Unforeseen Contingencies

Adventure report: Amidst the collapse...

2012-01-19T18:52:00.013-07:00

America's march to totalitarianism progresses, the Republican fiasco worsens, the world economy teeters on the brink (with war to follow), madness springs on all sides... but there are much more important matters at hand.

On 6th of January I ventured with Johanna Schoen, Jeff Ross, Mats Roing, and canine advance team Chaos and Luna on a climb of Baldy Peak (8914ft/2701m.) just north of Bozeman MT in the Bridger Mountains, via the Sypes Canyon route. Baldy is two summits south of Saddle Peak, on which I reported previously. To make a long story short, we had a great day of trekking. The trail was extremely icy. Everyone but me and the dogs wore Kahtoola Microspikes, (provided by Mats, who is a Kahtoola field tester). I wore a full set of 12 point crampons, and wasn't sorry at all. Without this gear the trail would have been nearly impassable. Between pads and toenails the dogs seemed to fend well enough au naturel.

Quick summary: it took us roughly 2 hours to get to the junction with the Foothills Trail, roughly 3 miles in. The climb became considerably colder and steeper beyond this point, and Johanna and Jeff turned back. Mats and I continued on, but it turns out that sitting through 6 sessions on health care and 12 hours of econometrics lectures at the AEA/ASSA Annual Meetings is not conducive to better climbing performance. I turned back around 3:30, since I was starting to flag. Mats forged on, summited, and raced down -- we finished together in the dark and drove back to our secret compound for beer, steak, and broccoli -- a post-ordeal fare of choice.

Great times, with great friends. OK, enough blather...on to the photos. Click on each for a better view.

Lower stretches: Mats and I are caught by mountain paparazzi:

Me, just below the junction. Johanna and Jeff are visible below.

Never mind me, look at the tree. Beautiful.

Mats

Baldy

Baldy summit

Tracks

Censorship: Coming Soon to an Internet Near You!

2012-01-18T12:00:00.003-07:00

The Importance of Bankruptcy

2012-01-11T09:33:00.005-07:00

I'm back in Montana after a successful conference.

Mitt Romney is under attack by Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Perry because as an investment banker and entrepreneur, he downsized and closed firms. His republican opponents are now demonizing him for "destroying jobs." Romney responds "President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation."

Ron Paul is an exception among the opponents, and observed that closing unproductive firms ultimately creates wealth and jobs on net. Apparently Rick Santorum (my least favorite among the GOP candidates) has also refused to attack Romney on this. Romney and Paul (and even Santorum!)are right. The only rationale for a business enterprise to exist is that it creates value, it systematically allocates resources in such a way as to maximize their value to the ultimate consumers. Otherwise it should be shut down.

This is not a principle of capitalism or of the free market, it is fundamental to all human societies -- don't do anything that isn't worth doing. The difference between free market capitalism and, say, Soviet socialism, is that capitalism has mechanisms for evaluating value -- prices, profit, and loss -- and for closing down or changing failing enterprises. Joseph Schumpeter called it "creative destruction," and without it no economic system can work well at all. The USSR did not have this -- there was no such thing as a Soviet firm closing because it was unproductive and destroying net value. That's why their system collapsed. One of the worst things about TARP and similar bailouts is that they shielded TBTF banks, such as Goldman Sachs, from the consequences of their bad decisions and instead "socialized the losses" while keeping profits private. Blocking creative destruction is a guaranteed way to ruin an economy.

That Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry are endorsing socialist principles in their desperate attempts to take down Romney shows how utterly unprincipled, despicable, and unfit for office they are.

Update: There are quite a number of op-eds on this issue now, most of them seem to be defending Gingrich et al. and mocking the idea this position is at all "socialist." This drivel from E.J. Dionne is typical ("the critique can't be socialist because, after all, Rick Perry is a 'conservative.' QED") But here's an excellent one that actually gets the economics right, a WaPo op-ed from Kathleen Parker. Right on target! If the government is going to get involved in deciding who may and may not be fired, when a business may and may not be closed, etc. it is central planning -- which is what socialism really is. So yes, E.J., Gingrich, Perry, and Huntsman are endorsing socialist principles.

Another post from Chicago

2012-01-07T21:43:00.006-07:00

Greetings from Chicago.

I continue to follow panels on health care economics. The most interesting presentation I've heard today was, oddly enough, given at two consecutive panels. I've never heard of one paper being given twice, and I suppose it is mostly a very bad idea, but this one was worth hearing twice. Amitabh Chandra of Harvard outlined Chandra and Staiger's "Expertise, Underuse, and Overuse in Healthcare." The gist: It's been known for quite some time that there are often important regional differences in the rates of use of particular medical treatments, controlling for severity of problems under consideration. This study examines differential rates of uses of procedures across hospitals and considers 3 explanations: overuse, underuse, and expertise. In essence, some hospitals might be under-or-overusing a procedure for some reason, or maybe some hospitals have unusual competence at the procedure and hence justly use it more. Really interesting and disturbing results: there's good evidence of both overuse and expertise explanations. Among other things, this implies that standardizing treatments could be quite dangerous.

This is an area I find extremely interesting for several reasons. First, because of my family's extensive background in medicine and my own experience, I've come to appreciate the idiosyncratic nature of "what works." I’m quite convinced of the importance of evidence-based medicine, but skeptical of one-size-fits-all prescriptions, particularly from the standpoint of the provider. It's clear that two different patients with the same complaint might respond differently to a particular treatment. But even with a single patient, it is not at all clear that two different providers should use the same treatment. If Dr. A is unusually good at providing treatment X and Dr. B at treatment Y, both of which will address the problem, it's unclear that there’s a single "best" protocol that a central authority can prescribe. This ought to be obvious from basic economics (ever see an isoquant?); Chandra and Staiger put empirical teeth in this observation.

BTW, Chandra is the economist whose banana comment I critiqued in yesterday's post. To be clear, his discussion comments yesterday were particularly perceptive (he argued rather convincingly that ACA subsidies can't reasonably substitute for an individual mandate).

Meanwhile, once again Occupy the AEA made its presence felt. At least 15 of them marched along Wacker chanting "Ho, ho, hey, hey! Occupy the AEA!" and waving some poorly made signs. The only sign that wasn't hand scrawled on scratch paper had a picture of Alan Greenspan with the caption "I was wrong." I’m doubtful that anyone at the conference finds this much of a challenge to their beliefs. The Occupy AEA flyer (pictured above) denounces such a strange caricature of economics that seems rather far removed from what most economists believe and discuss at these meetings. But then, what would occupying the AEA mean anyway? AEA isn’t a space one can occupy. Maybe they intend to enroll as members?

Economists walking the other direction outnumbered them about 3 to 1, and again seemed largely unaware that this was a protest directed at them.

Simon Johnson on Ron Paul

2012-01-06T23:50:00.001-07:00

Simon Johnson just posted a very thoughtful & fair analysis of Ron Paul's views on money and banking. It's worth your time.

AEA in Chicago

2012-01-06T23:02:00.004-07:00

Greetings from the 2012 AEA/ASSA. This year’s meetings are being held in Chicago, one of my least favorite places to visit. I don't find Chicago very interesting or scenic...although I admit I did get a kick out of these crazy loons. I estimate there were 15 to 20 "occupiers," although a friend claims she saw as many as 30. (I'm told there are 25,000 economists in attendance here. That seems rather high to me, but it will give you an idea of the scale of things. I was particularly amused that the "occupiers" were berating a crowd of economists walking by who were mostly East Asians of apparently limited English skills, and clearly oblivious to the show. But there’s no point in complaining about facilities, locale, and locals; let’s get down to business.

I sat in on an interesting panel this morning that discussed evidence on demand-side effects of the 2006 Massachusetts insurance reform, "Romneycare." Since the MA approach is similar in some respects to the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA, "Obamacare"), it seems likely that the United States is going to have some variant of this, regardless of the outcome of the 2012 elections. So what did I learn?

There’s evidence that coverage of children marginally increased, there was probably a small reduction in ER visits, there seems to have been little effect on premiums for group health insurance, while non-group premiums were reduced... nothing very surprising. One conclusion is that there's no particular reason to think the Massachusetts reform, or ACA for that matter, will have any effect of reducing health care spending, or increases thereof.

To me, the most interesting results were evidence that suggest the individual mandate is crucial for preventing adverse selection – there’s very strong evidence that the mandate brought healthier people into the insurance pool. There’s also evidence that subsidizing insurance cannot compensate for absence of the mandate, and certainly not at the levels provided in ACA. Implication: if SCOTUS rules that the individual mandate in ACA is unconstitutional and separable, expect adverse selection to plague the program. No one was prepared to guesstimate the severity of adverse selection, but there was discussion of how to go about it.

One thing I noticed throughout this and a second session on demand-side effects of insurance reform is that the researchers are quite technically competent and careful, yet also seem almost entirely unaware of issues beyond insurance design. The attitude seemed to be that when SCOTUS rules on ACA, the only question should be whether the insurance is designed properly. In fact, that's not an issue for the Supreme Court. Despite explicit criticism from one discussant, the issue really is "if the government can make us buy insurance today, it can make us eat bananas tomorrow.” (His last slide showed a banana with a caption "First, let's kill all the economists.") Economics shows that without the mandate the insurance reform won’t work, fair enough. But economics also shows that governments are not maximizers of social welfare who step in to correct market failure. Governments do need to be carefully constrained, because any power given to government can and probably will be misused. Identifying some good that might be attained by granting a power is not sufficient to justify granting that power. What are the negative consequences of granting the power? How might it be abused? Where is the barrier to mandatory bananas, after all?

To bring this home, consider that the federal government just passed, and Obama signed into law, the Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Provisions in this bill effectively allows the president to have anyone in the world arrested and detained, permanently, without judicial oversight. Sure, it’s just for terrorists, so who could disagree? [Answer: anyone who understands that the intentions of lawmakers are not the same as the results a law achieves, and that self-interested governments will use powers to their own ends, not just to "maximize social welfare." You’d guess that economists would understand that, wouldn't you?]

More from the meetings tomorrow.

P.S. I don't have a link handy, but Ezra Klein of the Washington Post had a dandy short history of the proposal for an individual mandate. It was largely a Republican position, and the list of GOP lawmakers who at one time proposed or endorsed it was really something to see. These are the same government officials who are supposed to be maximizing social welfare. This is clear evidence that their interests lie almost entirely elsewhere.

Update: This isn't the history I mention above, but it's a nice list of Republicans for individual mandate nevertheless.

Primary analyses: An American Tragedy

2012-01-05T11:22:00.008-07:00

Here are some analyses of the primaries that strike me as particularly perceptive, and worth reading. I provide a bit of commentary on each, but my basic reaction -- what a tragic thing to happen to America. (Special thanks to Keith C. for pointing out the Salon and Taibbi pieces to me.)

CLS of the Classically Liberal blog takes a very careful and thoughtful look at entrance poll data from the Republican caucuses in Iowa. I think he's exactly on target regarding Rick Santorum, and his interpretation of the Ron Paul results seems right to me. There's a real tragedy going on, IMO. The strong Ron Paul showing really indicates that there's a serious libertarian constituency: anti-war, pro-civil liberties, economic freedom, smaller government, opposed to bigotry and discrimination. Ron Paul is really the only candidate in the fight who could possibly appeal to it, but he's not a good standard bearer at all, because he's really a social conservative with libertarian leanings, and unfortunate ties to the Lew Rockwell cult, which he refuses to abandon.

Historians Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg expose the hypocrisy and ultimate irrelevance of Iowa's religious "values voters" in this Salon piece. They have a particularly insightful characterization of Santorum supporters: "You choose a president not because he is best equipped or qualified for the job, but because his 'family-oriented' positions make him the most qualified. As the nation’s chief executive, Santorum would keep Jesus in Christmas, and everything else good will flow from there." I think most of their essay is on target, although I disagree that "our values are disappearing..." or that the "Citizens' United" decision threatens liberty and democracy. A far, far greater threat is the just-signed National Defense Authorization Act, which, as Anthony Romero of the ACLU puts it, "It contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. And it has no time or geographic limits. It can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." He correctly calls it "outrageous" and "unconstitutional and illegal." I think most Americans are disgusted with much of the mercantilism, increases and abuses of government power, losses of civil liberties, fiscal irresponsibility, and perpetual war that both parties are bringing us. But where are the "values voters" on these issues? Missing in action.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald takes progressives to task for their hypocrisy on many of these issues. He correctly identifies what is right and hopeful about the Ron Paul campaign, while sensibly recognizing its flaws. The Democrats have largely avoided looking bad of late, merely because while Republicans have been busy making making asses of themselves, the Dems have remained silent, except to criticize. Greenwald exposes the deep dishonesty behind their silence and posturing.

