front-and-center, raised a step above the rows of wooden pews, with communion table and offering box in front of it and baptismal font behind it. The pulpit was flanked on either side by keyboards (piano and organ) for music. In other words, a simple, otherwise unremarkable, church. But the atmosphere was overwhelming and unmistakably holy. My two hosts and I immediately fell silent when we entered the sanctuary. Dr. King's recorded words echoing through the old building contributed to the sanctified air (I believe it was his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, but I may be mistaken). My one friend sat down in a pew to pray and surreptitiously take a few photographs. My other friend and I walked in silent awe down the isles, heads raised and mouths agape trying to soak up everything around us. None of us doubted we were standing on holy ground. After what seemed like forever, but was probably no more than five minutes, we made our way out the back after a brief, whispered conversation with the NPS staffer present (we couldn't identify the baptismal tank behind the pulpit since that section was roped off). Whose Side Were You On? Talk about a challenging question. In retrospect, it seems so obvious which side God and His angels where on during the civil rights struggle. Of course, any white person or Christian is going to say publically, I would have backed Dr. King. The battle for civil rights was in perfect harmony with both God's concern for justice for the oppressed and the American vision of equality for all, we say. And yet. And yet, the people opposing the civil rights movement certainly didn't see themselves as the racist cartoons we've made them out to be (though some certainly were). They saw themselves as American patriots defending the nation's traditions against a threat. Many were good Christians doing what they thought was the right thing. Many had Biblical justifications for their violence. How can Dr. King be a good American, they would wonder, if he was a troublemaker...a liberal...possibly a Communist...a plagiarizer...an adulterer? How can a man like that be an agent of God? And as Michael Spencer noted earlier this week, many conservative evangelical Christians still don't know what to do with him (skip to item #5). Like my friend, I wish I could say for certain that had I lived in that era, I would have been on the street with Dr. King, John Lewis, Ralph Abernathy, and the countless others who risked life and limb for equal rights. Retrospectively, it seems obvious which side God, truth, justice, and the American vision were on. Yet so many good Christians were wrong -- very wrong. As in the case of the Civil War, both sides invoked God in defense of their cause. Abraham Lincoln said of that conflict, "both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other....The prayers of both could not be answered." But Lincoln could see the way out of this theological puzzle. When asked if God was on the side of the North, he replied, "[the question] is not is God on my side, but am I on God's side?" "Am I on God's side?" is always the right question. But in the thick of the moment, it's a heckuva one to answer. Posted by David Darlington at 05:54 PM | Comments (6) Bill O'ReillyI've only been asked to be on the O'Reilly Factor once. Bill was doing a week-long segment on a pornographic movie filmed at Indiana University and they wanted student reaction. His producer Andrea Mackris - who, ironically enough, would later claim O'Reilly sexually harassed her - told me to be ready at a moment's notice. She said that once I got the call, I'd be whisked away to a satellite hookup in Indianapolis. As luck would have it, I was stuck in class taking an exam when that call came and never had the pleasure of sparring with the infamous Bill O'Reilly. My experience seems to have been much better than Jim Therrien's, editor of the Bennington Banner, who aptly lays bare the force of nature that is Bill O'Reilly. Thankfully for Jim and all of the other Bill O'Reilly detractors, "Papa Bear" will have to answer for his sins. He is scheduled to be on the Colbert Report tonight at 11:30/10:30 CT. That's television you're not going to want to miss. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) Consumer-Driven Health Care IIII was once very enthusiastic about the potential of market forces to control the costs of health care in the US, even going so far as to put my money where my mouth is and open an HSA. My enthusiasm has since flagged, though I still recognize that consumer-driven health care has a lot of merits despite its flaws, a case which Jane Galt makes in her excellent series of posts on health care. Yet nowhere in her sober analysis do I find quite the point that Kevin Drum is making on his latest health care post citing an instance of consumer-driven pricing, which exists in relatively few sectors of medicine, but most notably, as here, in dentistry. He tells the story of a woman without dental insurance dithering over whether to buy $1200 Captek crowns. Ultimately, the office manager dropped the price to $750 in order to make the sale, a process Drum likens to a Turkish Bazaar or a used car dealership. Now, one could make a valid point about the ability of health care consumers to make informed decisions about the risks and expected value of potential, future problems, but Drum's point seems to be more