Moral Foundations of Capitalism: A Contradiction in Terms? New Institute at Clemson
From the New York Sun:

"The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is 'the only university-related think tank in the country devoted to exploring the moral foundations of capitalism,' the institute's executive director, C. Bradley Thompson, told The New York Sun. 'We hope to be the beginning of a new trend in higher education.'"

The institute has an impressive list of thought advisors, including Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Vernon Smith of George Mason University. (permalink)

Something else to blame Dr. Seuss For.
The creator of the nerd, or at least the word "nerd," may have been Dr. Seuss.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary describes nerd the origins of the word this way: "perhaps from nerd, a creature in the children's book If I Ran the Zoo (1950) by Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)."

By contrast, the etymology of the subspecies of nerd called wonk is listed as "unknown."

Geek, by contrast, has what many people might consider a less desirable origin: "probably from English dialect geek, geck fool, from Low German geck, from Middle Low German." (permalink)

Pension Problems: This Post is for You, John.
I recently talked with someone who said he appreciated my comments on the looming crisis in public pensions.

Certainly it is a problem that we don't see addressed too often. Government goes off getting involved in more and more areas of life and the economy, and doesn't even do a good job sticking to its knitting--in this case, running the pension programs of its employees in a rational fashion. Blame the pleasure-seeking of politicians: they want to minimize the pain inflicted on taxpayers, and they want to maximize the pleasure enjoyed by public sector employees. The end result: under-funded programs that promise more than they can (or should) deliver.

So for the reader, John, here are two more stories on the topic, one from Baltimore, and another one that takes a look at the national picture.

Labels: Public employee pensions

(permalink)

I Love My Think Tank.
That's the title of an op-ed by John McWhorter, speaking of the Manhattan Institute.

McWhorter is responding to "Wal-Martgate," the "shocking" finding that some of the groups that defend Wal-Mart against its critics (who would prefer various forms of increased regulation, targeted against the company) have received donations from the retailer. The implication is that there is some whoring going on, a quid pro quo, a "we give you cash and tell you what to say."

McWhorter explains how he ended up working for the Institute, and rejects the insinuation.

There is a cartoon stereotype of black thinkers who stray from the left as "sellouts" allowing white plutocrats to ply them with vast riches to get their heartless, racist views into the political discourse disguised by a black face. Because the Manhattan Institute is a conservative organization, then, my working for them is thought of by some as a cynical, traitorous ploy: I "play a conservative on TV," so to speak.

[snip]


... the notion that the Manhattan Institute sits its writers down and instructs us to speak in favor of corporations that give us money is fiction.

I had no idea Wal-Mart was one of our funders and have never been apprised of a list of such — nor have any of my colleagues. .... There is nothing sleazy about the Manhattan Institute. Its employees like me are simply people who express what they believe. Again, once, my employer was UC Berkeley and race commentary was a hobby. Now, it's vice versa. There is no sinister drama in this.


Purely materialistic explanations of politics and personal motivation always miss the point. They do so again in this case. (permalink)

Vote Early, Vote Often: It's Possible.
At the polling place, it doesn't matter if anyone knows your name--or doesn't.

Tuesday was our primary election day (so late in the year, but that's another story), so in dutiful fashion I went out to vote.

Back up. Before heading out the door, I looked briefly for my wallet. It wasn't to be found, but no bother, this is a "No ID? No questions asked" state. Really.

I walked up to the table, and said my last name. The election judge looked at the roster, and helpfully called out my given name and middle initial. I took the ballot, and went to vote.

At no time did I have to give any evidence as to being who I said that I was. This is absurd. At the county library, I have to produce (and surrender, if temporarily) a drivers license before being allowed to use a locked quiet reading room--a room with nothing more than a desk, a chair, an overhead light and a computer outlet! People must show ID to buy a box of common allergy medication (war on drugs, you know) but not to vote.

Here's a plan for voter fraud: show up to another precinct and claim to be someone else. Vote in that person's name. Move on to another precinct. In a suburban or urban area, you might multiple precincts within a four-square mile block.

There are various ways of obtaining names within a precinct. Some require some extra work, some just require some cash. (permalink)

Beer? It's for the Children.
Talk about misplaced product placement. A newspaper on the Great Plains offers a story about a plan to offer free food to children. The headline is "Food 4 kids program to debut in Hutch."