Finally, Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone makes a strong case case that this whole primary sideshow is a meaningless charade. As he puts it, "This caucus, let’s face it, marks the beginning of a long, rigidly-controlled, carefully choreographed process that is really designed to do two things: weed out dangerous minority opinions, and award power to the candidate who least offends the public while he goes about his primary job of energetically representing establishment interests." And "this presidential race now feels like a banal bureaucratic sideshow to the real event – the real event being a looming confrontation between huge masses of disaffected citizens on both sides of the aisle, and a corrupt and increasingly ideologically bankrupt political establishment, represented in large part by the two parties dominating this race." I think he's largely right. And the "huge masses of disaffected citizens on both sides of the aisle" suggest our values are not disappearing. Unfortunately, the Iowa religious voters do inject a measure of dangerous theocracy into the debates by promoting the likes of Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, and now Rick Santorum -- theocrats who would happily alter the Constitution to impose fundamentalist Christianity as the law of the land. "Values voters" have nothing to do with actual values; they are America's Taliban.

Of course, Der Spiegel had beat all of these to the punch by identifying the field asA Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses. Largely correct, although I strongly disgree with the charge that Herman Cain and Mitt Romney were "job-killers." Preserving failing businesses and business models, creating negative value added (i.e. earning losses rather than profits), and the like are guaranteed ways to destroy wealth and jobs, not preserve them. How odd that Der Spiegel would actually anticipate and endorse Newt Gingrich's crazy and hypocritical economics.

But the bottom line is...the primaries: ugh.

Photo: The Republican hopefuls during a break in a recent debate?

Adventure Report: Saddle Peak But No Summit

2012-01-04T20:46:00.013-07:00

Again I will be blogging from the AEA Annual Meetings, this year in beautiful balmy Chicago. But my first adventure report of the year comes from the Bridger Mountains, just north of Bozeman MT, where today I attempted a climb of Saddle Peak (9162 ft/2793 m). I was accompanied by two enthusiastic friends, Chaos and Luna (see photos). There was more snow than I expected, and foolishly I had left my snowshoes behind. We moved up the trail (where we could find it) for three hours, and ended up at the little shelf before the last climb up to the Bostwicks. (Anyone who has run the Jim Bridger/Old Gabe 50K knows exactly where I mean, but for most readers...assuming I have readers...this is all gibberish.)

For the last hour I was breaking trail in snow up to my hips. The dogs even gave up trying to lead and simply walked in my footsteps. Eventually we began to wear down, and as the snow was increasing in depth, "we" decided to beat a slow retreat, stopping frequently to enjoy the scenery and pester a squirrel or two. I did use my crampons on the way down because of the icy trails lower in the canyon. I was a little out of shape anyway, owing to a nasty viral infection and fever over Christmas. This was a good start to the year, though.

There's now some talk that several of us will return next week, this time with snowshoes. If further adventure indeed ensues, it will be documented here.

Happy New Year!

Bridger Ridge

Chaos and Luna

Yerz troolie, Charles N. Steele

Dogs in my tracks

Squirrel!

Dog print in the snow

C-D Couloir

When Knowledge is better than Marriage!

2012-01-03T10:03:00.003-07:00

Here's a great news story I stumbled across in the Jordanian news service Al Bawaba. The gist is that a young woman in the Emirates found herself divorced with seven children and no decent means of support. Rather than marry any old suitor (she had a number of them) she instead struggled to hold her family together and pushed her children, especially her daughters, to become educated and independent; as she puts it "a degree is more important than the man; the degree will last them forever, but the man might not." Her daughters are now passing these lessons on to their own children.

This is how humans progress -- we acquire capital, especially human capital, and then pass it on to the next generation. This is how wealth is created, living standards improve, and civilization advances. It's neither automatic nor painless; it requires hard work and sacrifice of immediate gratifications, but it's the ultimate source of our progress.

I imagine this sort of of story disturbs the Taliban, modern evangelicals, and the like. To them, Mrs. Al Falahi "should" have subjected herself to traditional values and simply married another man...and taught her children to likewise remain ignorant and powerless. This story represents the triumph of Enlightenment values of reason and knowledge over blind subservience to pre-modern tradition and authority. But while it is really only a tiny "human interest" news item, barely even registering anywhere, it is non-events like these that really drive the advance of civilization. The world is a more hopeful place than our news stories are able to recognize.

Unforeseen Contingencies salutes Badriya Al Falahi and her family, and everyone who seeks to better themselves and the world through acquiring knowledge. Kudos to the editors of Al Bawaba for making this their "Editor's Choice."

Happy 2012!

2012-01-03T09:50:00.003-07:00

From our new compound hidden away in the wilds of Montana, Happy New Year from Unforeseen Contingencies!

Photo: Johanna Schoen and UC Blogger-in-Chief Charles N. Steele, 24 December 2011.

2012: Some Predictions

2011-12-31T14:45:00.007-07:00

"We" at Unforeseen Contingencies do not usually make annual predictions, but 2012 is a year that almost cries out for such. While we can't claim to have unusual abilities at forecasting, we can make a few educated guesses about what the future does and does not hold. Here are ten:

1. The various end-of-the-world predictions for 2012 will prove to be false. This one is easy. I have no idea why anyone would take the ancient Mayan calendar as an authority for anything, or why they'd put more faith in an invisible Planet X than in the complete absence of evidence for any such planet, or why they'd believe any of the other obviously silly doomsday arguments. But some do.

2. Someone in the "west" will engage in an overt military action against Iran. My "west" includes the U.S., Western Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates. (Pakistan doesn't count.) Overt action against on Iran includes attacks on the Iranian navy, but excludes cyberwarfare and infiltration by special forces (both of which are probably long since underway). So long as the Iranian nuclear program progresses and Iran acts in an increasingly belligerent fashion, conflict seems inevitable. If Hezbollah gets into another fight with Israel, I think this will also result in an Israeli attack on Iran. Conflict with Iran will not necessarily lead to an all-out Middle East war... but it might.

3. Barack Obama will win a second term, defeating Mitt Romney in a close race. I have gone out on a limb on this one, since Romney is not a shoe-in for the Republican nomination. But if Obama loses the election after the Republican fiascos we've seen in 2011 (the idiotic debt ceiling fight, the GOP opposition to payroll tax cuts, the primary circus) it will be entirely because of his own ineptitude. Republicans will stupidly conclude that they could have won had they "stuck to principle" and picked one of their crazy-coot conservatives, but in fact this would have resulted in an Obama landslide victory.

4. TBTF banks will increase in size and share of the financial sector. They are one of the biggest threats to the economy, and they are so well connected with both political parties that their position is "safe." (TBTF is by definition unsafe.) They'll continue to grow in power, in scope, and in "profitability," as they continue to suck the lifeblood from the economy.

5. The U.S. Supreme Court will fail to rule that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. There are several ways this might happen. They'll begin by hearing a challenge that the Anti-Injunction Act forbids them from considering the mandate until after it has gone into effect, and might agree. More likely, they'll simply agree that the mandate is within Congress' authority. The Republicans will snarl, but we'll never see any serious attempt to repeal the ACA.

6. The United States will make no progress in getting their debt problem under control. I admit it, with this one I'm just padding the list so I'll be guaranteed some hits. Might as well predict that the law of gravity will still be in effect in a year.

7. The Eurozone crisis will deepen. Greece will go bankrupt. Unless the Germans agree to subsidize the rest, the Eurozone as a monetary union will break up. In other words, I do not believe in the current fixes. And I doubt we'll see any genuine fix. But if you really want to see brilliant forecasting, read this old blog post from early 2006, in which Nouriel Roubini explains why the Eurozone crisis is coming.

8. China will undergo a sharp recession. China's real estate and infrastructure bubbles will pop sometime, and I'm predicting sooner rather than later.

9.India and Pakistan will go to the brink of war. And hopefully no farther. Pakistan is a basket-case of a state. It's almost certain that elements within the ISI had some role in organizing the Mumbai attacks in 2008, in protecting Bin Laden, and other terrorist activities. The Pakistani governing authorities seem to be at war with each other, but all share a deep fear of India and a fair amount of paranoia that the world is out to get them. It would not take a great deal for a renegade faction of ISI to "unite" the country by striking India and invoking a harsh Indian response. Crazy people with nuclear weapons...ugh.

10. The U.S. unemployment rate will be roughly unchanged at 9%. That I'm not predicting things to get much worse is something of a story in itself. Despite the inability of Americans to fix what's wrong here, turmoil in Europe, the Middle East/West Asia/Southern Asia, and China will keep the United States a safe haven for capital, and we'll muddle along.

I admit these are boring predictions...so here's one more that is interesting:

11. Scientists will announce discovery of life on a planet in another star system. In 2011 humans discovered earth-like planets in other systems for the first time. More will be found next year, and I predict that observation will reveal evidence of intelligent life.

Happy 2012!

Knowledge and the Future

2011-12-26T10:51:00.005-07:00

Knowledge is different from other goods. Unlike most goods, if one has knowledge and passes it to another, one doesn't have less. In fact, knowledge grows and becomes more valuable when more people have it, because they can add to and improve on it. One might even end up increasing one's own knowledge (you think I haven't learned from my students?) Hence, when one passes knowledge to another, one often increases the stock of knowledge by more than the amount of knowledge passed on...a phenomenon economists call increasing returns.

Therefore, anyone in the world with the motivation and the ability to learn ought to have the opportunity to do so. They ought to be able to access the best of the world's knowledge. Of course, that's not possible, right?

Here's what Susan Hockfield, President of MIT says: "...anyone in the world with the motivation and ability to engage MIT coursework should have the opportunity to attain the best MIT-based educational experience that Internet technology enables."

Wow! For some time, MIT has made available an excellent selection of online lectures and materials through their Open CourseWare program. They are now beginning to build an online learning initiative MITx, which will feature courses and certification for those completing them.

Some particularly interesting details from the MITx FAQ:

Who can take courses on MITx? Will there be an admission process?
As with OCW, the teaching materials on MITx will be available to anyone in the world for free, and in general, there will not be an admission process. However, credentials will be granted only to students who earn them by demonstrating mastery of the material of a subject.

In MITx, what will be free and what will cost money?
All of the teaching on the platform will be free of charge. Those who have the ability and motivation to demonstrate mastery of content can receive a credential for a modest fee.

What will it cost to get a credential for a given course?
MIT is in the process of determining a fee structure for individual courses and groups of courses. The aim is to make credentialing highly affordable.

"We" at Unforeseen Contingencies give a thunderous standing ovation to MIT for this work. We wish them the greatest of success. We predict that this is the wave of the future in education (well, one of them, anyway). And you can expect us to be studying "at" MIT ourselves!

Photo: "Knowledge mural in the Thomas Jefferson Building. The caption is

IGNORANCE IS THE CVRSE OF GOD
KNOWLEDGE IS THE WING
WHEREWITH WE FLY TO HEAVEN.

Ron Paul update

2011-12-26T09:59:00.002-07:00

Mainstream media finally managed to do some journalism regarding Ron Paul, his support among white supremacists, and the link with the Rothbard/Rockwell contingent. Credit the New York Times with getting the story. They even managed to do it without tarring all of libertarianism, too.

