Dustin Anderson's Blog

A letter I sent to the New York Times:

In a New York Times editorial on May 21st titled "Limits of Libertarianism" you published, "It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market"

The government abolishing Jim Crow and Slavery were incredible steps forward for our society; however, hailing these laws as miracles of government is like saying, "sorry I ran you over with my car, but now everything is okay because my bumper is no longer smashing your face."

...or evidence of Bryan Caplan's anti-foreign bias.

Futurity.org links to a University of Colorado-Boulder study and an Arizona Republic article which seems to suggest that, at worst, immigration has led to no rise in violent crime or, at best, has actually lead a society with less violent crime.  From the UC-Boulder study:

"Cities that experienced greater growth in immigrant or new-immigrant populations between 1990 and 2000 tended to demonstrate sharper decreases in homicide and robbery," Wadsworth writes. "The suggestion that high levels of immigration may have been partially responsible for the drop in crime during the 1990s seems plausible."

...

Wadsworth's research suggests that, controlling for a variety of other factors, growth in the new immigrant population was responsible, on average, for 9.3 percent of the decline in homicide rates, and that growth in total immigration was, on average, responsible for 22.2 percent of the decrease in robbery rates.

Polls have shown that sixty-one percent are in agreement with the SB 1070 legislation; however, the data seems to go against the populous fervor against immigrants the country seem to hold.

Cross posted at Trying LIberty and Rational Conduct.

I was reading this article about how less than two-thirds of the population have access to high-speed internet at home.  The article starts out with a tale of a 42 year old web admin and mother of a teenage son who only has access to an excruciatingly slow dial up connection.  It details the story with little tidbits such as, "she does chores to pass the time while Web sites load" and her "high school-age son is so fed up with the glacial pace of their Internet connection that he asks his mom to update his Facebook page from the office."  Oh the humanity!

Clearly this needs needs a government solution.  Right?  Yes!  Of course it does!

Hence;

On Tuesday, the U.S. Federal Communications commission will unveil its much-awaited "broadband plan," which, among other things, will explain how the government plans to get nine out of 10 Americans online by 2020. That's no easy task, considering less than two-thirds of people in the country have high-speed Internet access at home today, according to a 5,005-person survey published by the FCC in February (PDF).

The Obama administration's 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has put $7.2 billion toward high-speed Internet expansion and has required the FCC to develop a broadband plan.

Well, Russ Roberts replies...

Also, I'm actually quite upset.  I want a yacht.  Commenters on both sites say they too want yachts.  Surely, this is a much further pressing topic.  I would venture to say even less than half the nation owns their own yacht.  In fact, I would venture to say that less than one-tenth of the nation owns their own yacht.  Where is the "much awaited" yacht ownership plan?  Don't us poor Americans deserve such luxuries?

Below is a superb interview with the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales.  In the interview Mr. Wales discusses Hayek, the use of information in society, incentives vs. rules, and entrepreneurship.  From my friends at the Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala.

Recently the United States government has been participating in a so-called "Trade War" with China that has affected everything from steel, to tires, among other things.  The most recent with that of ribbons imported to the U.S. from the China, as well as the retaliatory duties on chicken imported to China from the U.S.. The argument for this aggressive trade policy is two-fold:

1. China has been embarking in a particularly mercantilist economic policy.  They have allowed the dumping of their goods in U.S. markets, as well as the government subsidizing Chinese manufacturers.  China's monetary policy is, in essence, the de facto pegging of their currency to the Untied States dollar by an exchange rate of about 6:1.  This pegged exchange rate encourages exports to the U.S. and a balance of payments which leaves the United States in heaps of debt to the Chinese.
2. The second reason is a mixture of populous rhetoric and special interest indulgence.  In acting to restrict trade with China, politicians, and the president in particular get to look as if they are "doing something."  It allows them to tout how they are helping working men and women.  At the same time it enriches unions as production is shifted away from the Chinese producers and shifted back to the United States producers.

However, this is misguided for several reasons.

First of all, if we look back on history, protectionism's history has been particularly disastrous.  During Hoover's administration the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act brought trade to a halt with a tax on several thousand items had been imported prior, as well as subsequent retaliations from the countries which were affected.  The act was responsible for reducing world trade by sixty-six percent, according to Treasury Department numbers.  This is no small feat, and ensured a deeper, longer depression.  So here we are now.  In a recession, or attempting to move forward out of one, and the government acts as if it's ignorant of history (most likely because it is).

Second, by enacting these tariffs it increases costs for consumers.  If the tariffs were not in place we would be importing more goods from abroad from countries with comparative advantages in those respective goods.  When those imported goods come from countries who are more cost efficient, it is cheaper for consumers to purchase those goods.

Third, there are no fixed amount of jobs.  If by allowing Chinese citizens to have some jobs over in their country, it does not necessarily mean they are "taking" any jobs from U.S. citizens.  I will concede that there will be some losses in certain industries in the short run.  But wealth is created by innovating, taking risks, investing in human capital, and improving the human condition.  If a few manufacturing jobs goes overseas, this frees up a great deal of human capital, allows individuals to take risk and innovate, which in the long run improve the human condition.

Finally, in addressing the concept of China subsidizing their industry and allowing their goods to be sold cheaper over here,  I say; "so what?"  In the words of Milton Friedman, "Why should we object to them giving us foreign aid?"  If they want to subsidize our consumption by allowing companies to sell their goods for cheaper than it may cost to produce, I'm not so sure this is such a terrible thing, especially for consumers.