Category: Public Choice

Democratic New York Department of Environmental Conservation Raids Home, Seizing and Killing P’Nut, Internet-Famous Orphan Pet Squirrel

(p. A15) . . . P’Nut was an internet-famous squirrel who was seized and euthanized by New York State wildlife agents last week . . .

. . .

. . . Elon Musk lionized the rodent as a Jedi martyr — more powerful in death than in life.

“RIP Peanut,” read a post on a Trump campaign’s official TikTok account on Sunday [Nov. 3, 2024]. “Needlessly murdered by Democrat bureaucrats in New York.”

. . .

P’Nut’s journey from cowboy-hat-wearing Instagram cutie to conservative lightning rod began on Oct. 30 [2024]. That was when New York State Department of Environmental Conservation officers, responding to what the agency said were anonymous complaints, arrived at the home of his owner, Mark Longo, in Pine City in Chemung County. In New York State, it is illegal to house animals considered wildlife without a special permit; Mr. Longo has said he was in the process of applying for one.

D.E.C. agents seized the squirrel, which Mr. Longo had cared for ever since its mother was hit by a car seven years ago. Agents also apprehended Fred the raccoon. At some point, the squirrel bit a person involved with the investigation, according to a statement put out by the agency, leading its officers to swiftly euthanize both animals to test for rabies.

In tearful online posts, Mr. Longo and his wife, Daniela, railed against tax dollars being spent to kill the animals they considered pets.

. . .

In Macon, Ga., Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman, spoke at a Trump rally and compared Peanut’s fate to that of Laken Riley, a local woman who was killed by a Venezuelan man who had once lived in New York. She blamed Democrats in New York City, which is 200 miles from Pine City, for euthanizing P’Nut.

“Democrats in New York City went in and raided a home to kill a squirrel,” Ms. Greene said. “Yet it was the same State of New York that let the criminal illegal alien go that came to Georgia that murdered our very own Laken Riley.”

. . .

. . . the animals’ owner, Mr. Longo, 34, considers himself apolitical. He is not registered with any political party and said he has never voted in his life.

. . .

He has spent the past days grieving, he said, and when he found a stray almond that Peanut had sneaked into his pocket, he burst into tears. He was just grateful, he said, “that somebody is giving P’Nut a voice.”

“I don’t care if it was the blue side or the red side,” he added. “Somebody on this planet is fighting for my animals.”

For the full story see:

Sarah Maslin Nir. “Death of a Pet Squirrel Is a G.O.P. Rallying Cry.” The New York Times (Wednesday, November 6, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses, bracketed date, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Nov. 4, 2024, and has the title “How the Death of a Celebrity Squirrel Became a Republican Rallying Cry.”)

Government Sugar Quotas Increase Demand for Harder-to-Metabolize Corn Syrup, Making Americans Fatter

For decades on the last day of every micro principles class I discussed the causes and effects of U.S. government sugar quotas. Government sugar quotas reduce the quantity of sugar that can be imported into the U.S., increasing the price of sugar. If the price of one substitute (sugar) rises, the demand for the other substitute (corn syrup) increases. As a result Americans consume more corn syrup which is harder to metabolize and easier to overconsume. Government sugar quota regulation thus increases obesity, and obesity-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

(p. D5) To clarify the effects of our high-sugar diet, I consulted an expert, Kimber L. Stanhope, a researcher in nutritional biology at the University of California, Davis, whose work is free of industry support and funded primarily by the National Institutes of Health. In a comprehensive 34-page review of research published in Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences in 2016, she linked consumption of added sugar to metabolic disease — cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease — as well as high blood levels of uric acid, a risk factor for kidney stones and gout.

In studies done in her lab among young adults consuming their normal diets, the risk for developing heart disease and kidney stones rose in direct proportion to the amount of high-fructose corn syrup they consumed.

. . .

