Revolutionary Alchemy: Turning lead into irony

As part of the reading for my advanced standing test in “History of the American Revolution”, I’m reading a book called “The Unknown American Revolution” by Gary Nash. The book goes beyond the traditional telling of the roles of the “Founding Fathers” in the revolution and instead focuses on the important roles played by slaves, Indians, women, and the common man. The writing smacks of neo-liberal white guilt – which I find irritating – but overall it’s an interesting read. My favorite part so far has been the telling of how people celebrated and reacted to hearing that the Declaration of Independence had been signed:

In one of the most telling celebrations of all, a milling crowd of New York City citizens roped the marble-mounted equestrian statue of George III, toppled it on Bowling Green, and fell upon the leaden monarch. Mutilating the face, cutting off the head, and displaying the royal visage atop a flagpole, they left the rest of the torso on the ground. It would end up in Litchfield, Connecticut, where women and children turned it into about 42,000 musket balls…to be fired at the king’s redcoated troops.

Colonists pulling down statute of King George III

An Alternate depiction (Courtesy Library of Congress)

If there is anything cooler than tearing down the statue of a tyrant and then making bullets from that same statue to be used against said tyrant, I’d like to know what it is.

Lipids!

After following Evolutionary Fitness for just over a year, I decided to go get my cholesterol levels checked to see what the effects were on my lipids. The last time I had my lipid levels checked was a few months before I started doing Evolutionary Fitness, so I figured this would be a good time to see what happens after following a supposedly “low-carb” diet for about a year. The results?

Not that I had bad numbers before, but these are pretty remarkable changes. My numbers improved, significantly, in every possible way. My HDL levels – which were a bit low – increased by 50%, while triglycerides and VLDL cholesterol dropped. The ratio of HDL/Triglycerides is probably the best indicator of cardiac health (with total cholesterol levels being more or less irrelevant) and a ratio of 1.5-2.0 basically brings your risk of a heart problems and strokes down to 0. [1]

Granted, I’m only 21 and I could probably eat fried noodles and Crisco everyday for the next 15-20 years before experiencing severe heart problems, but the point of this test was to see the effects of a diet that is deemed by the government to be bad for you. Despite what the USDA says, these results are exactly what I expected. People who do the Evolutionary Fitness diet/Paleo-diet always have results like this. Maybe it’s time for people to rethink the supposed benefits of the government-recommended diet and perhaps also ask why government is in the business of health in the first place, when they can’t seem to get their recommendations right.

Here, take my hand and let me help you up off the price floor

On the flip side of the gasoline “price-gouging” claims, I frequently hear people talk about minimum wage and even raising minimum wage to a “fair, living wage”. I love conversations that start this way because I get to respond with my favorite answer to stupid statements: a series of questions that tests just how well the speaker knows his or her subject.

Some person: If someone works, they are entitled to earn a fair, living wage.
Me: Who gets to decide what constitutes fair? You? Politicians?
Some person: ::insert vague statement about how community and society should decide without any mechanism of implementation or gathering consensus.:: (when I chase this statement down through a series of questions, the result is usually that it should be decided in the voting booth.)
Me: Oh, so you mean by each member of the community, acting in his rational self-interest, unfettered by governmental restrictions, an equilibrium value for the price of a particular unit of labor can be decided in a way that is consensual – and therefore fair – to all parties?
Some person: Well, uh, that’s ok, but… there has to a minimum.
Me: Again, who decides what that minimum is?
Some person: Well, I mean, there has to be one. If someone is working 40 hours a week, they’re entitled to earn enough to cover the costs of living.
Me: Did you just make that up?
Some person: Don’t you think that corporations like Wal-Mart should have to pay their employees more?
Me: If they did, where do you think that money will come from?
Some person: From the salary of some fat-cat CEO.
Me: You mean the salary money that he uses to buy products that are made by people who need jobs? Or the salary money he invests in the stock market, fueling new companies and innovation? Or the salary money he puts in the bank, providing money for home loans for people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to get one?
Some person: Uh….
Me: Assuming the salary of the CEO stays the same, the wage increase you’re shooting for is going to be passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices. You used Wal-Mart as an example. Do you think rich people frequently shop at Wal-Mart? Or is your plan to increase wages of unskilled laborers with money taken in from products bought by those very same unskilled laborers at places like Wal-Mart?
Some person: Uhhh…
Me: Yeah, exactly.

