Category: Public Choice

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.”)

For Nov. 5 Vote Diamond Ponders Deregulation of Entrepreneurs, Survival of Israel, Defense of Freedom of Speech

Art Diamond on 9/26/24 with red Nebraska sign.

I requested a red Nebraska sign that was delivered yesterday. Our Omaha district is sometimes called “the blue dot” because it sometimes votes against the rest of red Nebraska. To decide what to do on Nov. 5, I mostly ask three questions. Who will most reduce regulations so that entrepreneurs can create the goods and services that allow us to flourish? Who will stand firm for the survival of the freedom sanctuary that is Israel? And especially, who will stand firm for the nonpoliticized rule of law and for freedom of speech?

Patient-Reported Health Information Deserves Respect

Patients may have more accurate knowledge of their health than the information found in doctors’ blood tests, as reported in the study summarized below. The credibility of patient self-knowledge provides an added reason, besides respect for freedom, why government should not mandate an individual’s food and drug decisions.

(p. D4) . . . a . . . study . . . suggests that how patients say they feel may be a better predictor of health than objective measures like a blood test. The study, published in Psychoneuroendocrinology, used data from 1,500 people who took part in the Texas City Stress and Health Study, which tracked the stress and health levels of people living near Houston.

. . .

The study found that when people said they felt poorly, they had high virus and inflammation levels. People who reported feeling well had low virus and inflammation levels.

“I think the take-home message is that self-reported health matters,” said Christopher P. Fagundes, an assistant psychology professor at Rice University and a co-author of the study. “Physicians should pay close to attention to their patients. There are likely biological mechanisms underlying why they feel their health is poor.”

For the full story see:

Tara Parker-Pope. “Doctors, Listen to Patients.” The New York Times (Tuesday, July 19, 2016 [sic]): D4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 15, 2016 [sic], and has the title “Doctors Should Listen to Patient Instincts.”)

The academic paper co-authored by Fagundes and mentioned above is:

Murdock, Kyle W., Christopher P. Fagundes, M. Kristen Peek, Vansh Vohra, and Raymond P. Stowe. “The Effect of Self-Reported Health on Latent Herpesvirus Reactivation and Inflammation in an Ethnically Diverse Sample.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 72 (Oct. 2016): 113-18.

So-Called “Progressives” Block Progress Toward School Choice

(p. A15) I was wrong to think that Democrats would support school choice to help their constituents out of poverty. Although polling consistently shows that a majority of minority parents want school choice, progressive politicians consistently oppose all such programs.

To understand why, consider who’s funding their campaigns: teachers unions. For unions, choice means competition, and urban public schools with low proficiency ratings can’t compete. Unions know the only way to keep their political power is to keep children trapped in failing schools. Give parents access to other educational options, and they’ll ditch the schools that take them for granted.

. . .

I have discussed school choice with Mr. Trump, and I’m encouraged by what he said. I’m likewise impressed by his actions to advance the cause in real time—namely, by endorsing several of the pro-school choice Republicans in Texas’s legislative primaries. If Mr. Trump uses his bully pulpit to build support for school choice across the country, as he did in Texas, I believe he’ll help improve the lives of many generations of Americans.

I’ve never given financial support to Mr. Trump’s campaign, and I don’t plan to. But on the issue I care about most deeply, the stakes are high.  . . .  . . . the choice is clear.

For the full commentary see:

Jeff Yass. “Trump Is Best for School Choice, Even if I Won’t Donate to Him.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, April 9, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 8, 2024, and has the title “Trump Is Best for School Choice, Even if I Won’t Donate to His Campaign.”)

Conservatives Are Better Than Liberals at “the Separation of Facts from Feelings”

(p. A13) I don’t know who’s going to win the presidential election, and neither do you. Neither, for that matter, does Nate Silver, notwithstanding his reputation as a political prognosticator. He is more accurately characterized as a forecaster, which is to say that he deals in probabilities, not outright predictions.

. . .

. . . since I first encountered his work in 2009, Mr. Silver has always struck me as an honest practitioner. Although he describes himself as a “center-left liberal,” he frequently provokes antagonism from fellow liberals when his data and analysis point in directions they’d rather not go.

. . .

Mr. Silver’s career as a political pundit is something of an accident. After earning a bachelor’s degree in economics at the University of Chicago in 2000, he went to work as a KPMG consultant. Bored with his job, he started playing online poker, at first for fun. He says he “eventually deposited money at a real-money site and ran it up from 25 bucks to 15,000 bucks.” He quit KPMG and got a part-time job writing about baseball statistics, but 80% of his income came from poker winnings.

Then in 2006 Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which effectively banned online poker by making it unlawful for the sites to accept payments. “That killed my livelihood,” Mr. Silver says. “I started following politics. I had more time on my hands. I also wanted to see the people behind the bill ousted from office, which they were.” Its primary sponsor, Rep. Jim Leach (R., Iowa), lost his bid for a 16th term.

Mr. Silver still plays poker semiprofessionally—in person—and has earned $855,800 in tournaments, according to the Hendon Mob database. He has a new book out next week, “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything,” in which he interviews professional gamblers, venture capitalists, adventurers and others known for their “mastery of risk” and develops a philosophical framework around their insights.

The book touches only lightly on politics, but some of its concepts have obvious application. One of them is “decoupling,” which means, roughly, thinking with analytical detachment, including the separation of facts from feelings. Journalists used to call it objectivity, an aspiration that has fallen out of fashion in recent decades, especially in the Trump era.