about the "Ick Factor" at the thought of negotiating over dentistry. "I half expected some closer with a bad suit and blow-dried hair to sail in and start doing a hard sell on the Capteks." Why, it's just unseemly! I believe there are two factors at work. First, in the modern American economy, bargaining has greatly disappeared at the retail level. We now rely on retailers, like Walmart, to do our bargaining for us, because we trust that they will pass the savings on to us. I'd even be hesitant to haggle at a Farmer's Market, where those prices are now usually given with the imprimatur that only a computer-generated font, as opposed to handwriting, can give. Besides, what are you buying there where a few dollars will bust your budget? Drum was probably shocked at seeing a negotiation at all, regardless of context. But the context is also important. One isn't supposed to haggle over health care because, at least in a progressive worldview, it is so serious. It's unlike other goods and services because without it, very bad things happen. Bargain-shopping for medical care trivializes the service and, apparently, the pain and suffering consequent to losing the deal. Libertarians frequently rejoin that, no, health care is just like any other service, and we don't place such moral gravity on other essentials like food and clothing. So here we have a difference in opinion, or a difference in normative assumptions, which are rarely useful to debate. Nonetheless, Kevin Drum writes partially in response to Arnold Kling's latest defense of consumer-driven health care, almost as if to say that Kling does not recognize the horrible dystopia of plaid lab coats into which he is leading us. I have a pretty good idea, though, of what Kling would think of Drum's anecdote, as his co-blogger, Bryan Caplan, has already addressed that very issue: Today I successfully bargained down my dentist. In the end, I got 20% off the price of a service I really didn't want in the first place. (Why was I there in the first place? The service I didn't want was bundled with one I did).Kling would probably note that the woman Drum observed did Caplan better by getting 37.5% off her price. Drum would probably note that Caplan's service was apparently just a 'want' not a 'need.' Kling, or any good libertarian, would respond that there are no such things as 'needs,' only 'wants,' and so on in the great battle of worldviews that makes up so much of punditry. Which is a long way of saying that Argument by Ick is not a very fruitful tactic and Galt's post is a more salient critique. Update: Arnold Kling responds, "Guilty!" By the way, I went to the dentist yesterday. I didn't bargain with him, but I wanted to mention it since I was feeling left out. Also, he's a great dentist, and if you live near Indianapolis and need one, I highly recommend him. Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:12 AM | Comments (8) January 16, 2007Draenei MehndiI'm not much of a gamer myself, but I've known many and find their alternate realities more interesting than most vacation stories. Today, my older brother was pleased to show off his new World of Warcraft expansion pack, which features a new set of characters called the Draenei. I wasn't too enthused until he showed me that he could make his character dance, and what I saw amused me to no end. To my surprise and delight, he had no idea what the dance meant, and I had the pleasure of introducing him to Daler Mehndi. It blew his mind. Apparently, I wasn't the first to notice the brilliance of the design team. This has existed for months: Translation here, for those of you who are, and always have been, curious. Well, don't just sit there like a Chakor -- go read it! Update: Oh, and the new Blood Elf dance? My brother found out where that came from, too. (When did nerds get to be so rad?) Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:04 PM | Comments (1) An Ecumencial Minimum WageThe Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) and a number of Jewish groups recently sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. First the church abandons its divestment policy and now a joint letter that includes a number of "Jewish groups." The toxic fumes from today's derailment may not have wafted all the way up to Witherspoon Street, but another crazy idea for engagement with Judaism... Substantive theological exchange? Posted by Seth Zirkle at 07:44 PM | Comments (4) The Toyota Expressway?Square Dealer wrote last week about the intersection of public and commercial interests, with the proposal for ads on tollbooths as an example. Recently I thought of another example which I was surprised hasn't been implemented. It is now common practice to sell the naming rights for sports venues, convention centers, and other prominent buildings. Why, I wonder, aren't there any roads named by the highest bidder? In Philadelphia, I-76 is known as the Schuylkill Expressway, I-676 is the Vine St. Expressway, and I-476 west of the city is known as the Blue Route. Other cities have similar colloquialisms for traffic arteries, while others are named in honor of civic leaders. Sports venues used to be named in the same way, but now nearly all have corporate monikers. So why not sell the naming rights for major roadways? Perhaps federal funding for highway construction and maintenance is part of the reason. But come to think of it, perhaps most corporations don't want their names associated with "traffic jam" or "20-car pileup." Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:26 PM | Comments (5) January 15, 2007New to the WebGood friend and former professor, Stephen Webb, has launched his website. I invite all of our readers to click and read. Of particular interest is Webb's take on Stanley Hauerwas. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 09:17 PM | Comments (0) Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Anytime I watch the "I Have a Dream" speech, it sends shivers up my spine. What a powerful, truthful and well-delivered message. If you have the time, watch this clip of Rev. King, Jr. on the steps of Lincoln Memorial giving his famous speech. Of course no one is perfect, and neither was King. In recent years it's come to light that King plagiarized much of his scholarly and civil rights work including, some would argue, his most famous speech of all. But King's message should not be overshadowed. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. . . Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 02:19 PM | Comments (1) January 13, 2007How is a Gift Card Like a Dodger Dog?This little bit comes via my brother: The Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday that the Los Angeles Dodgers are doing away with the $10 right field bleacher seats in the upcoming baseball season. Instead, for $35 prior to the game, or $40 on game day, fans will be able to purchase the same seats plus all the ballpark concessions they can eat. That means hot dogs, nachos, popcorn, peanuts, or whatever. The plan seems like a great way to get fans to sample more ballpark food, as well as line the pockets of the Dodgers organization. Subtracting the old ticket price of $10, each ticket holder starts in a $25-30 hole that they must eat their way out of if they don't want to give the Dodgers free money (which is not justified considering how the team has played in recent years). I've seen prices of $4.50-$6.75 for ballpark hotdogs (have you ever been to Shea?). A fan would therefore have to consume 4-6 foot-long Dodger Dogs just to break even on the deal. Does that sound like a lot? Nah, it sounds like a challenge. Posted by David Darlington at 09:14 AM | Comments (7) January 11, 2007Faith, Money, and the NCCLittle notice was taken in 2005 when the Antiochian Orthodox Church left the National Council of Churches. Among other reasons, the Antiochian Church claimed that the NCC no longer pursues its stated purpose of fostering Christian unity, focusing instead on a liberal social agenda. Such a charge is not beyond debate, but the declining membership of the NCC's constituent church bodies may serve as an indicator that the NCC's mission of fostering unity may need some gusto. (In the six years since the United Methodist Church began its "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" campaign, membership has declined by 300,000, at a cost of more than $20 million.) According to a new study by the Institute on Religion and Democracy, it may also need better funding. Giving from member churches has declined by some forty percent during the past four years, and much of this lag has been supplanted by gifts from non-church entities. The Ford Foundation alone contributes more than 32 of the NCC's 35 church bodies. The IRD has long argued that the NCC does not speak for the majority of its claimed 45 million believers in its 35 member bodies, focusing instead on the social and political agenda of the leadership of its largest churches (ECUSA, PCUSA, UMC, UCC). This recent exchange between a neophyte Methodist minister in Indianapolis and the Methodist bishop of Indiana lends some credence to the opinion that there is an increasing divergence between the these churches' hierarchy and the faithful. Posted by Seth Zirkle at 04:22 PM | Comments (7) January 10, 2007A Productive Member of the EconomyOn the other hand, there's no deadweight loss in purchasing one of these. Posted by David Darlington at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) Best Buy is SmilingAmericans spend an incredible amount of money on gift cards, especially during the holiday season. $80 billion worth of gift cards were purchased in 2006. According to the financial-services research firm TowerGroup, however, roughly $8 billion spent on gift cards in 2006 will never be redeemed, a "a bigger impact on consumers than the combined total of both debit- and credit-card fraud," the organization said. As Zach warned us in his classic post on the issue, this is a tremendous gift of free money to companies such as Home Depot, Limited Brands and Best Buy, nearly negating gift cards' positive impact on the "deadweight loss of Christmas." The Freakonomics authors, Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt, came to basically the same conclusion in last Sunday's New York Times. Only 30 percent of people who receive gift cards use them in the first month, the authors report, and 19 percent of people who received gift cards in 2005 never used them. The solution? The Freakonomics guys say if you can't think of something personal to give someone, give cash. That is, unless it's considered an insult in your circle of friends, or you feel like playing Santa to The Gap. Posted by David Darlington at 12:05 PM | Comments (2) January 08, 2007Science fact of the dayApparently, New