It's sad that it has to come to this, because what America and the world needs now is intelligent, informed, consistent libertarianism. These kinds of scandals do not help introduce liberty to new audiences. But it's necessary that these pseudo-libertarians be exposed, and if this is what it takes, so be it. I hope this continues -- as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Newt Gingrich and Stalin

2011-12-24T14:43:00.007-07:00

It's been hard for me to keep up with the developments of the GOP primary race, but the farther it goes the stranger it gets. It's now actually become scary. I would never, ever have imagined any American presidential candidate calling for ending an independent judiciary that bases decisions on law and evidence, and replacing it with one that takes orders from the president and congress, and can be arrested when it disobeys. But Newt Gingrich has called for just this. NYT blogger Andrew Rosenthal suggests we might just as well institute martial law. George Will accuses Gingrich of "sinister radicalism" and "impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power." Both are exactly right. And it should be obvious -- what Gingrich is demanding is a Soviet-style court system.

It's hard to know what to say, other than that I hope the Gingrich campaign goes down in flames, anyone who supports him is crazy, and if by some freak chance he's nominated articles of impeachment should be drawn up immediately for use in the nightmarish eventuality that he's elected. Once sworn in, he could then be immediately impeached, arrested, convicted, and locked up.

It's simply bizarre that the Republican Party has descended to such levels of madness. All their claims to favor limited government and strict interpretation of the Constitution are lies.

Poor Ron Paul

2011-12-22T15:46:00.004-07:00

Boo hoo hoo. He's at the top of his campaign, he's probably the best among the current leaders of the GOP, and he has no prayer of getting the nomination. And if somehow he did he'd have no chance of winning. He'd be utterly destroyed. Here's why:

He disavows the racist pieces in his newsletter, but won't disavow the likely author, Lew Rockwell, with whom he has a continued association. Imagine Barack Obama raising this issue with Paul during a debate. What would Paul do, stomp off?

Meanwhile, Walter Block argues that if one doesn't support Ron Paul, one isn't a libertarian. David Friedman does a nice job of dissecting this. (Thanks, Knud!)

Since Ron Paul really is not a libertarian, why would one's libertarian credentials hang on supporting him anyway?

Postscript: I note that Wolf Blitzer seems to think Gloria Borger was just doing tough, hard-hitting journalism. Actually all she does is ask the same stupid question over and over until Paul gets mad and storms off. And now Newt Gingrich follows up with the "hardhitting" question: "how much money did you make from the newsletters?" (A lot less than you took from Fannie Mae, Newt.)

Bah! Are public discussions no longer capable of following lines of reasoning? Since Paul denies knowing who wrote the newsletters, ask how big his staff was and who was on it. Ask who was in charge of editorial decisions. Or if this is too hard, why not just Google "Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters" and read this.

If someone really wants to, it shouldn't be hard to show that Ron Paul really does maintain connections with racist, homophobic, anti-American scoundrels.

Newt Gingrich, liar?

2011-12-09T13:03:00.003-07:00

Yes, and a corrupt one at that. Here's a dandy ad from Ron Paul that makes the case dramatically. I'm no Paulista, but RP is exactly on target with this. Among the front running Republicans, Paul is the only one with even a semblance of principle. And Gingrich is by far the most corrupt.

Enjoy.

Sam Harris on Violence and Self Defense

2011-12-05T18:55:00.002-07:00

Sam Harris has recently posted one of the finest pieces on self defense I've read in a very long time. There's no nonsense in it at all -- it's clear-headed and focused exactly on what is fundamental.

As he points out, one is justified in using deadly force when an enemy has signaled a threat, has the ability to carry it out, and has the opportunity... and one doesn't have a lower cost means of resolving the situation. Harris also does a nice job of explaining why neither non-resistance nor tough-guy approaches make sense. And he makes clear something I've pointed out before -- the job of the police is not to protect citizens from attack in progress, it's to investigate the aftermath.

I had just started reading Harris' The Moral Landscape, and wondered whether he had any of his thinking on ethics on his website. Finding this one is like finding a gold nugget.

Refreshing the Tree

2011-12-03T20:09:00.004-07:00

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Listen to this interview with Samra Naas of Libya. Her husband, Mohammed Nabbous, just received the Lyons Award for Integrity in Journalism from Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism...posthumously. The story is horrible, heartbreaking, and extremely beautiful.

So long as there are people like Nabbous, and Naas, and Mayar, there'll be freedom.

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

-- Robert Heinlein

Dark Matters

2011-11-13T20:43:00.001-07:00

Wow!

Dark Matters from PHD Comics on Vimeo.

Thomas DiLorenzo -- psyochopath?

2011-11-11T17:31:00.003-07:00

Apparently so.

Read his latest post on LRC, and then the definitions here and here.

Note to Mises Institute: it's not funny.

BREAKING NEWS!

2011-10-31T21:33:00.003-06:00

The founder, president, CEO, and Chief Blogger of Unforeseen Contingencies has finished his 11th Le Grizz 50 Mile Ultramarathon!

OK, not really breaking news, since it happened on October 8, but the finish line photo just arrived. Report will follow.

Photo: Chief blogger Steele makes a fashion statement, finishing with his new BadAss Le Grizz running gloves. Photo and caption courtesy Pat Caffrey.

A strange juxtaposition

2011-10-30T21:44:00.007-06:00

While I was looking at DiLorenzo's ranting (see previous post), I noticed something else on lewrockwell.com, something so jarring it almost defies belief. Here are the headlines of two articles they list side by side:"America is a Police State" and "Firearms Ownership Soars." Do these seem as mutually contradictory to you as they do to "us" here at Unforeseen Contingencies? There's no private ownership of firearms -- at least not legal ownership -- in a police state. (And in a police state, critics of the police state are not allowed to blog about it, but that's another matter.)

The juxtaposition of these articles is telling. As I've pointed out previously, religious belief can render one incapable of even rudimentary reasoning. This is a good example of that, and evidence that "Austro-libertarianism" is neither economic science nor principled libertarianism, but quasi-religious dogma.

Monsters? No, just the Mises Institute

2011-10-30T19:18:00.011-06:00

Indeed, it's the Rockwellians of the Mises Institute, being unusually venomous, even by their own fever swamp standards. I'm not sure what prompted Thomas DiLorenzo's latest outburst, but he accuses every American who served in Iraq and Afghanistan of mass murder and having been on a killing spree. In another post, he stupidly confuses Keynesianism with Soviet central planning.

But it's not just our friend Thomas D. Another LRC blogger laments that western capitalism is coming to Libya, replacing firms controlled by dictaor Qaddafi. (Wait, wait, wasn't that the central planning you guys claim to be against?) In the same post, he alleges the U.S. is invading Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia...(can he really be outraged that Obama is sending 100 trainers to help combat the Lord's Resistance Army? Has LRC sunk so low as to even make common cause with Joseph Kony???!!!)

The folks at LvMI have been livid about the death of Qaddafi. It was cold blooded murder by NATO according to Daniel McAdams. Lew Rockwell agrees it was first degree murder, but attributes it to Hillary Clinton, and also argues Barack Obama is a worse dictator than Qaddafi. (Lew, if Obama were a dictator, you would not be criticizing him in public -- you would be dead.)

I conjecture they are so angry because the NATO intervention went so well, and because their inane predictions that the U.S. would become trapped in a ground war proved laughably wrong. They also tend to regard anyone who opposes the United States as heroic, which puts them in very interesting company. (Of course, Rothbard celebrated when the communists took over South Vietnam, so why shouldn't the Rothbardians join the Marxist-Leninists and lament Qaddafi's demise?)

I make fun of these weirdos, but they are really not funny. They are a crazy, hate-filled band of lunatics, with no genuine regard for liberty or libertarianism, just hatred of the American state. You know, the one that brought down their beloved slave-holding Confederacy (a state itself, and an unusually nasty one at that, since it was founded to preserve chattel slavery). They are enemies of genuine liberty. Hmm...maybe they are monsters.

On the other hand, here is a genuinely thoughtful analysis of Qaddafi's demise by Simon Sebag Montefiore, chronicler of Stalin and his reign of terror. I agree with Montefiore, Qaddafi's demise was remarkably appropriate. As Montefiore puts it, "For someone who so thrived in the age of television, an impresario of many a circus of public violence, Colonel Qaddafi faced an entirely fitting end. When he asked his frenzied killers, who had known no other ruler in their lives, 'Do you not know the difference between right and wrong?' he had already taught them the answer. We may call this auto-tyrannicide."

Photo:The Creature from the Black Lagoon flees the fever swamp, after it realizes the Rockwellians have moved in.

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity?

2011-10-25T20:20:00.012-06:00

Here's something that is particularly for my American readers: Congress is currently considering H.R. 822, the proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill, if passed into law, would provide that a person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued by one state would be permitted to carry in other states with concealed carry laws, subject to those state laws.

Needless to say, The New York Times is in a tizzy, and has published an unusually ill-informed, misleading, and ultimately malicious op-ed by Frank Bruni attacking the bill. Go ahead and read Bruni's op-ed, and then read on here.

It's hardly an unexpected NYT op-ed. Every NYT writer is required to oppose private ownership of firearms. (Q: Did you ever see a pro-gun point of view represented there?) (A: No.)

Bruni manages to get everything wrong, and also manages to miss the interesting points. First, he misrepresents the bill ("lies about it" would be a more accurate way of putting it, but, we're trying to be civil here). The bill explicitly provides that reciprocity would only apply where states already authorize concealed carry, and that any state's restrictions on where weapons may be carried remain in effect.

Bruni also refers to "permissive gun control regulations," as if government decides whether or not to permit people to own firearms. That’s like saying we have "permissive" laws regarding free speech. We do not. Speech is a right, and government isn't allowed the power to take it from us. We are not "permitted" rights by government. We have rights, and we permit government to have certain limited powers. That’s definitely not a distinction without a difference, and it does apply directly to keeping and bearing arms -- in rights theory, in common law, and in the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS decisons. Bruni snarls derisively at this liberty; I can only gather he'd feel more at home in a police state, where government decides what "rights" it will "permit" its subjects to enjoy.

Bruni's references to people convicted of violent misdemeanors and chronic alcohol abuse are similarly dishonest. It is already illegal under federal law for these people to purchase firearms. There's no evidence Bruni did any real research at all before writing his rant.

The anti-gunners are entirely on the wrong side of the facts concerning violence, as well. Since the passage of "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws (40 U.S. states now have them), violent crime has systematically fallen, not increased. And repeated statistical analyses find violent crime falls in a jurisdiction when "shall issue" passes relative to neighboring jurisdictions without these laws. That doesn't prove a connection, but it is completely unreasonable to claim that these laws increase crime and violence...there’s simply no evidence of this. The evidence strongly suggests these laws help reduce crime.

There is an interesting issue here, but it is one the op-ed writer studiously avoids except to snarl at Republican sponsors of the bill. When and to what extent must states recognize each others' laws? The Loving v. Virginia case immediately comes to mind, in which one state (Virginia) tried to ignore a marriage license from another jurisdiction (District of Columbia) because interracial marriage wasn't recognized in Virginia law. In the case, SCOTUS forced Virginia to recognize D.C.'s marriage license. Interesting question...must a state recognize another state’s marriage licenses? Divorces? Driver's licenses? CCW licenses? Medical licenses? It really is an interesting and problematic issue. The reciprocity bill makes reference to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Is it more outrageous to refer to interstate commerce in carried firearms than to pretend that one is invoking the Commerce Clause when one requires that everyone must purchase health insurance? I think not.

In many respects the national reciprocity idea is extremely good. And there are also reasons why it might indeed be problematic. The real question, to me, is what are the proper bounds of federal power in any instance? And I do not have a set answer. I do think that critics of this bill, such as Bruni, have entirely misrepresented it for their own political purposes and are dodging the real issues.

Bruni mocks the idea that the current situation is potentially nightmarish for gunowners; here he is simply being stupid and insulting. An innocent gunowner trying to follow local laws can easily run afoul of the confused mish-mash of state laws. For example, over the past three months I have asked three different police officers in [redacted] whether it is legal for a person to travel in the state of [redacted], with a handgun locked in the trunk, if the person is neither registered in [redacted] to own it, nor a CCW holder. The first assured me it is perfectly legal. The second said it depends on the local jurisdiction, and is their judgement. The third told me it is a certainly felony. Obviously no NYT writer worries about these things or cares what happens to any gunowner, but this stuff is a genuine nightmare.