A failure to decouple explains the widespread denial of Mr. Biden’s decline in the months before his withdrawal. Clear evidence became mistakable when distorted through the lenses of partisanship, ideology and antipathy toward Mr. Trump. There is no reason to believe people on the left are intrinsically more prone to this sort of error, but Mr. Silver thinks that “liberal bubbles are bigger than conservative bubbles.” Domination of big cities and influential institutions makes it easier for those on the left simply to ignore opposing views.

For the full interview see:

James Taranto. “The Weekend Interview; President Kamala Harris? What Are the Odds?” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Aug 10, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the interview has the date August 9, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

The “new book” by Silver mentioned above is:

Silver, Nate. On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything. New York: The Penguin Press, 2024.

Governments Often Deliver “Horrible Ideas Executed Terribly”

(p. A15) After the $320 million floating fiasco ran aground, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance tweeted: “The Gaza pier is a symbol of the Biden administration. A horrible idea executed terribly.”

. . .

Government is bad for your health. Whose idea was it to pay for gain-of-function research in Wuhan? Remember when the Food and Drug Administration delayed the rollout of Covid tests by, among other things, requiring applications on CD-ROMs? In 2020! The FDA interference, according to a Yale Law Journal 2020 Forum, was “possibly the deadliest regulatory overreach in U.S. history.”

. . .

Between the Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan, the Paycheck Protection Program and the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program, the FBI reports almost $300 billion in fraud. It was so easy, tens of thousands reportedly filed applications from jail.

. . .

Why are governments so bad at execution? Accountability and incentives. There are no prices or profits, just elusive cost benefits estimated in simple spreadsheets any first-year investment banker could fudge.

But these public-works projects are well intentioned, right? Hardly. Good luck finding all the hidden agendas, political back scratching and paid-off donors. Or, in the case of student loans, bribes to voters. Getting re-elected is how politicians measure the success of government work vs. private-sector profits.

Those profits from each private-sector project or product provide capital that pays for the next important project. In perpetuity. Profits also provide guidance to markets that fund great ideas and kill off bad ones. It’s Darwinism vs. kleptocracy. Sadly, politicians and industrial policy will always fund dumb things like electric-vehicle chargers, high-speed rail and Neom—horrible ideas executed terribly.

For the full commentary see:

Andy Kessler. “Your Government at Work.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, June 10, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 9, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

Pious Climate “Scare Tactics” Lead to Despondency and Bad Policy

(p. A15) Whatever happened to polar bears? They used to be all climate campaigners could talk about, but now they’re essentially absent from headlines. Over the past 20 years, climate activists have elevated various stories of climate catastrophe, then quietly dropped them without apology when the opposing evidence becomes overwhelming. The only constant is the scare tactics.

. . .

After years of misrepresentation, it finally became impossible to ignore the mountain of evidence showing that the global polar-bear population has increased substantially.

. . .

For the past three years the Great Barrier Reef has had more coral cover than at any point since records began in 1986, with 2024 setting a new record.

. . .

Today, killer heat waves are the new climate horror story. In July President Biden claimed “extreme heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the United States.”

He is wrong by a factor of 25. While extreme heat kills nearly 6,000 Americans each year, cold kills 152,000, of which 12,000 die from extreme cold. Even including deaths from moderate heat, the toll comes to less than 10,000. Despite rising temperatures, age-standardized extreme-heat deaths have actually declined in the U.S. by almost 10% a decade and globally by even more, largely because the world is growing more prosperous. That allows more people to afford air-conditioners and other technology that protects them from the heat.

. . .

Scare tactics leave everyone—especially young people—distressed and despondent. Fear leads to poor policy choices that further frustrate the public. And the ever-changing narrative of disasters erodes public trust.

Telling half-truths while piously pretending to “follow the science” benefits activists with their fundraising, generates clicks for media outlets, and helps climate-concerned politicians rally their bases. But it leaves all of us poorly informed and worse off.

For the full commentary see:

Bjorn Lomborg. “Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Aug. 1, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 31, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

Nock Taught Buckley that Members of the “Remnant” Can Save the World

I was taught about the remnant by Ben Rogge, my mentor at Wabash College. When I find hope ebbing, I remind myself of Nock’s story, as briefly distilled by Rogge.

(p. A13) It isn’t a backhanded compliment to say that the funniest show on television this week—or any in recent memory—is “The Incomparable Mr. Buckley.” The “American Masters” production does its ostensible duty, exploring the origins, education and machinations of William F. Buckley Jr. as an architect of American conservatism. But his wit is so sharp, his ripostes so surgical, and his extemporaneous bons mots so witheringly droll that the humor, as well as anything else, explains not just his long and lasting popularity but his ability to charm the opposition.

. . .

The Buckley family story is a tale well told in this almost two-hour production, . . .

. . .

The Buckley money came from William Sr.’s oil explorations in Mexico and he established the family dynasty at Great Elm, the Connecticut estate where William Jr. and his nine siblings were not only raised but educated. It was an idyllic upbringing, influenced by the thinking of ur-libertarian Albert Jay Nock, who was a frequent guest at Great Elm and believed that “The Remnant,” a small minority of enlightened and educable individuals, would be the inheritors and saviors of society. That Buckley perceived himself as being part of that remnant was never a question. Call it perverse, but it was part of his charm.

For the full review see:

John Anderson. “TELEVISION REVIEW; William F. Buckley’s Wit and Wisdom.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, April 3, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date April 2, 2024, and has the title “TELEVISION REVIEW; ‘The Incomparable Mr. Buckley’ Review: Withering Wit and Wisdom.”)

Nock’s essay on the Remnant, mentioned above, has been reposted on the web:

Nock, Albert Jay. “Isaiah’s Job.” Atlantic Monthly 157, no. 6 (June 1936): 641-49.