Tuesday, July 7, 2009
More on marriage as a contract
Consider these three states: California, Iowa, and Vermont. In California, the outcome of the referendum could be seen as the people declining to enter into contracts with same-sex couples. That is the laboratory of democracy in action. In contrast, Iowans were told by a court that they had to allow these contracts because a panel of judges bought the civil rights argument. Iowans are being forced to enter into contracts with same-sex couples. Even if there is evidence at some future date that society does not benefit from these contracts, the civil right to marriage has been established in Iowa. It will be much harder to change law made by a court than by a referendum or by legislation. Vermont took the legislative route, and they, too are an example of the laboratory of democracy. Vermont has the opportunity to change the law if the people, through their representatives, determine that conferring marriage on same-sex couples is not benefiting society, just as California has the opportunity to do the reverse. Unfortunately, Iowans are more tightly locked into a public policy of allowing same-sex marriages. In the future, other states should watch carefully what happens in Iowa and Vermont to see if they really want to expand their contractual relationships to same-sex couples.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Right to marriage?
However, we have reached a time where we have a few states that have legalized same-sex marriage. There is an opportunity to compare them to traditional marriages. Will gay men stay in these relationships for the long term, moderating their promiscuity? What about same-sex female relationships?
I suspect that same-sex married women will be as different from same-sex married men as their heterosexual counterparts are. They will be more likely to adopt children and stay in stable relationships, for longer periods of time. You may read studies about same-sex marriage that are limited to females or blur any distinction between male and female, but perhaps none that study same-sex male relationships. If so, would it not be fair to conclude society isn't getting anything in return for sanctioning same-sex male relationships?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Easter Gaiety
In addition to the red and black beans, there were a few green jelly beans and a few lavender jelly beans. Green and lavender jelly beans sometimes squeezed together like their red and black friends, usually two lavender beans together or two green beans together. However, no matter how hard they squeezed, they couldn't produce new beans. Also, the giant liked to eat the green beans and especially the lavender beans, so their number remained small. Sometimes, the green jelly beans would be jealous of the black jelly beans and try to paint themselves a darker shade. But there was always a slight tint of green to them. Some of the lavender beans tried to paint themselves red, but they ended up looking spotty and the giant still found them tasty.
Sometimes, clusters of black jelly beans would get together and make mischief in the bowl. Although this was a problem at times, whenever there were red jelly beans around, especially if they were paired with black jelly beans, the mischief was reduced.
As the bowl got fuller and fuller, the jelly beans got together and elected a ruling council to organize their activities. The ruling council noticed the advantages that the paired jelly beans had, surviving the giant's snacking, producing new beans, and keeping the black beans out of trouble. The ruling council decided to give special privileges to paired jelly beans, so long as they were black and red. This made the green and lavender beans even more jealous, but the ruling council argued that the individual black beans and individual red beans weren't given any privileges either. There were many disputes between the various colored jelly beans to try to expand the privileges to include other colored pairs. In the long run, the ruling council was persuaded. Pairs of green jelly beans began to appear quickest, with a few lavender pairs. Unfortunately, the green and especially the lavender pairs didn't stick together very well and the giant kept eating them, not having to worry about mixing flavors. Meanwhile, black jelly beans began to switch from one red bean to another and performing all sorts of mischief, sometimes leaving the red beans just after a new jelly bean had emerged. Strange new colors of jelly beans began to be seen. The giant liked all the new colors and eating them seemed to increase his appetite. Pretty soon, the number of jelly beans in the bowl began to decrease. It decreased until there weren't enough jelly beans to serve on the ruling council anymore. The ruling council was disbanded. Shortly, it became clear that there was no one left to provide the privileges everyone wanted. Eventually the giant picked up the bowl and dumped all the remaining jelly beans into his mouth. Then, he opened a new bag and filled the bowl with only red and black beans, starting the whole process over again.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Obama economy tanking faster than expected
The Democrats see the economy as a black box. They seem to think that if you inject a certain amount of spending into the box, you get a certain level of GDP out the other end. This is a form of static analysis that doesn't work well even for small amounts of spending, let alone spending in the trillions. It is just as bad as the static analysis that is behind Democrats' objections to supply side tax cuts. Both ignore the way government actions change free citizens' behavior. Right now, we are feeling a bit of an Atlas Shrugged effect. This economy will not improve until Obama's spendorama and socialistic programs alienate enough people that they elect a Republican President and Congress who pass a large tax cut. Until then, save what you can and take care of each other.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
What is wrong with deficit spending?
Spending proponents argue that we have such a massive economic problem, unprecedented government action to stimulate the economy is necessary. They add, as the President did in his televised press conference, that all spending in stimulus. When critics counter that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't end the Great Depression and Japanese government spending failed to prevent the lost decade of the 1990s, spending proponents reply that both efforts failed, if they failed at all, by spending too little. I reject the spenders' arguments and look to good old, traditional, American thriftiness instead. Here is why.
First of all, since we have never seen government spending on such a massive scale before, there is no comparable historical event we can use to predict the effect we will see. Acting on a speculative theory on such a large scale inherently violates the principal of “first do no harm.”
Second, raising the government's share of the overall economy crowds out private investment because the government competes unfairly by using its tax authority to generate funds. Government enterprises also crowd out private enterprises as the government's size provides unfair competition in the form of higher negotiating power and sometimes exemption from regulations. These factor combine to reduce innovation and entrepreneurship in the overall economy. Consequently, any stimulative effect of the spending bill is likely to be counteracted by the drag caused by increasing government's role.
Third, all spending is not stimulus. When governments spend on the types of programs that are contained in this bill, there is inevitably waste, which causes the spending to be inefficient. In addition, there are always strings which impose additional costs on the recipients, adding to the inefficiency. Moreover, government can never do as good a job of picking winners and losers as the market. The resulting waste and mis-allocation of resources is an additional drag on economic performance, which is the opposite of stimulus.
Fourth, our economy depends on the profit motive causing people to work harder. All of the above factors reduce the profit margin for workers, leading to sluggish economic performance (think France). Government jobs and government paychecks are subject to interruptions that depend not at all on the performance or worthiness of the worker or recipient. The resulting financial uncertainty will cause those who depend on the government to hold onto their money, reducing consumer confidence and spending overall. Less hard work and tighter spending together work to cancel out the predicted stimulative effects of government spending.
The bottom line is this spending bill is very unlikely to work and a bigger one is even less likely to work. If you don't believe this analysis, just watch in the next few years as we waste trillions of dollars and the recession extends out past the next congressional elections. If we are lucky, we will only experience stagflation like in the 1970s. But with the level of debt the Democrats promise, stagflation is likely to turn into rampant inflation in the not too distant future.