York City stinks today (more than usual, that is). An odor described as the "smell of natural gas" has been reported throughout Lower Manhattan. Trivia buffs, however, know that natural gas actually has no intrinsic odor. Science geeks such as myself know that chemicals known as mercaptans are added to natural gas to create the well-known smell (the article linked above mentions that fact, as well). What is not widely appreciated is that the strength of a smell is not a good indicator of how much of a chemical is in the air. Human odor sensitivities vary greatly with different chemicals. Mercaptans are sulfur-containing chemicals, which create some of the most powerful stenches known to man. (This is probably because these chemicals are produced by rotten food.) The odor threshold of ethyl mercaptan is around 300 parts per trillion. Ammonia is around 300 parts per billion. Acetone (the primary component of nail polish remover) is around 100 parts per million. In other words, you can smell ethyl mercaptan at concentrations a million times lower than nail polish remover. I know from experience that an extremely small amount of a sulfur-containing compound can stink up even a well-ventilated lab. So, whatever it is that has Manhattanites holding their noses today, there probably really wasn't much of it. Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:07 PM | Comments (7) January 07, 2007A Quicker Means of Debating My Last PropositionThere is a public park near my house which, like most parks in the state in which I now live, charges an access fee for cars (in this case, $3 during the week and $5 during the weekend). Suppose there is no reasonable alternative parking space nearby (which there practically isn't). Suppose also that, as a marketing gimmick, Geico decided to pay the admission of all those who used the park on Sundays by literally having its employees in Geico T-shirts buy the parking tickets for the public. Would that be objectionable? Now, would it be better or worse for Geico to simply pay a flat fee, negotiated of course with the parks department, and put up a sign next to the parking lot bearing its logo and announcing that admission was free? Or would it be preferable for admission to the park to be free and paid for out of general taxation? I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what any conscientious officeholder would do. Posted by Square Dealer at 08:48 PM | Comments (7) The Majestic and the MercantileAt the Reality-Based Community, Michael O'Hare bewails a deal between Geico and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that will see the gecko and other marketing tools--include billboards--atop the Port Authority's tollbooths on the George Washington Bridge. Horrors! says O'Hare. Our civic spaces should be kept clean of all commercial interests, he argues: "[The deal] is the rotten fruit of having no respect for our public institutions and managing government as though the point is to hide its costs." It is telling that he neither says who, precisely, lacks the proper awe for "our public institutions" (a broad phrase, that, covering everything from the Capitol Building to the Department of Motor Vehicles) nor deals fully with what those costs actually entail. As Hoosiers--a disproportionate fraction of this blog's readership--are well aware, nothing can excite demagoguery like the intersection of privatisation and roadways; as they kibitz this decision, New Yorkers (more than a third of whom are foreign-born) will at least be spared the burden of weighing whether to take foreigners' money, which as all Indiana state legislators know is particularly heinous and sinful. (The careful reader will note, here and throughout, that I am perfectly indifferent to the feelings of people in New Jersey, as I am perfectly indifferent to their entire state.) What is ironic is O'Hare's supposition that, following this precedent, the Statue of Liberty will soon be auctioned off to Dunkin' Donuts. O'Hare has been asleep. The famous restoration of the monument in the 1980s, which O'Hare alludes to, was an American Express-led project; more recently, the credit-card company raised funds to reopen the statue to tourists. Of course, the biggest irony of all is that O'Hare is decrying commercialism in the New York City metropolitan area. I am sure that such concerns resonate with the area's political leader, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Many New Yorkers, instinctively statist, will agree with O'Hare. They are, of course, wrong in this instance--but they are wrong in an instructive way, because dissecting O'Hare's principle allows us to determine the proper proportion and reverence for the res publica that distinguishes the conservative from the worst sort of liberal and the worst sort of mercantilist. The easy, and sorely mistaken, response to O'Hare comes from blogger Ed Moed, who writes that among the advantages of the deal is the opportunity for marketers to reach consumers in a more efficient fashion. But this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of republican government. Commerce domesticates passions and satisfies wants, but it is not the purpose of a free people. The enjoyment of liberty--or the just exercise of public authority, which is the same thing--is. And so merely pointing to the commercial advantages of a proposal regarding public property is no