“Fructose and glucose are not metabolized the same way in the human body,” which can account for the adverse effects of fructose, Dr. Stanhope said. Glucose is metabolized in cells throughout the body and used for energy. Fructose is metabolized in the liver, resulting in fat production and raising the risk of heart and fatty-liver disease. In addition, she explained, “fructose doesn’t stimulate the satiety-promoting substance leptin,” prompting some people to overconsume it, especially in soft drinks containing high-fructose corn syrup, and other tempting foods as well.

For the full story see:

Jane E. Brody. “The Sharp Bite of a Sweet Tooth.” The New York Times (Tuesday, July 23, 2019 [sic]): D5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 22, 2019 [sic], and has the title “The Downside of Having a Sweet Tooth.”)

The review article on the effect of sugar consumption on metabolism and obesity, mentioned above, is:

Stanhope, Kimber L. “Sugar Consumption, Metabolic Disease and Obesity: The State of the Controversy.” Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences 53, no. 1 (2016): 52-67.

Rationality-Defender Stigler Saw Voting as Irrational, but Did It Anyway

Nobel Prize winner George Stigler contributed to the Public Choice literature and was a staunch defender of rationality. One example would be his paper with Gary Becker, “De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.” One popular, much discussed conclusion of some public choice theorists is that it is irrational to vote. The argument goes that the marginal effect of one vote is almost always miniscule, so the expected benefit to the voter is equally miniscule. On the other hand, the time and effort it takes to vote are always more than miniscule. So the expected costs of voting exceed the expected benefits. Ergo it is irrational to vote. When I was a graduate student, taking courses in philosophy and economics, and for a couple of years as a post-doctoral fellow, I frequently stopped by the office of the Journal of Political Economy where Stigler was an editor. I believe it was there that I heard Stigler, definitely on an election day, say “Here I go to do something irrational.”

Stigler is well-known for his humorous biting comments. These could be tough on others. But this story shows that they also could be directed at himself.

I do not know if anyone has fully solved the paradox of the irrationality of voting. I guess you would have to say something about how the effects of all good people ceasing to vote would be far from marginal and far from good.

I once mentioned to distinguished Public Choice theorist Dwight Lee that a positive result of the personal benefits of voting being miniscule to a voter, is that the voter was freed from voting their personal narrow self-interest, and could vote their conscience about what served the general good. (Maybe something like what Rawls hoped for behind his “veil of ignorance” in A Theory of Justice.) I believe that Dwight told me that he already published a paper that expressed this positive result, but I never took the time to look for that paper.

Milton Friedman Bubbled with Energy as He Grabbed His Sunday New York Times

During my first year in graduate school at the University of Chicago, I lived in a dorm for graduate students that had been built with money from John D. Rockefeller. It was next to a several story apartment tower that I had heard was built by Milton Friedman who owned and lived in the top apartment. On Sunday mornings, on more than one occasion, I remember Friedman used to bounce down the hallway of International House and go up to the mail counter, which always had a pile of The Sunday New York Times for sale. He would buy one, and bounce back down the hallway. Friedman was curious, energetic, optimistic, and engaged in the broad world of policy. A libertarian who wants to move the intellectual consensus, benefits from reading The New York Times.

$700 Million Deployed for Harris by an “Elusive” Expert on Randomized Clinical-Trials

“The biggest super PAC in American politics” (p. 1) is spending $700 million on ads to elect Harris, more than the combined expenditures of both the official campaign of Harris and the official campaign of Trump (p. 1). “Leading the group” (p. 19) is an “elusive” PhD named Chauncy McLean, who has “ascended in the party by displaying encyclopedic knowledge of randomized controlled-trials” (p. 19). If Harris wins will that be more due to her overwhelming advantage in funding or more due to the methods used to spend the funds? (Or will the results depend more on how much Americans remember the record of Trump compared to how much they remember the record of Biden-Harris?)