That Bruni's op-ed is simply an anti-gun rant is given away by the reference in the title to Glock, the bugaboo which still scares the antigun crowd as "the pistol designed to beat metal detectors..." probably the craziest thing anyone ever made up about firearms, but apparently still dogma among the hoplophobes.

But having said all this, I do have a solution to the issue. I've read the bill, and don't think it really does overstep federal bounds, since it doesn't create a concealed carry right where none exist. So I'm for it, but here's something else. Never mind reciprocity (I think most of the 40 states currently already recognize each others’ CCW permits already). Instead, what about a federal "shall issue" CCW permit, one that permits the holder to carry concealed in any state or federal territory (including the People's Democratically Disarmed Republic of Illinois, the only state with no concealed carry provision at all). 1. This would circumvent the possible problem of the feds stepping on state powers and SCOTUS issues concerning state permits. 2. If the state legislatures in some states think other states' CCW permits are too laxly awarded, they can still not recognize them – the feds can put a higher standard of training on the federal permit which should satisfy this concern. (The feds are already doing this, of course...FBI, Secret Service, etc. are not required to get state permits for local carry when they cross state lines. None of the hoplophobes are complaining.) 3. This also passes constitutional muster in the sense that the militia in Second Amendment was always meant to mean the armed populace. We might as well give "them" some training while we are at it. The Swiss already do this (it's mandatory) as do the Israelis (and in Israel one can even "check out" a handgun to carry).

NYT and Bruni don't care about the liberty nor safety of the vast majority of Americans...that's hardly news. But why not provide more training to Americans, and more opportunity to actually take responsibility for having a safer, more peaceful society? (Yes, gun ownership demonstrably contributes to that, Frank.) A national concealed carry permit as an addition to state laws and state reciprocity would make great sense.

Anyone wishing to read more on this issue should read the text of the H.R. 822 as well as this op-ed and this summary from the NRA.

Photo: Kimber Pro Carry II in .45 ACP, a favorite of the UC staff. It's made in New York, where, ironically, we would not be allowed to carry it.

Disclaimer: Certain place names have been redacted from the above in keeping with our policy of living in our car and listing no place of employment.

What better way to celebrate Conflict Resolution Day...

2011-10-20T09:54:00.004-06:00

than by getting rid of the dictator of Libya once and for all! The demise of Muammar Qadaffi -- very welcome and long overdue. May other dictators around the world profit by his example.

Photo: someone who knew very well how to deal with Qaddafi.

Why America matters

2011-10-04T20:55:00.004-06:00

Those readers of UCwho only follow American news media may not have heard, but Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa has just delivered a ringing condemnation of the ANC government. Tutu had invited the Dali Lama of Tibet to his 80th birthday celebration. But the South African government denied the Dalai Lama a visa at the behest of the government of China.

The article linked above excerpts some of Tutu's statement. I heard him on BBC World Service, and he is, justifiably, outraged. The ANC fought against the oppression of apartheid, but now it has power, it has adopted a new colonial master -- the new and growing power in the world, China.

I think this is an important illustration of the point I hoped to make in my Fourth of July post. The values Tutu is upholding are those of liberalism, of freedom. They are the values that America, more than any other country, has pioneered and promoted. These values are now in conflict with those of another power, another worldview represented by the PRC. America matters not because its government is a consistent representative of liberalism (it isn't) but because the values of liberty are fundamentally American. And as China's strength grows, and America's diminishes, the rest of the world will shift towards China.

America matters.

The end of Awlaqi and the Law

2011-09-30T22:41:00.005-06:00

Anwar al-Awlaqi is dead.

I have mixed feelings about the killing of him. There's little doubt he worked to kill innocent people, and that's sufficient to be glad he's dead...and I am. On the other hand, I have some sympathy for the argument that his killing was extra-legal, and that we have a new precedent that dangerously expands state power. Glenn Greenwald has been the clearest and most rational voice on this. If we accept detention without judicial oversight, torture, and execution, all without any real legal safeguards, we will lose our civilization. There's good reason to be extremely cautious.

But on the other other hand (we're back to the first hand, please note) it's also not so obvious that this killing was extra-legal. It's clear that al-Awlaqi worked to kill innocent people; at least, there's plenty of publicly available evidence for this. (Yes, yes, I know, it is all a conspiracy... he was framed by the NWO. But then, he didn't exist anyway, that's part of the conspiracy, so don't get your tails in a twist, conspiracists.) So for rational skeptics, here's the question: when would the the police justified in shooting an escaping murder suspect?

My answer is that if there is reasonable evidence that an individual is indeed a participant in murder, and is reasonably expected to continue murdering, and they are making efforts to be beyond reasonable efforts to capture, then those are certainly sufficient conditions to justify shooting.

So far as I can tell, Anwar al-Awlaki's actions satisfied all these criteria.

For those who disagree, at what point, then, does it become unreasonable to let him go?

Rick Perry's Debate Coach

2011-09-30T19:57:00.002-06:00

Side-by-side comparison makes it clear. She'd probably make a better president, too, as she's certainly as intelligent and coherent as he is, a good deal less vicious, and far more photogenic.

Breaking News: Al Qaeda supporters defend McCain against KGB!

2011-09-30T19:15:00.006-06:00

Wow! This is not something "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies would ever have predicted: the Chechen Jihadist website is defending U.S. Senator John McCain!

It seems McCain's comments that the Arab uprisings should be a lesson to tyrants elsewhere, e.g. Russia, have some Duma members calling for criminal charges against McCain. Kavkaz Center labels the Duma members "KGB," which is probably more or less accurate.

We here at UC have, on various occasions, condemned all three of the parties involved here, but in this case, we certainly endorse Sen. McCain's comments, and if KC supports McCain's position, well, we endorse that too.

Disclaimer: This is the first time we've ever said anything nice about John McCain, so far as we can remember...and for that matter, about any Al Qaeda affiliate. (Says something about the siloviki, doesn't it?)

Update from the Bear!

2011-09-24T18:49:00.003-06:00

My friend Fran Zelenitz finished in 26hrs49min36sec! (My calculation.) She was the 42nd finisher. The race ended less than an hour ago, so it's still unclear how many finished, but this surely puts her in the top fifty percent. She really burned up the course!

She texted me from the finish and was soooo excited! Me too! Shake and bake, Fran!
***************************************************************************************
Update! Fran was 42nd out of 175 finishers, putting her in the top 24%! Awesome performance!

Fran at the Bear!

2011-09-22T21:52:00.008-06:00

My good friend and running partner, Fran Z., starts the Bear 100 Mile trail run a few hours from now. She's excited and ready to rock, but I think not as excited as I am.

Go, Fran, go!

Fran on Indian Ridge, MT.

Fran, Bok Choy, me, & Mats (and Chaos at far left)

Bok Choy and Fran at 10,000 feet (3,030 m.)

Important and not particularly timely

2011-09-22T19:39:00.003-06:00

The ISI is finally fingered as a perpetrator of Jihadist terrorism. Abbas is about to, umm, throw a monket wrench? Roll the dice? Throw a "Hail Mary?" Start a war? in the Middle East. The candidates of the Lunatic Party are fighting it out for the chance to battle Obama in 2012. (That's not an endorsement of Obama, you know.) "Don't ask, don't tell" just ended. Qaddafi is finished. Syria and Yemen degenerate. The eurozone prepares to collapse. The U.S. budget wars re-erupt for no apparent reason.

There's so much to talk about, and so to say about all this, yet what I really feel like posting, for no particular reason other than that I really like it, is this:

September 11, 2011

2011-09-11T08:54:00.007-06:00

Remembering 9-11

2011-09-10T19:44:00.005-06:00

I sometimes don't like the columns of NYT's Roger Cohen, but he has written a very thoughtful and thought-provoking one just ahead of the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. I recommend it.

On September 11, 2001, I was in Kyiv, Ukraine, teaching at the EERC Masters Program in Economics. I had gone downstairs to the office of our director to discuss some matter. When I entered his office, he looked up from his computer screen "My God, an airplane has just struck the World Trade center in New York. I was checking some share prices on the Paris Bourse, and it just came across the news ticker."

"Was it an accident? Intentional? An attack?"

"It doesn't say. No other details at all."

He stared at his screen a moment. "My God, a second plane just hit. That answers it."

I've never paid that much attention to architecture, but the twin towers of the World Trade Center were my favorite manmade object to look at. When I was in grad school at NYU, I could see it from the shower in my apartment in Queens. I used to study til 4:00 or 5:00 AM, have a shot of Jack Daniels, and stand in a hot shower gazing it, and then go to bed. To me, it symbolized what human reason can accomplish when set free, and made feel the world is good. The last time I saw the WTC was the end of August, 2001. We were in NYC, just south of NYU (Washington Square), at night. We went to a Brazilian restaurant and then wandered around, with the towers looking like they were almost overhead, all lit up, even though they were a couple of miles away. I was utterly shocked when it was destroyed -- I confess it stunned me more than hearing about the people who died, but then I'd seen, touched, and entered the WTC many times.

So far as I know, no one I knew died on 9-11. One of my close friends lost some of her economics students, but I think there are at least two degrees of separation between me and those who were murdered. I mourn them, regardless, and am sorry they were murdered.

Are we really supposed to have a theory about what happened? My theory comes from a couple of articles in Foreign Affairs, written by people who would know. Bin Laden was outraged when the Saudis chose the U.S. coalition to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait instead of choosing Al Qaeda (he'd offered) and declared the U.S. presence the greatest offense to Islam ever. He attacked because of this offense, but his real goal was to provoke a war that would lead to a schism in Islam and cause Muslims everywhere to rally to his side and his theology, so he could establish a new caliphate. He failed.

And for all the terrible problems that ensued from his destructive and irrational doctrines, and the often also destructive and irrational responses to him, the world remains good.

A good post on the "Trutherist" nonsense

2011-09-09T19:17:00.002-06:00

Unforeseen Contingencies will have a post or two to commemorate the victims of the 9-11 attacks in the next day or two. But for now, here's a very nice rebuttal of some of the "Truther" conspiracy nonsense, by Chris Mohr in eSkeptic. Thanks to James Randi and his JREF blog (James Randi Educational Foundation) for highlighting it.

Are libertarians authoritarians?

2011-08-31T19:09:00.009-06:00

Good grief, no. The question doesn't even make sense, does it? Well, Michael Lind seems to think it does. His Salon essay explains why.

Frankly I was actually hoping for something coherent from him, because I am speaking on classical liberalism and libertarianism next week, and could use a thoughtful foil. But Lind is so far off base I hardly know where to begin. Well, as part of the extended "Defending Liberty" month, I'll at least hit a few highlights.

First, regarding disregard for democracy...Lind is apparently unaware of a reasonably substantial literature on the threat of illiberal democracy, one not written by libertarians, but by liberals & progressives, including Fareed Zakaria and Walter Russell Mead. And it's a good literature, too. There's nothing particularly sacred about democracy per se. Democracy itself is only a tool for selecting and managing governments, not a set of principles for determining gov't policy -- which is really what libertarianism is about. One certainly can have a democracy that is dangerously authoritarian -- just ask Hugo Chavez.

Second, Mises' alleged support for fascism is taken out of context. Mises argued, in one very short section of his book Liberalism, that it appeared fascism would be a useful temporary stopgap for preventing the spread of Marxism, but that it was entirely unsuitable, unsustainable, and ultimately destructive, and needed to be replaced by liberalism. In the same book he warned that Europe was likely to repeat WWI if this didn't happened. Mises also wrote this after just having managed to prevent Austria from going Bolshevik -- he prevailed on minister Otto Bauer, a Marxist, to not to institute a Marxist regime; keep in mind Mises was aware that Bolsheviks were conducting mass executions in Russia and Hungary (Bela Kun regime). And this was before the rise of the Nazis. Yes, in that context, Mises' statement, which is an aside in a book on Liberalism, makes sense. And was Mises anti-democratic? Good grief, one of his main proposals in Liberalism was to conduct popular votes to determine national borders, to allow people to choose what country they'd be part of. Democratic voting was his preferred solution to the problem of how to divide up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, determine borders peacefully, and organize governments. Lind is entirely ignorant of all this, and his charge against Mises is crackpotty and dishonest. He paid no attention to what Mises actually said.