argument, any more than would be a scheme to allow vote-buying as a means of poor relief. But O'Hare neglects the point that the Port Authority needs to raise resources, either by raising tolls--and thus crimping the working poor most of all--or by selling limited amounts of advertisements. The question thus is rather any threat to the public sphere is outweighed by the benefits of such a maneuver. The obvious point, then, is whether a res publica ever takes on the characteristics of a res sacra. The are obvious examples of such politically consecrated grounds; selling billboards on the lawn of the Capitol might only make obvious what the campaign-finance reform types have been saying for sometime, but the idea would never fly no matter how obviously corrupt the institution became. There is a grandeur necessary for the prominent edifices of the State, and if an imposing facade serves only to mask the hypocrisy of the men inside then it has at least served to remind us that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. We should object to such a display, finally, not because commerce is sinful or contagious, but because symbols matter, and maintaining the impartiality of such facades is an important symbol. But what is at issue is not the White House or a state house or even a courthouse (all of which, incidentally, are habitually kept in a poorer state of repair than any levelheaded person should wish, out of politicians' fear that they might be thought extravagant). It is a tollbooth. And if the Capitol reminds us of the theoretic majesty of the sovereignty of the People, the tollbooth is an instrument of nothing more lofty than getting from point A to point B. Given the track record of governments in general of keeping such mundane public spaces pristine (think of the public schools, or of the public spaces), we can assume that the widespread dinginess of such areas even when compared to the average McDonald's is a condition that will not soon be ameliorated, and, so reflecting, become more open to the idea that the public space will become more like the private one in certain respects. (Surely anyone who has been to Penn Station would applaud the Port Authority's taking a page from the private sector and eliminating the stench of urine from the building.) It is a bad idea and a worse maxim to run government like a business, but there are some fields in which commerce provides an instructive example. O'Hare's fear of pollution is revealing; all, or virtually all, of the people using the GWB will engage in commerce; none of them will use the bridge in a public space in any lofty sense (and if they did, they would probably be arrested for interfering with traffic); and the intrusion is so small, that I predict that motorists will quickly learn to filter the advertisements out, if they even notice them. By then, of course, there will be some new pretended threat to public discourse that will inflame O'Hare and the ceaseless activists who make their name by caring about such things. Posted by Square Dealer at 07:49 PM | Comments (1) January 06, 2007Those Wise GuysDespite those decorations you see going up in October (or even earlier), Christmas only lasts for 12 days . . . beginning on the evening of 25th. Now that is is the evening of the 6th of January, a Grinch like me should be delighted, right? Wrong, because Christmas ends with the traditional celebration of my least favourite part of the nativity narrative: the arrival of the Magi. Oh my, where to begin. First off, we don't know that there were three of them. Second, we don't know their names. Third, they weren't kings. So just about everything popularly 'known' about them is wrong (or at least unbiblical). It's appalling that the song "We Three Kings" makes its way into so many hymnals. Why not throw in other annoying inventions like Rudolph or Frosty? On second thought, that's a dangerously probable suggestion. Even allowing for what we are told about them, the arrival of these adorers really spoils the nativity, stylistically. Here we have the utter humility of the birth of the Messiah: in a manger, in swaddling, attended to only by shepherds. A modern analogy would be that the saviour of man would be born in a garage, in rags, attended to by migrant workers. It is hard to picture circumstances more stark, unadorned, and lowly. Balancing this, we have the host of angels singing in exultation of the birth of Christ. If we look at the origins of the words host and angel, we understand that an Army of Holy Messengers is shaking the rafters of Heaven with their proclamation. Something unfathomable is happening in the intersection of the spiritual and the temporal, and yet the effects are quite the opposite on either side of the firmament. And who comes along to upset this dichotomy? These magi with their fancy gifts. We should now stress that these magi are totally out of place. The Bible only says that they came "from the east," but the word magi, "is a specific occupational title referring to the priestly caste of a branch of Zoroastrianism." I mean really, what are these Persians doing there? Not only are these guys from a different religion, but they found the creche using astrology, a prohibited form of the occult. This doesn't make any sense. Imagine how odd their arrival must have struck the shepherds and Mr. and Mrs. von Nazaret. Of course, they weren't the only ones who knew the magi were there. Who is the first person they ran in to? Why, the infanticidal King Herod the Great. Bravo! Nothing like tipping off the local potentate about the newborn king and sparking the Massacre of the Holy Innocents. And it seems to me that this is the only religious significance of the visit of the magi: that they instigated the first evidence that a fallen world cannot abide the presence of the perfect Son of God, and that He will eventually be killed by the world. So why are they included in the Bible? They are not exemplars, rather, foreshadowing. Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:17 PM | Comments (3) Low-Cost InformationWould you buy a toothpaste if it advertised that 1 out of 7 dentists recommended it? The premise of such an appeal is that a dentist would know a whole lot more about the quality of dental products than the average consumer. Relying on the advice of experts is a low-cost information gathering technique, one that advertisers are happy to exploit and has applications in the policy world as well. In the debate over raising the minimum wage, proponents are happy to use this technique when they point to a recent letter urging such a move that was signed by over 650 economists and 5 Nobel Prize winners. I'll be the first to admit that all of these economists know way more about the subject than me, even with the 24 page literature review (PDF) I've read (which cost way more to read than this blurb). How can one argue against raising the minimum wage with this appeal to authority on the other side? With more authority. Here is Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker: This petition received much attention, and the number of economists signing is impressive (and depressing). Still, the American Economic Association has over 20,000 members, and I suspect that a clear majority of these members would have refused to sign that petition if they had been asked. They believe, as I do, that the negative effects of a higher minimum wage would outweigh any positive effects. That is one reason I would surmise why only a fraction of the 35 living economists who received the Nobel Prize signed on to the petition--I believe all were asked to sign.So would you buy a toothpaste if you knew that 6 out of 7 dentists refused to endorse it? Greg Mankiw also weighs in on the debate with some anecdotal evidence. He asked one of the leading economists who signed the letter why he did it: My friend told me that he viewed the minimum wage as a second-best policy. He would prefer increased cash payments to the poor, such as a much-expanded earned income tax credit (EITC) or a more general negative income tax. But if his first-best policy was politically impossible, a minimum-wage increase was, in his view, an improvement over the status quo. He admitted that the minimum wage had adverse effects on employment, but he judged those to be modest in size. All things considered, he concluded that a higher minimum wage was better than nothing . . .In the AEI event I linked to earlier, I believe min wage proponent Jared Bernstein was similarly enthusiastic. Certainly sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:15 PM | Comments (6) January 04, 2007Cat BloggingI shouldn't be too hard on Kevin Drum; his cat just died. Poor guy. Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:30 PM | Comments (0) Edification for the massesAn Islamist's guide to beating your wife. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:26 PM | Comments (22) The Commodity WageBelow, I wrote in semi-caricature that fiscal conservatives will readily characterize labour as a commodity. In his column today, George Will states this more explicitly, a sin for which Kevin Drum takes him to task, echoing one of our commenters. I think this is an unfortunate case of loose talk muddying the waters, as Drum immediately makes a jump to an inaccurate conclusion: This, in a nutshell, is the core problem with conservative economics: it views workers as commodities. Naturally it follows from this that we should be free to treat workers like commodities, rather than as human beings.The problem here is that Drum equates "labour" with "workers." I can't speak for Will, but 'conservative economics' as I understand it makes a distinction: labour is what workers sell to employers. No, this isn't exactly a commodity, but it is an input to production, along with capital (which often includes commodities). It is in this respect that fiscal conservatives would consider labour to be something that will respond to the laws of supply and demand. That Drum would expand this mistake to explain mistreatment or dehumanization of workers on the part of employers is telling.