Aside from the inherent unfairness of choosing someone to decide what constitutes a “fair, living wage” or the immorality of introducing coercion into voluntary agreements between employer and employee, government-mandated minimum wages bring with them a hoard of economic and practical problems. When it comes to minimum wage, the people hurt the most are the ones supposedly helped by these programs.

Minimum wage is a government-imposed price floor that is generally set higher than the equilibrium price for unskilled labor. Introductory economics classes (using the neoclassical model) teach that price floors create a surplus of supply, as shown below:

The Blue line represents demand and the Red line represents supply

In this case, minimum wage reduces the demand for labor and increases the relative supply of labor, resulting in higher unemployment. This does result in higher wages if you are lucky enough to find a job. It also drives the wage rates up for skilled and semi-skilled labor, as employers often find it cheaper to pay an existing employee a little bit more per hour to do the work of a minimum wage employee, rather than hiring a new employee and complying with minimum wage laws, payroll taxes, social security, etc. So the short-term losers here are people working jobs that would pay minimum wage and the short-term winners are semi-skilled and white-collar workers – not people generally considered part of the “working poor”. Of course, economic decisions must focus on the long run. In this case, the unskilled laborers lose the most, but due to lack of economic efficiency, we all come out worse in the end due to higher consumer prices and higher unemployment. No matter how you cut the minimum wage issue, the fact is that the people you are trying to help are the ones losing.

Minimum wage, along with a government-run welfare program, also creates an economic disincentive problem known as the “Welfare Trap”. The welfare trap is a situation where the threshold for government welfare benefits is similar to the pay one would earn in a minimum wage job. This increases the incentive to attempt to get welfare benefits when they may not be necessary. For instance, let’s say that someone is eligible for welfare and welfare pays $200 per week. Let’s say that his local minimum wage lets him earn about $240 dollars per week at Wal-Mart or some other job. He could do manual labor for 40 hours per week to earn the $240, or he could sit at home and do nothing and only earn $40 dollars less. Your first thought is probably: I bet that is very rare. If you believe that, you should talk to economists all over the world, who devote countless hours to solving this very problem. Of course, the solution already exists, but government just can’t let go of its addiction to the votes and power that these “feel-good” programs give.

Once again, the attempt to rectify an economic problem with political action has created a mess. And once again, the correct action for government to take is to stay out of the market. No one person is qualified to say what constitutes a fair wage. People who believe that society should decide what wage is fair are mistaken if they believe that the voting booth is the place to make economic policy decisions. By allowing the free market to set a wage, everyone gets to decide on a dynamic wage for these jobs through a series of consensual transactions. The free market is infinitely more fair, infinitely more ethical, and doesn’t require the additional overhead cost of the salaries of politicians, bureaucrats, and enforcers.

The Constitution isn’t not exactly War and Peace

For the past 3 weeks in my American Government in Comparative Perspective class (INTA1200), we have been doing student presentations on various controversial issues: 2 issues per class, 2 team members per side. For all of the issues, every argument I’ve heard (from each side) has been painfully predictable. Today, one of the issues was the war in Iraq. I sat for 30 minutes while 4 people bickered back and forth about weapons of mass destruction, whether or not Sadam was a bad guy, whether or not the war was really being fought for domestic business interests, and a bunch of Thomas Aquinas’ “just war” theory garbage (or garbage theory, however you want to look at it).
Not one person even mentioned the fact that The United States has no authority to be in Iraq or any other country without a formal declaration of war against that country. That power is simply not in the constitution. There is nothing to debate on this matter: if the power isn’t granted by the constitution, the federal government does not have that power and cannot – legally – exercise that power. This is an amazingly simple concept and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why people have such a hard time with it. The constitution is only four pages long – is it really that difficult to read? We aren’t talking about a damn Tolstoy novel here. We’re talking about a simple plan for what was supposed to be a simple government. Congress has very few powers, and they are not the least bit difficult to understand. A typical conversation in the congress should go something like this:

Douchey politician: I propose that we ban guns/drugs/prostitutuion/the color blue at the national level. This will be great for my 30,000 constituents in one area who hate violence, getting high, sex, and The Smurfs, and don’t seem to have the sense to change these things at the local level like normal people so that their opinions don’t disrupt the lives of other people across the country who like to get baked and watch The Smurfs with a well-armed hooker.
Loud Voice of Common sense: Well, let’s see, congress has the power to tax, borrow money, regulate commerce and immigration uniformly, coin money, secure copyrights, establish post offices and roads, declare war, raise a navy, raise armies for no more than 2 years, call forth the militia to defend against invasion/insurrection, and fix units of lengths and measures.
Douchey politician: Really? That’s it? Just those things? Are you sure there isn’t anything in there about banning colors or legislating morality or tooling around in foreign countries?
Loud Voice of Common sense: Dude, congress has the power to do exactly 18 things and – given that my attention span is better than that of a 3 year old – I’ve taken 30 seconds from my hectic life to read them. Trust me, it’s not there.
Douchey politician: Wow. Well, ok, then I propose a bill to officially set the value of the mathematical unit “pi” to exactly 3….

If more people could understand that the federal government has a very short, clear, and well-explained list of duties and powers, we’d no longer have to suffer through a completely subjective debate about the morality and justification of foreign affairs. As my professor rightly pointed out once the debators sat down, the enemies of America and Western Culture feel that they are completely justified in their attacks – some even feel that it is their divine duty to fight against us. In some cases, (Palestine for example) I’m inclined to agree with them. For others, I think they are religious zealots that need to calm their asses down a bit. Whether or not you disagree with me or agree with me (or anyone else) on these matters is irrelevant, and that is my whole point! The government’s limited and narrow authority prevents emotions and opinions from getting mixed in with important issues like foreign wars and domestic drug laws – the government’s stance on the issue is already taken! This was done in order to prevent the emotions and passions and corrupt politicians of the population from misusing government power. Of course, if people aren’t going to take the time to read the constitution I suppose it doesn’t matter much, does it?

When Freedom is the New F-word

On June 19, 1934, the 73rd US congress enacted The Communications Act of 1934. President Roosevelt signed the bill into law, giving it his blessing as part of the New Deal. The major component of this legislation was the establishment of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. The first part of the legislation details the responsibility, power, and purpose of the FCC:

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ‘Federal Communications Commission’, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter. [1]

This provision essentially grants the FCC all-encompassing power to regulate US communications. Supposedly, this power was granted to the FCC by congress. While there is the small issue of one branch of government not being allowed to give another branch its powers or create independent agencies that aren’t really part of any branch of government [2], congress never had power to regulate communications in the first place. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution (Enumerated Powers of Congress) says nothing about congress’ power to regulate any form of speech or communication. Supposedly, congress assumed this authority under the commerce clause, which states that congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

Now, it may be valid to say that radio communications require regulation to some degree for technical reasons. No one — including myself — wants hand-held radios setting off nuclear bombs. Obviously, the framers of the constitution could not have imagined radio waves flying around the country, so there may be some room to adapt to technology here. However, my immediate qualm with the FCC lies with its structure and its power to regulate speech and anything it considers “indecent” material.

The FCC has 5 commissioners who are nominated by the president and confirmed by congress. Still, the FCC is an independent agency that does not actually operate according to the presidents wishes – its biggest influences are congressional committees. The structure of this body is troubling to say the least. Here is an independent agency, created by a congress to do something that congress itself does not have the power to do, run by 5 unelected officials, and vaguely influenced by the pressure of congressional committee. If one of the purposes of the FCC is to regulate obscene speech based on what the general public considers obscene, concentrating such a power in such a small number of hands – and in such an arbitrary manner — seems like the wrong way to go about it. Again, if the FCC regulated communication from a purely technical standpoint, the structure wouldn’t be nearly as relevant.

As far as obscenity is concerned, you may be surprised to know that the FCC does not actually have a list of words, phrases, or pictures that are illegal. Instead, the FCC enforces federal “obscenity laws” (absurd in their own right) which vaguely define obscenity as material that:

-Appeals to the prurient interest of society, based on applying community standards.
-Shows or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by law.
-As a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Everyone single one of these guidelines for determining obscene speech is arbitrary, vague, and completely subjective. Who is to say what has literary or political value? Who is to say what constitutes offensive sexual conduct? Who is to say what is artistic? Who is even capable of fully understanding the prurient interest of the “average person”, let alone the standards of an entire community? Given the sweeping power conferred upon the FCC, enforcement of “obscenity laws” allows the FCC to completely regulate what is said, printed, or shown over any broadcast medium. If the FCC hears something they don’t like, they can revoke the license of the broadcaster. If your broadcast was wrongly considered obscene, you have nothing to worry about because “the FCC strives to address every complaint within 9 months of its receipt.” [3]