Third, Hayek and Friedman were explicitly in favor of the free market policies that Pinochet pursued; these policies came some time after his coup. They did not endorse or support political repression. Frankly, I agree, the policies were good, and they reversed Chile's economic decline and were very successful. I know several Chilean economists -- not libertarians -- who are entirely in agreement with this as well. This doesn't make us apologists for Pinochet's brutality and authoritarianism. Lind makes no sense here -- can't he understand the difference between thinking a regime gets economics right and entirely endorsing the regime? Most economists think China has pursued extremely successful economic policies, since it went from being one of the worst economic disasters in history to the greatest single growth miracle in less than one generation, from policies that led millions to starve to death to the highest growth rates in the world. But applauding China's economic policy hardly constitutes endorsement of Chinese authoritarianism. Everyone I know thinks China got it largely right on economics but condemns its authoritarianism. Lind is again being extremely dishonest here.

Fourth, re Hans Herman Hoppe and "Democracy, the God that Failed," support for the Confederacy, discounting the evil of slavery, etc. -- well, ugh. The Ledwig von Rockwell Institute again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. If we look at these crackpots, what is there to say in response to Lind, except, "OK, I get your point...ugh!"

Let's face it, this wing of libertarianism is authoritarian, in its own bizarre way. Hans Herman Hoppe is basically a madman, as are most of the bigwigs at the inaptly-named Ludwig von Mises Institute. They are a bizarre subculture of libertarianism -- they are (allegedly) Rothbardian anarchists, for the most part, although their anarchism often evaporates and one finds them endorsing all sorts of illiberal states. I think some, e.g. Walter Block, really are anarchists. Those who aren't anarchists tend to be even crazier -- e.g. neo-confederates (founder Lew Rockwell) or monarchists with sympathies for Nazism (Hoppe). I've met and argued extensively with many of them, including Hoppe. I can hardly say how crazy they are. They campaign incessantly against all other libertarians, for whom they express deep hatred -- e.g. against the likes of Gary Johnson, Prof. Jeffrey Miron of Harvard, the Cato Institute, Mercatus Institute, IHS, Tom Palmer, the Koch Brothers, me (well, not *incessantly* against me, but I'm proud to have been occasionally denounced).

So, if you want to find "libertarians" who apologize for slavery, claim Lincoln was worse than Hitler, fraternize with neo-nazis, denounce Ukraine's Orange Revolution, speak favorably of Putin and Lukashenko, are 9-11 Truthers, believe the Illuminati and Freemasons and Jewish bankers are behind the New World Order conspiracy, think that the killing of Osama bin Ladin was first degree murder, oppose Medcins sans Frontieres, and, and, and... well, they are certainly well-represented at the Lew Rockwell Institute.

Yes, there are insane "libertarians." But this is basically a problem of insane people, not one of libertarian ideas themselves -- ideas these mad kooks don't promote even halfway consistently. Almost every libertarian I know agrees the Mises Institute people are wrong-headed and destructive. Libertarianism itself is a systematic defense of individual liberty, an extremely valuable and honorable set of ideas.

I was hoping Lind would understand this. But he doesn't.

Great news!

2011-08-24T23:23:00.004-06:00

I am not overlooking the wonderful news that Muammar Qadaffi's homicidal reign is coming to an end. I certainly hope he soon comes to a personal end as well. He was a sociopath, governed only by his own fixation on his own imagined genius and his murderous hatred and resentment for anyone who disagreed with him, all of which " renders [him] the object of universal dread and abhorrence, who, like a wild beast, ought, we think, to be hunted out of all civil society," as Adam Smith puts it.

Muammar Qaddafi -- to hell with you!

Photo: Muammar Qaddafi with one of his friends, for whom we have similar wishes.

Liberty Month Extended!

2011-08-24T13:25:00.002-06:00

I've been extremely busy with things other than blogging, but still have quite a bit I want to post for "Defending Liberty Month." Hence "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies are pleased to announce that we're extending our series into September. Watch in particular for essays on libertarianism and war, on Murray Rothbard, on why social conservatives should support same sex marriage, and more!

Heck, we have so much good stuff we may extend this indefinitely!

The Illuminati are after us!

2011-08-24T12:45:00.004-06:00

It's been obvious for quite some time that Lew Rockwell and his merry band are hard core conspiracy theorists, but all the same, this post is quite something. Apparently we're to believe that the entire Federal government is nothing but a pagan occult conspiracy, inherently evil from its inception. Quick, call Robert Anton Wilson!

It's always been clear, too, that the Rockwellites see the United States of America as the ultimate evil empire, but I'd always supposed that they only dated this as far back as Lincoln. I guess I was mistaken. Obviously, once you understand Rothbardism, you'll understand that America is simply evil, always has been, and always will be, until "the regime comes down."

Meanwhile, I await the Rockwellites' lament for Col. Qaddafi, which surely must be coming...
**********************************************************************************
Update! Well, I didn't have long to wait. Overthrowing Qaddafi was "a murderous travesty," according to Lew Rockwell. Apparently when a bloodstained dictator announces he is going to butcher his opponents while they are hiding in their closets, and begins taking actions to do so, stopping him is murder. It's only about oil, of course, and Syria is next. It's also about thwarting those free market libertarian societies: China, Russia, and Iran.

It's unthinkable, of course, that any government official in the west would actually care about individual rights, it (Umm, would it be impolite to point out to Lewdwig Rockwell that Syria has no oil?...)

Another good analysis: Ron Paul v. Gary Johnson

2011-08-13T15:43:00.002-06:00

Thoughtful analysis from Volokh Conspiracy, additional evidence that Ron Paul is not really a libertarian. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, is.

Christie O'Donnell for President!

2011-08-12T21:38:00.008-06:00

Unforeseen Contingencies is proud to endorse, for President... OK, here goes... ahem... Christine... ummm...

Look, here's the problem. There's no way "we" can endorse Bush 44, Barack Obama. And of course, Ron Paul is out. Gary Johnson the only real libertarian in the race, has less chance of winning than we do. Mitt Romney, best of the remaining Republicans...ugh. And worst of all, the candidate with the momentum seems to be the lunatic queen of the American Taliban, Michele Bachmann. Yikes!

Here's a fine example of Michele Bachmann's remarkable grasp of reality. In 2009, a number of countries, led by China, suggested that the IMF establish an international currency to take the place of the USD in international payments. This would be bad news for the United States, as we benefit immensely from having our own currency as the international medium of exchange. For one thing, our external debts are denominated in our own currency, which is why our debt situation is unlike that of Greece, the Asian countries in the '98 crisis, or anyone else. We are in a mush stronger position. For another, when we buy oil, we do not suffer from exchange rate risk. Oil is traded in USD, and enormous advantage for us.

Fine... but numerous creditors are getting a bit tired of our profligate ways, and -- worrying about the potential for a debt crisis or inflationary "solution," have suggested an alternative to the dollar for international trade. Rep. Michele Bachmann apparently believed that this would mean the U.S. would leave the dollar standard, and promptly introduced legislation preventing the U.S. from replacing the USD with foreign currency.

Bachmann is a lunatic. That she's a darling of the Republican party, and a potential candidate, is terrifying. Barack Obama is no good at all, but everything we see about Bachmann suggests she's completely out of touch with reality. Что делать?

Well, here's "our" solution... Christine O'Donnell for President in 2012! She's far more photogenic than Ms. Bachmann, surely no crazier, her legislative accomplishments are no less than MB's, and, unlike Ms. Bachmann, we know Christine is not a witch. We have her word on this, yet Ms. Bachmann has never denied association with withcraft. What is Michele hiding?!

Christine O'Donnell 2012!

A moving and important address

2011-08-12T07:49:00.005-06:00

The Prime Minister (er, Taoiseach, and no, I cannot pronounce this) of Ireland, Enda Kenny, addresses the Parliament on the issue of sexual abuse by officials of the Catholic Church, and the continued efforts of the church to hide these crimes. It's brilliant and very moving. I'm especially impressed how he responds to Ratzinger's statement that the Catholic Church must be above the law in these matters (starts at 11:18).

The continuous coverup and protection of serial child molesters appears to go to the highest levels of the church. This organization ought to be subject to criminal investigations.

The Inerrant Word of God?

2011-08-12T07:37:00.003-06:00

Um, which word? Serious scholarship shows (continues to show, really) that the the Bible is a human creation that has evolved over time... just as Thomas Paine told us.

The news story is definitely worth a read.

Liberty Month in the Spanish Peaks!

2011-08-04T21:59:00.003-06:00

August is Defending Liberty Month here at Unforeseen Contingencies, and to kick it off we celebrated with a backpack trip into the Spanish Peaks in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area, Montana. A great time was had by all, all but the several thousand mosquitoes we DEETed into submission! No liberty for those little tyrants. More exciting posts to come!

Photo: Unfurling the Liberty flag at Spanish Lakes.

Is Ron Paul a libertarian?

2011-07-31T09:05:00.013-06:00

No, at least not if "libertarian" has any any real meaning to it. CLS of the "Classically Liberal" blog has done a great job of exposing Paul as a cranky religious conservative. My exposé won't match his, and is derivative of his work, but I'll take a shot at it nevertheless. (The link goes to just one of CLS' exposés of Paul, he has a number of them, all well-reasoned.)

I think Paul once was libertarian, and I suppose most of his devoted followers think he still is (most, but not all). But he's become a rather cranky theocrat, and a surprisingly totalitarian one at that. Here's something rather startling he wrote back in 2003: "[T]here clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

No right to privacy or to choose one's own sexual behavior? But the Ninth and Tenth Amendments give Texas the right to regulate social matters? Good grief!

Here's the text of the two amendments:

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Denying and disparaging individual rights on the basis of non-enumeration is exactly what Paul is doing.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

From this Paul somehow ~~derives~~ invents a state's "right" (states do not have rights, only individuals have rights, and the Constitution never refers to "states' rights," only to powers granted to states by individuals, the people) to regulate private behavior using "local standards." But no such right or power is mentioned at all, and his insistence that there is one is about as unlibertarian as one can be. But wait, there's more.

In 2004 Paul co-sponsored the "Marriage Protection Act" that would prevent federal courts from examining the constitutionality of states failing to recognize marriages conducted in other states. Paul lamented that failure to pass the act would allow a few states to define marriage for the nation, and particularly that same sex marriages would receive legal standing. His position has nothing to do with defending individual liberty, and everything to do with an imaginary "right" of states to impose the standards of religious conservatives on all of us.

Somehow in Paul's head by denying same-sex couples access to marriage, he's protecting marriage from tyranny. I can't help but apply his "reasoning" to Loving v. Virginia, in which the "tyrannical" Supreme Court ended the power of states to deny the legal status of mixed race marriages. In the Loving case, a mixed-race couple was legally married in DC, and then their home in Virginia raided in the middle of the night by policemen, who arrested them and confiscated their marriage certificate as evidence of the "crime" of violating the state law prohibiting mixed race couples from marrying. The Virginia state legislature was, after all, simply regulating "social matters...using local standards." The right to mixed race marriage is found nowhere in the Constitution, either. Paul's argument does indeed apply directly to Loving. In Paul's logic, the racists of the Virginia legislature who passed the Racial Integrity Act had a perfect right to do so, and the judicial activists who defended the rights of Mildred and Richard Loving to be left alone were "tyrants." Re-read Paul's speech before Congress, substituting "mixed-race" for "same-sex" and see for yourself.

Good grief. There's no way Paul can claim to be a libertarian -- he's a religious conservative, and a dishonest one at that, since he often pretends to be a libertarian in order to appeal to a part of his base. There are number of other things about Ron Paul's politics that make him look increasingly kooky -- his close association with 9/11 Truthers (including the Lewdwig von Rockwell Institute), his strange proposals for dealing with the debt limit impasse (which include eliminating the ability of the Fed to drain the excess reserves currently held by banks, thus guaranteeing a future hyperinflation), some of his odd foreign policy pronouncements (he claimed an American missile strike led to the Detroit underwear bomber attack two weeks after, even though the underwear plot was months in the making). He doesn't even seem to be able to bring himself to condemn the neo-Nazi portion of his base.