* First, it reveals a predisposition to think ill of the employer-employee relationship, at least for low-skilled workers. Second, it reveals a predisposition to view his political opponents in the worst possible light. These are biases that are hard to overcome, and may even reflect his priors. In the spirit of attempting to avoid such pitfalls myself, we'll consider the rest of his case with an eye toward his blindspots. His first explanation of why workers aren't commodities is to look at the secondary effects of increasing wages. So far, this is an admirable step, as libertarians are constantly invoking the unseen. Drum cites the fact that workers put their paychecks back into circulation. True, but opposed to what? When a producer spends money on a commodity, does it just disappear thereafter? No, the seller of that commodity likewise puts the payment into circulation, perhaps even through the wages of his employees. As a way of distinguishing between labour and capital, this is a half-baked argument. Further, what is to say that the spending by newly enriched workers will lead to a more socially optimal economic outcome? And even with a convincing argument that this would be so, it is still incumbent upon Drum and his allies to demonstrate that the minimum wage is the best, or even a good policy for achieving this distribution and spending of resources. Drum further reveals a set of beliefs at odds with most fiscal conservatives when he suggests that they are immoral for opposing the minimum wage. Consider, from our perspective, how this must be confusing: a worker willing to sell his labour encounters an employer looking to buy some labour. The employer proposes a price of $5.15 per hour. The worker accepts this price. Mr. Drum steps forward and throws a yellow hankey on the ground in between them. "No, you have to set the price at $7.25!" Apparently, consenting adults interacting voluntarily is indecent (though we haven't yet specified the nature of the labour). Why it is any business of Mr. Drum's (or his allies) what these two agree upon is befuddling. Of course, one could make many exceptions, monopsony being one them, that would cast doubt that these arrangements are truly voluntary. But the federal minimum wage is a one-size-fits-all policy, and I would counter that such conditions are not omnipresent. What that leaves is a worldview that is hesitant to accept "Market Pricing"; at this point, you'll have to take a moment to read this summary of Alan Fiske's models of interpersonal transactions. By that, you can see that Drum incorrectly interprets wages as "Authority Ranking." Or perhaps, as he and his allies would see it, this is a correct interpretation based upon his worldview. I'm being charitable. (Drum also cites the popularity of raising the minimum wage as evidence of the morality of his position. This could be true in part, since such a small portion of the populace understands "Market Pricing," but I'd also imagine that the majority are also unaware of the potential downsides of the min wage). Back to the point of labour being analogous to commodities: the objections of liberals to equilibrium prices for wages are as absurd as objections to equilibrium prices of any other input of production. When certain industries lobby for price floors for steel, or lumber, or agricultural products, most can discern that it isn't out of some high-minded notion of morality. Why is labour different? Again, if it is because we are concerned about the plight of the poor, then the question comes 'round once again: why is the minimum wage the best, or even a good, policy for addressing their needs? Fiscal conservatives say that it is not. It's much inferior to other policies, most notably the EITC. By continuing to lobby for an increase in the minimum wage, liberals are meddling in an amoral perspective on the markets for inputs to production. Clumsy phrases such as "labour is a commodity," surely do us no good in communicating that perspective and give liberals like Drum license to misinterpret our worldview according to the their own biases. But that misunderstanding is no argument for raising the minimum wage. * I will readily admit, and condemn, that workers have been mistreated, but I would object to this being a symptom of 'conservative economics' rather than human frailty in general. Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:39 PM | Comments (7) The Minimum WageThe Democrats were carried into power this past election largely upon an anti-incumbent tide, but one should also acknowledge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put together a modest package of legislative priorities in order to give the Dems some substance on which to campaign. The most aggravating of these to fiscal conservatives is the promise to raise the federal minimum wage, a highly popular proposal. There are lots of reasons to oppose raising the minimum wage, but many opponents are content to rest upon the most obvious: ask any of them, and they'll draw you a supply-and-demand chart in quick order. Labour, especially low-skilled labour, is like any other commodity; raise the price, and quantity consumed goes down. What could be more plain? Well, as Matthew Yglesias notes, the real world does not always conform to the simple rules of basic economic models. The real world is complicated, and labour markets need not be any different. This complexity will not necessarily fit well into any model, nor could an economist account for all of it ex ante. The only way to see what's going on is to study labour markets with minimum wages. One might hope that by sifting through the evidence, a consensus might be built about what the effects of the minimum wage are. Unfortunately, the evidence is mixed, and what used to be a consensus among economists has become a debate. There are many studies that show just what theory expects: disemployment due to increasing the price floor for labour. Other studies contradict the theory and show no such effects. And the differences in methodology and data among these