For the full story see:

Theodore Schleifer and Shane Goldmacher. “Super PAC Places $700 Million Bet On Harris’s Bid.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, October 20, 2024): 1 & 19.

“Mass Deportation” Is Not in Trump’s Heart, but Is a Warning to Future Illegal Aliens

I am stressed by the image of the “mass deportation” of those who entered the U.S. illegally, but otherwise have been decent hard-working people. My plausible hope is that deep in his heart, Trump does not really mean it or plan it. Why “plausible”? Read the passage quoted below describing Trump’s visit with The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

At this year’s Republican National Convention, Mr. Trump vowed to undertake “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” Editorial board member Kyle Peterson asks how large—does Mr. Trump intend to deport aliens who are law-abiding except for their illegal presence in the country, even if they have American spouses and children? Maybe not, Mr. Trump says: “We have a lot of good people in this country, and we have to do something about it, and I’d like to see if we can do it.”

Pressed for specifics, he demurs: “Well, I don’t want to go too much into clarification, because the nicer I become, the more people that come over illegally.” When he was president, “I said, ‘We’re going to separate your family.’ . . . It doesn’t sound nice, but when a family hears they’re going to be separated, you know what they do? They stay where they are, because we couldn’t handle it. . . . But the interest from the heart, yeah, something’s going to be done. . . . I mean, there’s some human questions that get in the way of being perfect, and we have to have the heart, too. OK?”

The implication is that the optimal immigration policy is a happy medium between restriction and openness. That’s certainly true and perhaps a truism. Mr. Trump suggests that he, the bully with a heart of gold, is just the man to strike the balance.

For the full commentary/interview see:

James Taranto. “The Weekend Interview; Trump Tangles With the Journal’s Editors.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, October 18, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses in original.)

Europeans Tire of Costly and Ineffective Climate Transition Policies

(p. A15) The 2015 Paris Agreement aspired to “reduce the risks and impacts of climate change” by eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions in the latter half of this century. The centerpiece of the strategy was a global transition to low-emission energy systems.

. . .

U.S. and European governments are trying to induce an energy transition by building or expanding organizations and programs favoring particular “clean” technologies, including wind and solar generation, carbon capture, hydrogen production and vehicle electrification. Promoting technological innovation is a worthy endeavor, but such efforts face serious challenges as costs and disruptions grow without tangible progress in reducing local, let alone global, emissions. Retreats from aggressive goals are already under way in Europe, with clear signs of mandate fatigue. The climbdown will be slower in the U.S., where subsidies create constituencies that make it more difficult to reverse course.

. . . It means that today’s ineffective, inefficient, and ill-considered climate-mitigation strategies will be abandoned, making room for a more thoughtful and informed approach to responsibly providing for the world’s energy needs.

For the full commentary see:

Steven E. Koonin. “The ‘Climate Crisis’ Fades Out.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, June 11, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 10, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

Koonin’s commentary, quoted above, is related to his book:

Koonin, Steven E. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2021.

Libertarian Economist Thomas Sowell Praises Trump’s “Defiant Response to Being Shot At”

(p. A13) Although the attempt to assassinate Donald Trump failed, it was part of a long and growing pattern of threats and violence that can be fatal to American society.

. . .

Over the years, too many people have used too many clever words to play down threats and violence. “No justice, no peace” has been one of the more fashionable phrases.

. . .

If one side keeps getting away with threats and violence, it is only a matter of time before their opponents also start using threats and violence. At that point, whatever they initially disagreed about is no longer the issue. It is now a question of revenge and counter-revenge, especially for unforgivable acts on both sides. And no compromise on the original issues can stop that.

If anything positive can be salvaged from this ominous attempt on Donald Trump’s life, it may be his defiant response to being shot at. It may be important to let foreign enemies know that there are still some strong American leaders that they may have to deal with.

For the full commentary see:

Thomas Sowell. “Lessons of the Attack on Trump.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, July 16, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 15, 2024, and has the title “Lessons of the Trump Assassination Attempt.”)