It is unfortunate that this odd religious conservative is popularly portrayed as a libertarian. He does use libertarian rhetoric at times, but his ideas are not libertarian. I think many libertarian supporters of Paul don't get this -- even I supposed as late as 2008 that he was basically libertarian.

Well, he's not.

Update: here's a particularly thoughtful review of Ron Paul that reaches similar conclusions, and provides numerous quotes from Paul himself, along with other evidence. Worth reading!

Defending Liberty, and Libertarianism!

2011-07-31T08:34:00.003-06:00

"We" at Unforeseen Contingencies are setting aside the month of August as "Defending Liberty Month." Liberty, and the political philosophy that of liberty, libertarianism, are certainly under attack these days, from leftists and rightists, "liberals" and conservatives, and even from self-described "libertarians." We at UC think this would be a great time to celebrate and defend liberty from these critics.

Most of the criticism of libertarianism is misrepresentation, in our view, and frequently intentionally dishonest misrepresentation. We're going to take on some of these misrepresentations, including a good deal of the crazy nonsense spouted by Lew Rockwell and his band of fellow travelers. This should be both instructive and fun.

Because I'm about to embark on a backcountry trip for a few days, "we" at UC are also proclaiming that "Defending Liberty Month" begins today so that we can get our first post up in timely fashion.

As always, comments welcome. Enjoy!

Picture: "Sergeant William Jasper Raises the Fallen Regimental" at Fort Moultrie, 28 June 1776.

John Stuart Mill -- Terrorist?

2011-07-30T14:59:00.005-06:00

The best essay I've yet seen on the mad killer in Norway is this one, by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post, certainly worth reading in its entirety. She warns of the dangerous tendency of the illiberal left to use attacks perpetrated by rightwing extremists to demonize and try to silence anyone who political opponents.

We saw this in the cases of Tim McVeigh and Jared Loughner, and now Anders Breivik. Breivik cited the great libertarian and economist John Stuart Mill as an inspiration, so I suppose now Mill's work is now suspect and should be stifled. Perhaps this is a good time to see what Mill himself said on the subject. How about this...

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

and this...

Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

and this...

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

J.S. Mill -- his words should indeed strike terror in the hearts of totalitarians everywhere.

Does a tax increase necessarily harm the economy?

2011-07-28T22:04:00.004-06:00

That's what the op-ed title should have read. A friend sent me this op-ed from the Boston Globe and asked my opinion. Here it is...

The op-ed is fundamentally correct. I'm no fan of higher taxes, but if the government is going to spend, the least destructive way to pay for it is through taxes. And the tax system should be designed to be as painless, low cost, and predictable as possible -- that's been established at least as far back as Adam Smith. Yes, taxes have deadweight losses, and in that sense reduce income and wealth. On the other hand, so do borrowing and inflation. And so do failures to provide public goods that could be provided. Ideological positions that fail to recognize these facts are simply blinders that prevent their proponents from seeing reality.

This problem is exemplified by the title of the op-ed, "Tax Increases Don't Harm Economies." Presumably the editors came up with it, for it's not what the author himself argues. Any statement that begins "tax increases have such and such effect" is almost assuredly wrong. Tax increase can reduce growth, Tax increases *can* increase govt revenues. Tax increases can decrease govt revenues. Presumably tax increases can increase growth. It depends on the kind of tax, the magnitude, and what the status quo is. Republicans latch onto the Laffer curve (a perfectly sound concept) and then falsely argue that all tax increases/decreases behave as if we are on the bad side of the curve. This is simply nonsense. Even worse, some of them have gone so far off their rockers as to claim that an effort to abolish subsidies to ethanol production is a tax increase, simply because of the way the subsidy legislation was written. If the firms receiving the tax breaks for ethanol production instead were to be taxed, but then received subsidy payments in the amount of the taxes, presumably Norquist would oppose the program, instead of favoring it, simply because they were called subsidies instead of tax cuts. Go figure.

OTOH, Democrats argue as if there are never deadweight losses. This is a lunatic's position. If you tax something, you get less of it, as a general rule. Taxes can indeed deter entrepreneurship, reduce investment, and block capital formation -- yes, they can harm the economy. Don't believe it? Impose a tax rate of 100% on all income and see what happens. The Laffer curve is reality.

Today's mainstream political views on taxes are nonsense, and so there's almost no intelligent discussion of tax policy. But Republicans sound particularly crazy these days since they argue that you can cut taxes without cutting spending while running a deficit. You cannot. You only transfer the tax burden to someone else, who will pay it later in interest and principle payments on the debt, or perhaps indirectly via inflation or default.

And now they insist that hastening this "later," by provoking an unnecessary financial crisis over raising the debt ceiling, is good policy. Well, they're wrong... it will only increase costs.

You cannot cut taxes without cutting spending while running a deficit. A "cut" will only transfer the tax burden to someone else, who will pay it later in interest and principle payments on the debt, or perhaps indirectly via inflation or default.

Sorry for repeating myself, but no one else seems to be saying this, and it needs saying.

The debt limit shenanigans

2011-07-15T23:00:00.002-06:00

I've not been posting on economic matters here of late, but have commented on the debt limit debacle on the Steele-Wolfram blog. To summarize, I think it is crucial that the U.S. government get the debt problem under control, and the primary way to do this is to cut spending. Rationalizing the tax system is important as well.

As for the debt limit, anyone who thinks it is a good idea to not raise it has no idea what they are talking about. Not raising the limit runs the risk of triggering another financial crisis... hardly the way to balance the budget.

Hamas flotilla, 2011

2011-07-15T22:56:00.003-06:00

Is this to be an annual event, some sort of deranged celebration of support for terrorism? I'll comment in more detail later, but here's a good piece on how these acts of war might be halted.

More great news...

2011-07-13T09:09:00.003-06:00

Even though Congress and the Obama administration seem hell-bent on driving the federal government into default, and the Middle East continues on its course to Armageddon, there's again great news.

New evidence suggests antiretroviral drugs can prevent HIV infection. In two separate studies conducted in Africa with heterosexual couples in which one partner was HIV positive, the non-infected partner were given either antiretrovirals or placebos. In both studies, antiretrovirals reduced the rate of transmission of the infection by well over 50%!

But that's not all! There's even more great news...

Some time back, Pew Research posted a recent finding that the number of Americans who believe the crazy idea that AIDS is God's punishment for immoral behavior has dropped precipitously. Today they released a study that finds that an increasing number of Americans now say that they wouldn't be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate if s/he were homosexual (64%). (Scroll down.) In every single category -- black, white, conservative, liberal, even evangelical protestant -- the percentage who think homosexuality isn't an issue increased noticeably.

I find all of this very heartening. If we human beans use our heads, think positively, and don't let ourselves be driven by irrational fears and mysticism, we can solve problems and make the world a better place. It's great to see evidence that we're succeeding in this.

Note: I've used the term "human bean" for a number of years; probably picked it up from Walt Kelly's comic strip "Pogo." I've only just now stumbled across Chip Walter's use of it (linked above) which happens to largely captures my thinking. His All Things Human project looks promising.

Something entirely different!

2011-07-10T23:35:00.006-06:00

...for Unforeseen Contingencies, at least.

This past June I was listening, as usual, to my favorite radio station, KGLT FM Bozeman MT, an independent alternative station at Montana State University. ("Alternative" means that they play all sorts of extremely interesting, often obscure stuff you'll never hear anywhere else.) The DJ was doing a show of live music being performed in-studio, all of it played on didgeridoos. The primary musician was Kyle Bert, proprieter of Desert Mountain Didgeridoos. Bert lives in Bozeman and in Tucson AZ, and crafts his didgeridoos from agave stalks he harvests in the Arizona desert. The performance was captivating, and when it finished I called in and got the URL for his website. I called him, set up meeting and - suffice it to say I am now the proud owner of the instrument pictured here.

I've been playing for a little less than a month, and am really enjoying it. The didgeridoo is an odd instrument, in that it really only plays one note, yet you can get (and I'm starting to get) an amazing variety of sounds from it. It is extremely fun, sounds great, and playing it is extremely satisfying. It's also gorgeous to look at.

So... another unforeseen contingency occurs, as "we" at UC take a musical turn here. At some point I may even post a short performance (just have to figure out how to record & post MP3 files...and play to a standard that doesn't scare the dog...)

Teenager beats up Michele Bachmann!

2011-07-08T14:04:00.004-06:00

...figuratively, of course.

A Lousiana high school student, Zack Kopplin, has been organizing a very effective campaign to repeal Louisiana's idiotic and unconstitutional law that mandates the teaching of creationism, i.e. religious myth, as science. He's managed to get over 40 Nobel laureate scientists to endorse his campaign.

And now he has written an extremely eloquent challenge to presidential wanna-be Michele Bachmann and her inane claims that there's serious scientific controversy over evolution. It's well worth reading.

This has me thinking that we'd be much better off if, instead of debates among candidates, we had each one of them grilled by well-informed citizens of various political & philosophical stripes. I'd love to see Kopplin vs. Bachmann. In this particular debate, she wouldn't stand a chance.

4th of July and American exceptionalism

2011-07-03T06:53:00.005-06:00

Happy Fourth of July -- American Independence Day!

I realize most of my readers aren't Americans, but bear with me. I was reading one of the leading academic historical journals recently, and came across a short piece introducing a symposium on "the question of modernity." The main point I gleaned from it is that modern historians work from the foundation of a philosophical morass, with no clear, coherent framework for analysis. (The essay observed that Marxism -- economics' equivalent of young earth creationism -- had been popular but now they'd moved on to other fads.)

But one thing that the essay noted was that for some, the concept of modernity is as discredited as that of American exceptionalism. It went without saying that American exceptionalism is utterly discredited nonsense, of course.

I strongly disagree... and it is historically inaccurate, as well as politically dangerous, to ignore what is exceptional about America. Here's something that sums it up well:

[H]ere in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.

Fundamentally, there are only two ways of seeing the relationship between the individual human being and the state: the traditional one is that the state is superior to the individual, who must be subservient to it. In the old monarchical setting, this simply meant being a subject of the king (l'etat, c'est moi). In more modern forms -- socialism, communism, fascism, the modern welfare state -- the state plays the role of a parent, and the subjectcitizen the role of the child, who is to be cared for cradle to grave (and in the latest thinking, "nudged" in the "right" directions).

The alternative view, the truly revolutionary and radical one, is that the individual is sovereign, every individual, and the state only a means to the end of defending this sovereignty. The state is subservient to the individual. This view is the explicit basis of America's Declaration of Independence. It is the basic founding principle of this country, but it is far more important than that. It is a fundamentally different way of looking at society and government. And if civilization is to have a future, it will be based on this. It is the only principle that can limit the growing power that civilization gives us, and limits it in such a way that we do not self-destruct.

Americans have not consistently followed this principle, and have permitted too many exceptions to this exceptionalism (any exceptions are "too many"), but that's no reason to deny that there's something different here. Humans almost never do anything perfectly, and particularly when they do things together. Americans have applied this founding principle very imperfectly, but they have applied it, and it has shaped the world into a very different place.

I don't know whether we will preserve this principle, our exceptionalism. Left-liberals have abandoned individual rights for "human rights," i.e. entitlements granted by the parental state. Conservatives have abandoned it for the strange doctrine that America is simply God's chosen country, automatically moral by definition. If we give it up, who will defend liberty as the fundamental political value? The Chinese? The Europeans? The Indians? The Russians? hah! That's why America matters, and why America's exceptionalism is something to protect and nurture, not deny or mock or twist.

You don't have to be an American to appreciate the principles of the Declaration, or to celebrate its signing.

Happy Fourth of July!

Note: the quotation is from an Independence Day speech given by Ronald Reagan. You can read the whole speech -- it's short and sweet -- here in this post by Buz Mills of Gunsite Ranch.

Coming soon!

2011-06-27T23:04:00.004-06:00

Race report for the Old Gabe, plus more economic and political commentary. In the meantime, here's a nice snapshot of a canine companion of mine.