studies can vary in bewildering ways. In order to help sort this out, the National Bureau of Economic Research sponsored a massive literature review on the subject by David Neumark and William Wascher, two economists whose work has generally found negative impacts from the minimum wage. The literature review is huge (150+ pages) and, apparently, very dense. How is a layman to get a handle on this? Well, one might spend an hour-and-a-half listening to an AEI event where Dr. Neumark and his critics discuss the review. Or one could breeze through a shorter version (24 pp.) Dr. Neumark put together for the Show-Me Institute (PDF). Both are instructive, even if some of the more technical aspects of methodology remain a black box. The shorter review is more comprehensive, though, and covers more background about the minimum wage, including possible explanations of smaller disemployment effects and distributional outcomes. It is also especially helpful for understanding one counter-argument often cited by the proponents of the minimum wage: the work of economists David Card and Alan Krueger, who supposedly disprove the theory that raising the minimum wage will always reduce employment. This is not the homerun proponents think it is. Neumark further cautions that case studies in general are not good guides, no matter how popular they may be among proponents. So is there anything one might discern amidst all this noise? Robin Hanson, a professor of economics at George Mason University, summarizes: To set the record straight, most all economists should agree that:In other words, it is more likely that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment than help low-skilled workers. I'd also add that those workers who would enjoy a higher minimum wage are likely least in need, e.g., middle class teenagers. If we all want to get on the GMU Econ Dept. bandwagon, we can take the advice of Prof. Hanson's colleague, Tyler Cowan: I'm willing to admit, unabashedly, that I form my judgments on this matter by theory more than "raw evidence." When the evidence is unclear, or points in multiple directions, I favor the most plausible explanation.That is, that the simple models are more likely to apply. Hanson and Cowan's chairman, Don Boudreaux elaborates on this point further. In the face of uncertainty and the likelihood of negative impacts, it is best to eschew the minimum wage. This may be a reasonable conclusion for pundits, but politicians aren't motivated by reasoned arguments or bound by facts and logic. Take, for instance, the idiotic remark of Sen. Ted Kennedy, quoted in Neumark's small literature review: "The minimum wage was one of the first -- and is still one of the best -- anti-poverty programs we have." The literature does not support this statement, and Greg Mankiw might correctly diagnose the senior Senator from Massachusetts as, "either misinformed or engaging in demagoguery." He also explains why this is so, which I shall summarize in a mock dialogue: Pollster: Are you concerned about the poor?There are many ways the government can provide aid to the poor and create circumstances for them to work themselves out of poverty; the minimum wage should not be at the top of the list. But this is irrelevant to the Democrats because they, like most politicians, don't exist for the primary purpose of acting in the best interest of the country. They exist in order to get elected, and the minimum wage is a popular policy that they can enact with low political cost. Which is why we will, in all likelihood, see an increase in the minimum wage in the next 100 hours of Congressional frenzy. Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:04 AM | Comments (7) January 02, 2007Quick LinksHere are some pieces so interesting I'm at a loss for further commentary:
Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) Saddam and the Death PenaltyThe recent execution of Iraqi dictator-for-life Saddam Hussein has brought the issue of the death penalty to the fore once again, at least in religious circles of the blogosphere. Consistent with its position on the death penalty, the Vatican condemned the execution, saying, "an execution is always tragic news, reason for sadness, even in the case of a person who is guilty of grave crimes," and, "killing the guilty one is not the way to rebuild justice and reconcile society." It also expressed concern that Saddam's death would fuel greater violence in the region. Blogger John H. of The Confessing Evangelical has two excellent posts on the issue as well. First, he wonders whether the circus surrounding Saddam's trial and execution (and the execution video) constitutes a "pornographisation of the judicial process." Second, he looks at the Biblical justifications for the death penalty, and wonders if the Biblical case for the death penalty is as clear as we have assumed. Posted by David Darlington at 10:38 AM | Comments (3) |
Students at Tarleton State University in Texas have caused a nationwide media stir for a Martin Luther King Jr. Day party that "mocked black stereotypes by featuring fried chicken, malt liquor and faux gang apparel," 
Here in the States it's Martin Luther King Jr. Day. While it's partially set aside to remember Michael King, better known as Martin Luther King, Jr., the main point of the day is to remember all that he stood for.
|
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------
|