A Founding Manager (aka Project Entrepreneur) Has the Motivation, Knowledge, and Power to Keep His Firm Innovative

In my Openness book, I discuss “project entrepreneurs” who overlap considerably with what is called “founder mode” in the commentary quoted below.

(p. B4) People like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs at times seemed to have a je ne sais quoi that allowed them to act and behave as leaders of their companies in ways that would have tripped up mere mortals.

This past week, Silicon Valley put a name to it: “Founder Mode.”

It’s a term coined by Paul Graham, co-founder of Y Combinator, an influential startup incubator in the San Francisco Bay Area. He wrote an essay this month gaining a lot of attention in tech circles that pits his “Founder Mode” against what he calls “Manager Mode.”

Graham tries to put his finger on the special relationship entrepreneurs have with their companies that he argues outsiders just lack.

. . .

In a podcast late last year, Chesky, who co-founded Airbnb originally as AirBed and Breakfast, talked about the three traits he said better equip a company’s founder over an outside manager.

“They’re the biological parent—you can love something but when you’re the biological parent of something, like, it came from you, it is you, there’s a deep passion and love,” Chesky said. “The second thing a founder has is they have the permission…like I can’t tell another child what to do but if they were my child I probably could.”

This empowers a founder to make dramatic changes, such as rebranding.

And finally, according to Chesky, a founder knows how the company was built in the first place. “You know how to rebuild it, you know the freezing temperature of a company, you know at what temperature it melts,” he said.

. . .

Before publishing his essay, Graham ran it by a few tech titans, including Musk. After it was published, Musk weighed in on X with his own endorsement: “Worth reading.”

For the full commentary see:

Tim Higgins. “Micromanaging Is Cool Again in Tech.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Sept. 9, 2024): B4.

(Note: ellipses between paragraphs added; ellipsis within paragraph in original.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date September 7, 2024, and has the title “With ‘Founder Mode,’ Silicon Valley Makes Micromanaging Cool.” The French phrase is italicized in the print version.)

My book, mentioned above, is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Musk Will Downsize Government and “Remove Absurd Regulations”

(p. B4) If Elon Musk becomes chief red-tape cutter in a second Trump administration, he is already giving a taste of what’s to come.

. . .

. . ., he often talks about how regulations can be like little strings that collectively tie down a giant like Gulliver, and strip us of our freedoms.

. . .

A Trump victory could give the country, according to Musk, a rare opportunity to clean house unseen since the Reagan administration’s massive deregulation effort.

“It’s been a long time since there was a serious effort to reduce the size of government and to remove absurd regulations,” Musk said during an appearance this month at the “All-In Podcast” conference.

While he skirted what exactly he would do, Musk made it clear that the EPA was the kind of agency on his mind. He pointed to a proposed fine of about $148,000 by the EPA announced this month over claims of SpaceX improperly discharging deluge water and spilling liquid oxygen at its South Texas launchpad.

Musk called it an example of “irrational regulation” and compared the company’s actions to dumping drinking water on the ground. “There was no actual harm done,” he said. “It was just water to cool the launchpad during lift off.”

. . .

Neuralink announced a regulatory win this past week. Musk’s brain-implant company said the Food and Drug Administration had awarded its experimental Blindsight microchip, which aims to restore sight, a special designation intended for medical devices aimed at treating life-threatening or irreversible debilitating conditions.

If successful, it sounds like the stuff out of TV’s “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

“Provided the visual cortex is intact, it will even enable those who have been blind from birth to see for the first time,” Musk said this past week.

It is those kinds of advancements that excite his fans and why it can be so hard to rein him in amid public support.

For the full commentary see:

Tim Higgins. “As Musk Picks Fights, Stakes Are Rising.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Sept. 23, 2024): B4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date September 21, 2024, and has the title “The Fight Elon Musk Is Ready to Pick in a Trump Administration.”)