Chaos, on the South Cottonwood Trail, Bozeman MT, 26 June 2011. (Left click on photo for larger version.)

Still living in my car?

2011-06-26T11:07:00.004-06:00

Here's the official list of entrants for the Old Gabe 50K race (Bridger Mountains, just outside Bozeman MT). Note how the race director -- a friend who is quite familiar with my various travels -- listed the home of yours truly. I find this particularly amusing, and satisfying.

My location: still Top Secret!

Race report to follow soon!

Great News from New York

2011-06-26T09:30:00.004-06:00

When is it appropriate that the state dictates to people how they will run their personal lives, what religions they may and may not practice, who they may and may not have voluntary relations with, and what those voluntary relations may be?

Never!

Hence it is great news that the State of New York has legalized same sex marriage. Gay people have the same right as anyone to choose whom they love, to enter into marriage with them, and to build their lives as they see best. It was never legitimate for the state to violate these rights, any more than it was legitimate for the state to outlaw the rights of people of different races or different religious beliefs to marry. Sacrificing the rights of the individual for some concern of the state is never legitimate -- the state is only a means, and its sole purpose is protecting the rights of the individual. Or as someone else put it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Unforeseen Contingencies salutes the coalition of Republicans and Democrats in New York who are figuring this out.

A quick note on Ukraine

2011-06-24T12:26:00.002-06:00

I've not posted much on Ukraine for a while, but under Yanukovych there's been a slide into tyranny and greater corruption, unsurprisingly. It's depressing to see. Here's an unsettling report on the show trial of former prime minister Yuliya Tymoshenko. She's just one of a number of officials from the former government who are being prosecuted by Yanukovych, in his war on his political opposition. Here's a fairly diplomatic analysis of the situation (i.e. muted) by two former U.S. Ambassadors to Ukraine.

Ukraine's fall from the ranks of Free countries under Yanukovych is telling. I'm reminded that Lew Rockwell and his fellow friends of dictators called the Orange Revolution "genuine change denied." Now we're getting to see what these scoundrels mean by "genuine change."

Evolution proven

2011-06-23T16:24:00.004-06:00

This one is old news, but quite interesting. It's certainly worth posting, given that various Republican presidential hopefuls have been spouting the crazy nonsense that "evolution is just a theory." Bacteria evolved, and it was observed by scientists.

From Atlas: Dr. Tom Palmer on The Morality of Profit

2011-06-22T14:01:00.002-06:00

Very good argument!

Summer Adventure #1: Pocatello Window

2011-06-15T21:17:00.010-06:00

I've been slow in getting this up, but better late than never. On 28 May I ran my first ultra of the year, the Pocatello 50K in the mountains outside of Pocatello Idaho. Awesome!

This is the third year of this race. It began as a 50 mile run. The second year it was cancelled mid-race due to a blizzard that turned it into a life-threatening ordeal. This year a 50K and 20 mile race were added. On the last day of last year I celebrated New Years eve with a bunch of ultrarunners and friends at Fran Zelenitz'. For all our ultra endurance activity, we're wimps, and the party petered out by 10:30 PM. Fran mentioned she was setting her alarm for midnight, because online signup for Pocatello began then, and she was sure it would fill up quickly. Around 7:00 AM, when we met for coffee, she told me me with some disgust "I didn't have to get up at midnight, it's still not full. You could even do it now." "OK, I will then." It was the lack of coffee speaking, I guess, but we booted up her machine and I signed up for the 50K. But why not...I was in good shape, and could only get better. Umm...

My training over the winter was poor. I entered January in great shape with high hopes of building on that, but four consecutive bouts with illness (bronchitis, ear infection, flu, common cold) plus a week without power put a kabosh on serious training for almost two months and left me a wreck. I managed to do some crash training in April, including two 17.5 mile (28K) runs, a bare minimum for me to run 50K. I also managed to bang up my knees, which have always been the one body part that never gives me trouble.

In early May I headed over to Cheyenne Wyoming and my friend Jeff Ross for some altitude training. Cheyenne is about 6,000 feet (1818 m.) above sea level, just enough to trigger altitude effects on cardiovascular performance. Nearby is Vedauwoo, the remains of an ancient mountain range, much older than the Rockies. I trained there for three days -- 2hrs40min running the first day, 4hrs hiking with Jeff and the dogs the second day, and a "fast" 2 mile run plus 2hrs hiking the third day, all at around 7,500 feet (2270 m.). Evenings included great food and plenty of Ranger IPA. Take it from me, this regime will build you up quickly.

Vedauwoo is a one of the best places in the world. Go there and wander around. You will be very glad you did. It's an astounding place -- magical, in the sense of the wonder it inspires. It's great for running, hiking, and rock climbing. And given that this year's Pocatello runs never went much above 7,000 feet, and Vedauwoo was largely snow free in May, it was exactly what I needed... as was my visit with Jeff.

After 3 plus days in Cheyenne, Chaos (canine companion) and I took off for Montana. Interstate 90 was closed from the Wyoming border to Billings MT due to horrendous flooding (any time the desert floods it is horrendous) so we took backroads via Thermopolis, Cody, and Laurel.

Once in Montana, we zipped over to our headquarters in Bozeman. In Bozeman, I joined up with five other runners -- Fran Z., Emily, Don D., Damian, and Zach, and in two vehicles we headed south to Pocatello ID for the race. We had a call from another Montana runner, Mike Foote of Missoula. It seems everyone in Missoula who had planned on racing was wimping out, save Mike...so much for his carpool. It was a bit out of our way, but Emily, Fran, and I met him in Dillon -- convenient, as the Patagonia outlet there was having its Memorial Day sale. I spent $170 on Patagucci down and fleece, stuff that a few moths before retailed for $500. Mike arrived, and after a bit we headed on to Pocatello. After a great meal in a brewpub there, we made our way to the race start/finish/campground. I pitched my NorthFace Ambition 35, and just as I got it up a torrential downpour cut loose. We stood around it the group shelter talking...cold, high winds, hellish rain, just what we needed. One runner observed..."hmm, maybe the rapture did occur after all." It certainly looked like ultrarunner hell.

I woke up at 1:00 AM; the rain had stopped and the sky was perfectly clear. I awoke again around 5 and got up. The sky -- till clear. Emily was up, making coffee. I had two thermoses of coffee already waiting and drank that -- I'm pretty cavalier about coffee, so long as it has caffeine. We watched the start of the 50 mile race -- Zach and Mike were running that one, the rest of us were in the 50K. I gulped a bit of breakfast and we loaded onto the bus that took us to the start of the 50K.

By 8:30 AM, 50K start, the sun was up and the sky nearly cloudless. One announcement that didn't delight me was that the snow course (the changes imposed by heavy snowpack in the higher country) was closer to 35 miles long. The race started, and we began running up City Creek, a nice little stream lined by willows and aspen. The trail was good, and wove back and forth across the stream, always with nice little wooden bridges. Not too steep, sure, a little steeper here, there's bridge #14, and there's another crossing that's not really a bridge, and yes it's getting a little steeper, and here's a snowbank and where's the trail and why are we running through this tangle of aspens and whoops the gal ahead of me just slid down the snow slope and I need my crampons and we're running in the stream and ice and it's a 45 degree climb and if we can just make it to that snow wall we'll be able to kick toeholds and traverse a bit... it's the first time ever I could have simultaneously used my ice ax and machete. It's 2700 foot (820 M.) climb over the first 6-7K, and most of the climb comes towards the end. Rough stuff, and I felt done in. But once atop, you're on top of the world, with fabulous views of the valley below. On top we ran a few miles, through an aid station, and into a small creek drainage. Most of this was on jeep trails. It became warm enough that I ran shirtless, until I started worrying that my hydration pack was starting to rub blisters into my back.

Another climb, then another long gradual downhill to the next aid station. I began running with a gal from Boise, Chele H. She was really tearing down the trail, and we ran together, making great time and passing people...until in the midst of commenting on how great my running was going, I tripped and slid along in the mud for two or three meters. That put the dampers on my speed for a bit, and Chele was long gone. I eventually got into the next aid station, mile 16 or so. I didn't spend too much time here, and took off on the next loop.

After a bit Chele caught me, as I'd passed her at the aid station. We ran together for quite ways -- she told me how she'd only been running for maybe four years, and if she finished this it would be her longest run ever. We talked about families, about friend, about schools (she teaches music), and about running. Great way to spend a day. after another long climb, maybe 6 miles, we hit heavy snowpack, and a one mile detour off the loop that took us to the next aid station. They gave us each a cup of hot chicken soup...Awesome stuff! I drank mine, half of Chele's, and four more besides. And then off, back through the snow, plus graupel that began falling. For a ways I ran with a young guy, Colin something, who is working on a Ph.D. in bioengineering. We talked about his research, about the economics of health care, and about ultrarunning. I was staring to get tired, and let everyone go and began walking.

Next aid station -- one loop to go -- I had been doubtful but I knew now I had it in me to complete the run. I was less excited, though, by the news that careful measurement now suggested the course was over 36 miles, instead of 50K. I set out on the last loop, again with Chele (don't spend so much time at the stations, girl!) with the end in site. This last loop wasn't bad -- a nice gradual climb that took us to the 5K point (Chele GPS'd it) and back down. At 50K I felt tired but not too bad. But that was my limit, and things started getting painful after that. I slowed considerably and dragged in, still functional and pretty happy. Everyone I had ridden down with had finished strongly, and so too the friends I'd run with. Chele hammered her finish and was in great shape after her longest run, serving cheesecake she'd brought for a friend's birthday. Me, I stuffed myself full of homemade burritos they were serving plus cup after cup of hot water, and finally wandered off to the tent and crashed. The night weather was cold but still perfect for running, and a few late runners were indeed coming in after dark. I awoke at 1:30 AM; the lights were off, last runner in, and the deluge began again. We'd threaded the needle, so to speak, and run through the one window of good weather in the week.

In the morning it was still pouring rain. After breaking camp we managed to find the one coffee shop in Pocatello open at 7:00 on Sunday, caffeinated ourselves, and headed north -- into a snowstorm around Dell MT.

Great trip! I'm pretty beat up, with a banged up right heel, but I'm also in great shape now for whatever summer activities come along. The Montana contingent preformed extremely well, placing, I believe, 2nd and 3rd in the men's 50 mile (Mike and Zach), 3rd in the women's 50K (Emily), 1st and 3rd in men's 50K (Damian and Don) and for me -- simply finishing is always a great triumph. And most importantly, it was a really fun time.

No photos, unfortunately (except the one I cadged from the race site), but I'll not let that happen again.

Anti-Israelism, in a nutshell

2011-06-15T20:06:00.005-06:00

This op-ed in the Jerusalem Post is the most clear and succinct note on today's antisemitism I've seen. I wish I'd written it.

And on a happier note, here's a second op-ed from today's JP, also worth reading: A Salute to the IDF.

Another Al Qaeda leader bites the dust

2011-06-11T23:40:00.002-06:00

These guys aren't doing so well lately. Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, one of the planners of the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, accidentally drove into a government run checkpoint in Somalia and was killed in a gunfight. I don't suppose this one will inspire any haiku, but I'm looking to forward to Rockwellian rants denying Fazul Mohammed existed, lamenting his murder, and attacking any "sheeple" who are foolish enough to believe that the federal government didn't blow up its own embassies.

A quick update

2011-06-10T22:49:00.002-06:00

Extensive travel has rendered me incommunicado for a bit. I've been running back and forth in the Northern Rockies -- adventuring in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, including the Pocatello 50K on 28 May, and a hike to the summit of Square Butte, west of Great Falls MT on 4 June (photo). I'll be posting updates on Unforeseen Contingencies very soon! (Assuming we're not washed away in the nearly incessant rain!)

No text necessary!

2011-05-09T14:48:00.003-06:00

A thought from Colonel Cooper

2011-05-04T23:06:00.001-06:00

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.'

I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

Jeff Cooper

Fever swamp spreads! UC fires limerick big guns in response!

2011-05-04T21:33:00.004-06:00

Yes, limericks vs. haiku elegies for Osama!