Notably, nothing prevents the FCC from choosing a religion its unelected members don’t care for — let’s use Christianity as an example — and threatening all broadcasting stations with revocation of their licenses if they air anything mentioning Christianity in a positive manner. This may seem extreme and I doubt it would ever happen; but under the law, it is entirely possible. The only thing preventing the commission from doing this is their good nature. There is absolutely no reason why a government body needs this type of power to regulate speech in such a comprehensive manner.

Unfortunately, some people feel that there is a reason the government needs this kind of power. The response I hear is always the same: the government has to protect children from obscenity. My first response to this statement is “Really? Why?” While these people think of a reasonable answer to my question (don’t worry, there isn’t one) allow me to explain the big picture: when the government has the power to regulate speech it considers indecent, obscene, or some other far-reaching, subjective adjective, there is no way to determine what falls under each category. The whim of the commission de jour is all that stands between free speech and complete restriction of any broadcasted speech. Counter-arguments about the small likelihood of such restrictions — or how Americans would never stand for restrictions on political or religious speech — are both misguided and irrelevant. Why take the chance? Why give the government the power in the first place? If the federal government doesn’t need the power or it would be wrong for the government to fully exercise its powers, why should it have the power?
I’m sure that most parents don’t want their children being exposed to profanity or obscenities – a valid viewpoint – but giving the government power to regulate any and all speech broadcast in the country is the wrong way to solve the problem. Perhaps the better solution is to inform your children that while some people on the radio and TV may use inappropriate language or do things that don’t fit with your family’s morals, part of living in a free society means letting people live their lives differently from yours and say what they want. Tell them that it’s more important for us, as a whole, to be free than it is for them to be completely sheltered from bad language. Tell them that if the government has the ability to regulate speech, there is nothing preventing it from censoring speech that disagrees with the government. Explain to them that, in that situation, the free press is no more and the idea of a free society will be a memory. I understand that most of the people who support the FCC’s obscenity guidelines probably mean well and want what’s best for their children. I understand this and I sympathize with their intentions, but I do not want to raise my children in a society where “Freedom” is the F-word.

[1] — Communications Act of 1934
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

[2] — MISTRETTA v. UNITED STATES [488 U.S. 361 (1989)]
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/mistretta.html

“The nondelegation doctrine is rooted in the principle of separation of powers that underlies our tripartite system of Government. The Constitution provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” U.S. Const., Art. I, 1, and we long have insisted that “the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution” mandate that Congress generally cannot delegate its legislative power to another Branch.”

[3] — FCC Regulation of Obscenity, Indencency, & Profanity
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/

Free trade Quanitifed

Hopefully Keentopia readers are well-versed enough in economics to understand the benefits of free trade between people, cities, states, and countries. I’ve always been a strong advocate of free trade, and I have always had good facts to back that stance up with. To be clear: I never take a strong stance on anything unless I have strong facts to back it up — to do so would be most unwise. I discovered some time ago the problems that “Strategic Trade” and “Protectionism” create. For those who are unaware: Protectionism is the defense of limiting free trade in order to protect one industry here from foreign competition. This is usually accomplished by taxing foreign imports so that the price is similar to, or higher than, the price of the same American goods. The idea is that if the government did not do this, certain industries would fail and many would be unemployed. While studying for my economics final tonight, I came across this tidbit:

Cost of Protectionism (Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas)

This is a chart showing how much US citizens pay to “save” jobs in each listed industry, per year, from foreign competition. We would be better off paying each worker, on average, $231,288 per year to stay home and do nothing. If we enacted that policy, we would have almost $200,000 more dollars than we do now floating around the economy.

I have always known that protectionism was a flawed and costly economic stance that has demonstrated the stupidity of its believers time and time again, but I had no idea the costs were this astronomical. Even while writing this, I cannot wrap my head around the ignorance, selfishness, and short-sightedness of the promoters of protectionist policies. It has often been stated – by the ignorant – that Libertarians are selfish; that we belong to a “business-worshipping cult obsessed with profits”. Look at the numbers again and tell me who the selfish ones are.