From the text: "Hilary Hanvey, director of food services at USD 308, said the program - founded by the Kansas Food Bank in Wichita - provides food packages on Friday afternoons for children considered food insecure. The packages include 12 to 15 kid-friendly foods items, such as peanut butter crackers, boxed juices and cereal bars.

An advertisement placed next to the article--at least as of a few minutes ago--is for two products from Anheuser-Busch. You know, the beer company.

I've heard that a good stout is a meal in a glass, this story-ad combination is the first time I have known anyone to suggest that Michelob is as good as a PBJ. (permalink)

The era of big government lives on in municipal services.
A few weeks ago, the governor of Minnesota, previously hailed by some people as being the most conservative governor of the state since ... well, perhaps ever, made news by announcing that "the era of small government is over."

Perhaps Tim Pawlenty's dedication to conservative principles was always overstated. Perhaps his recent statements are just election-year rhetoric, a move towards the center. (Twin Cities blogs North Star Liberty and Our House offer some useful background information).

Here's something else to consider: there's still a widely accepted belief that ambitious plans for government are, at least in some specific cases, acceptable.
Of course, Minnesota has the social welfare and taxpayer provided health care network that you would expect from a place with Scandinavian roots.

But what might be surprising is the ways in which government reaches into ordinary life, even life in those alleged bastions of conservatism, the suburbs.

What you will find there is a surprising number of government-owned and operated enterprises that have nothing to do with obviously public functions.

Take, for example, water parks. The plain-jane municipal pool has given way to water parks, with all sorts of special features.

Eagan, Minnesota, is a major suburb of Saint Paul. It's the home of Governor Pawlenty. It's also the home of a number of government owned and operated commercial enterprises, including a water park to rival many a privately owned enterprise.

This year, the city expanded the facility by adding the Captain's Course, a miniature golf course that, if the marketing materials is to be believed, is quite a step up from the windmill fare.

In the southern 'burbs you can find water parks in Apple Valley, Bloomington, Edina, and Shakopee.

Northern suburbs that have city-owned facilities include Shoreview.

Why make the trek to a privately owned concern such as Wild Mountain--an hour's drive from downtown Saint Paul--when you can let the kids run wild at the municipal water complex?

Back to Eagan for a moment. It has a government-owned fitness center with all manner of weight training and cardio equipment. Why pay your dues to a commercial operator such as Life Time Fitness when you can get most of the same services for less at a government facility that just has to break even (if that) and doesn't have to turn a profit?

Is there a limit to what government can and should do? If running a health club and extravagant entertainment center is part of its mission, Maybe not.

No discussion of summertime activities would be complete without mentioning golf. Though Governing magazine has called municipal-owned courses "the most nonessential of nonessential services," governments provide.

In the winter, Minnesota has municipal ice arenas by the score. It's the land of hockey. They are also few government-owned ski hills. Northern Minnesota features Lutsen (privately owned and operated), Giants Ridge (owned by an agency of the state of Minnesota) and Spirit Mountain (owned by the city of Duluth).

Granted, some of the various facilities came about when there were few or even no privately owned and operated facilities.

But rising to the level of needing government involvement? That's hard to believe.

Each facility mentioned above, by the way, fails several components of the test of a public good. In particular, gates and employees can and do exclude non-fee-payers from pools, ski hills, and golf courses.

There are obvious drawbacks to such activities. For one, it puts the majority of taxpayers in direct commercial conflict with a few taxpayers who own golf courses, water parks, and so forth. Two, it distracts government from its core mission. Three, it can contribute to a false confidence in what government can do, prompting it to move from relatively simple tasks to more problems more intractable than "we don't have enough courses for junior golfers." Finally, it is self-perpetuating: would you want to risk your own house, or your own money, your own time, to go into business against someone with taxing authority?

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

And you thought that Enron had crooked accounting.
Is the federal budget deficit $318 billion? Or $3.5 trillion?

When officials at companies overstate assets and understate liabilities, they get into trouble with investors and perhaps the SEC. When the same thing happens in the federal government, it's ... business as usual.

Here are the first three paragraphs of a USA Today story on the topic:

The federal government keeps two sets of books.

The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.

The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included -- as the board that sets accounting rules is considering -- the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion. (permalink)