I'm simply astounded. Osama bin Laden was the founder and leader of Al Qaeda, and mastermind of the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the attack on the USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, and much other murderous mayhem. So how is it that someone who is not a jihadist would be deeply disturbed that Osama bin Laden was finally killed? What kind of person is it whose first reaction to OBL finally getting his well-deserved demise is livid rage?

A Rockwellian, that's what kind. I'll document and comment on some of their vile craziness soon.

But the reaction of Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute is even more bizarre. In response to the news that bin Laden was finally brought to justice (yes, it is just to kill murderers, and I suppose I'll have to post on this later as well) Higgs wrote "Osama's Been Killed -- Ten Haiku", in which he laments the killing of bin Laden and appears to predict the destruction of the United States by Pakistan.

Needless to say, "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies couldn't let his pseudo-Japanese doggerel go unchallenged, and so we've let fly on in his comments section with a couple examples of our own pseudo-Irish efforts. Higgs is, as it turns out, a fellow-traveler and occasional "scholar" of Rockwell's inaptly-named Mises Institute, i.e. a bile-filled lunatic who confuses hatred for anything and everything done by the U.S. government with principled love of liberty.

Make that pretends to confuse; these scoundrels understand very well what they are doing.

I was and am completely opposed to the invasion of Iraq, I was skeptical of the invasion of Afghanistan (because I doubted that Bush would pull it off successfully and not turn it into a quagmire). I was and am completely opposed to the PATRIOT Act and all the rest of the homeland security authoritarianism.

And, of course, among the reasons I've opposed all these things is that they have little to do with the one proper response the state should have had to the 9/11 attacks -- the tracking down and elimination of Osama bin Laden. Well finally the federal government has done what it should have done many years ago, thank heavens! (Good work, USN and President Obama!)

The proper response to vicious criminals like bin Laden is anger, followed by relentlessly hunting them down and finishing them. Liberty and civilization depend on this. Higgs' handwringing laments and self-righteous indignation are immoral.

Osama bin Laden -- good riddance!

2011-05-02T08:28:00.006-06:00

We at Unforeseen Contingencies are extremely happy at the news that Osama bin Laden has been killed. There's no question that he led a terrorist organization that happily slaughtered the defenseless at random, all in the name of establishing religious dictatorship. (It's necessary to mention this only because of the battiness of the "Truthers".) It's always appropriate to kill homicidal sociopaths, and particularly political ones.

I'm extremely pleased that it was Navy SEALs who shot him, and not a drone missile. There's some satisfaction that this scoundrel was hunted down in his own home. Good riddance.

May Muammar Qaddafi join him soon!

(Needless to say, the lunatics at Lew Rockwell are upset by all of this, and smell a conspiracy. But we've known for a long time that these Rothbardians are friends of totalitarian murderers, and lament when they are killed.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fever Swamp update: the Rockwellites are ballistic over the death of bin Laden, and going beyond what even I thought them capable of -- they really are lamenting the murder of poor Osama bin Laden!

When principle becomes stupidity

2011-03-31T22:40:00.009-06:00

I believe there are valid reasons why someone might oppose the intervention in Libya. After all, foreign policy questions are not simple -- they typically require that one solve a particularly complex set of questions concerning fundamental ethics, particular facts of the case, theories of economics & political dynamics, and who knows what else. But that certainly doesn't imply that all answers are created equal -- to the contrary, many popular answers focus on only one, or even none, of these...and in doing so, they can become stupid. Here's an example.

In my previous post I referred to inane argumentation concerning the Libyan intervention. Consider this, from Charles V. Peña of the Independent Institute: "If getting rid of tyrants and dictators who oppress their people becomes the criterion for using U.S. military force, who do we target next: China? The so-called Democratic Republic of Congo? Eritrea? Iran? Kyrgyzstan? Venezuela? Zimbabwe?"

Good grief. Never mind whether the author has correctly characterized the objective (I am sure he hasn't), what is frankly stupid about this is that he assumes that every instance of trying to achieve a particular goal requires the identical means. Well, it doesn't.

Given the situation in Libya, bombing Qaddafi's troops probably saved thousands or tens of thousands of lives of people who have been non-combative but opposed his dictatorial rule. OTOH, bombing, say, China or Syria wouldn't save anyone, because no massacre is imminent. So much for reason to bomb.

But what to bomb? In Libya, there was a particularly well-defined set of targets -- Qaddafi's troops and the air defense and command & control structures that support them -- while in China or Syria it's unclear what one would bomb, even if one wanted to...and again, that's because the particular facts of the case are different. There's no mass of PLA tanks bearing down on a city of full of people opposed to Hu Jintao, and Hu Jintao hasn't pledged to murder every last person who ever voiced an opinion against him, even if they are hiding in a closet. For that matter, Hu Jintao doesn't seem to have blown up any civilian airliners full of American citizens over Lockerbie, or anywhere else. He's unlikely to attempt it in the future. Qaddafi is.

So why is it so hard to understand why bombing Libya doesn't imply one should bomb China, just because both have oppression?

Or consider Syria. As I documented in my previous post, the situation in Syria is quite unclear, and it certainly doesn't appear that mass executions are being planned. Much as it pains me to say so, Hillary Clinton is absolutely right when she says that each Middle East situation is unique and requires different policy. Why is this apparently impossible for Peña to understand?

I think it's because I am relying on facts here, and his analysis is nearly devoid of them. Simple moral principles are crucial for decision making, but by themselves they are not only not sufficient, they become a self-imposed blindness. The author, Charles V. Peña, has, stupidly, blinded himself. His basic principles might be right, but his application of them is... well, stupid.

In an upcoming post I'll take a look at Lew Rockwell, who goes well beyond stupidity and descends into evil.

Making sense out of Syria...and conservatives

2011-03-29T22:09:00.008-06:00

As it turns out, that's not possible, unsurprisingly.

I mention this because of some of the inane discussions I've heard in the last few days asking why Basher Assad and the Al Khalifas don't warrant military intervention, if Qaddafi does...after all, Qaddafi kills demonstrators, and the governments in Syria and Bahrain have too. So either all should be attacked, or none, or we're hypocrites or worse.

As if all there is to foreign policy (or any policy) is simple-minded application of half-baked moralisms. May we be preserved preserve us from such nonsense! (BTW, most of these arguments came from the left, not right...the left makes no sense, either.)

With this in mind, let's all thank heavens for principled and farsighted men who understand the real issues in choosing foreign policy. Thank you, Dr. Gingrich!

Postscript: I suppose there's always the possibility that some reader might not pursue the links I include, and hence might not note the irony of my comment on Newt Gingrich. Well, now that Mr. Gingrich has declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination, I'd better hasten to point out that the link exposes him as a completely hypocritical coot.

Two new blogs

2011-03-29T21:12:00.003-06:00

I've just added two new blogs to the blogroll of Unforeseen Contingencies. The first is Walter Russell Mead's The American Interest. I've read mead for some time in Foreign Affairs, and have recently discovered his blog. Here's a particularly thoughtful piece on the Libyan intervention, Obama's War. I am still planning further commentary on this topic, and particularly the Rockwellian take on it, when I get some time to write.

The second is Neeka's Backlog. It's a simple personal blog (by Veronica Khokhlova, someone I do not know) from Kyiv Ukraine, and features photography, simple observations, occasional biting commentary on politics, and even audio recordings. I love it - it's poetry in blog form. I linked to this one back in 2006, in a post or two, but never linked to it. I re-encountered it today, and want to keep following. (That's really the criterion for being added to the UC blog and news rolls, BTW - my personal desire to have an easy way to get to things I want to follow.) Here's a frustrating, outrageous, amusing story from 2009.

Enjoy them both!

Another Viewpoint

2011-03-24T20:42:00.005-06:00

I'm adding another site to the Unforeseen Contingencies list of news sources: Kavkaz Center, which is essentially the news service of the anti-Russian rebels in Chechnya. I read the site from time to time, and have been watching it lately, waiting for them to take a side in the Libyan conflict. They were non-committal for a while, but have finally budged: they seem to have decided that the intervention is an anti-Islam Crusade.

The implications of the story are interesting. I certainly agree with Alain Juppé's alleged comment (I cannot find any source other than jihadist websites for it) that any regime that oppresses its people should be in jeopardy. OTOH, bombing is generally not effective at changing regimes. In Libya's case, bombing had an immediate effect of saving the lives of many, many people who opposed Qaddafi's regime, and there's ample justification and reason to bomb Qaddafi himself; hence bombing made sense. OTOH, bombing the Saudi regime would make little sense. The regime is offensively illiberal, but it also poses a check on the equally illiberal Iranian regime. And it is hard to figure out what good bombing might accomplish, unlike the situation in Libya. Regardless, I don't believe anyone is seriously contemplating bombing Saudi Arabia... unless it is Iran.

On an unrelated note, here's another Kavkaz Center article. According to it, the parents of anti-Russian rebels are being forced by the Russians to beg their children to surrender, with threats of violence against rebels' parents if they don't. I'm reminded of Stalin's notorious Order No. 270 that provided for the arrest and punishment of family members of soldiers who retreated or were captured during the Second World War. It's no surprise, but Putin's government appears to be resurrecting Stalinesque brutality.

All very interesting. I'll be posting something on another critic of the Libyan intervention soon -- Lew Rockwell. Like Kavkaz Center, he's opposed to the Libyan intervention, but quite unlike them, he's a supporter of Putin and his Stalinesque policies.

A constraint that makes no sense

2011-03-23T10:02:00.003-06:00

There's an aspect to the U.N. intervention in Libya that doesn't make any sense at all. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 calls for taking all necessary measures to protect civilians from being slaughtered by Qaddafi and his forces. Good. Were it not for this intervention, the people who opposed this Stalinesque madman, or were suspected of not supporting him sufficiently, would be doomed to being tortured and butchered. It's unclear why one needs a U.N. Resolution to stop mass murder from being committed, but there it is anyway.

What's bizarre is that Qaddafi himself is supposedly not a target of the intervention. The handwringing in the press, and apparently in government circles, over what to do about Qaddafi makes no sense. "We" at Unforeseen Contingencies respectfully suggest Get him!

There's no dispute - even from Qadaafi himself - that he's behind the extermination of anyone who speaks out against his dictatorship. And this is hardly anything new from him - he's a ruthless and megalomaniacal dictator, bent on protecting and increasing his personal power. Consider his mad scheme in the 1980s to subvert and rule Africa under the guise of a Pan-African Union, his war against Tanzania in attempt to save fellow sociopath Idi Amin, his war against Chad, his war against the West, e.g. the bombings of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland and UTA Flight 772 over Niger, the murder of London police officer Yvonne Fletcher by Libyan "diplomats" shooting from the embassy, the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi and subsequent murders of twenty passengers mad scheme... Given all this, and the obvious fact that if he's ever able to do so, he'll murder anyone who opposes his reign, is there any good reason why he's not a primary target of these operations?

Sure, perhaps there are reasons why it would be desirable to put him on trial, so if he can be captured and tried instead of killed, that might make sense (if nothing else, his speeches in his own defense would be source of endless humor...or at least endless). But Qaddafi himself should certainly be a target, and if he cannot be captured he should be blown to bits. He's a sociopathic killer, and one with millions of dollars at his disposal. The world needs to be rid of him, as soon as possible.

UC says...Go get him!

2011-03-17T21:46:00.006-06:00

Hooray! U.N. authorizes military action to protect civilians. Qaddafi had just gotten through declaring to those who resist his dictatorship "We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity." Very nice. Hopefully it's not too late to stop Qaddafi's forces, but it's never too late to go after a homicidal sociopath, and it's not as though there's any doubt Qaddafi fits this bill. After all, what's the point in having all this expensive hardware if you're not going to use it on someone truly deserving... someone like Colonel Mo.

Mr. Obama, you on occasion compare yourself to Ronald Reagan. Here's a great opportunity to try to make this a bit more than specious rhetoric.

I'll have a more thoughtful post on dictators and uprisings soon, I hope...but for now, here's a wish that Mr. Qaddafi's reign is over.

Photo: U.S. F-111 taking off for the 1986 air raid against Qaddafi in Tripoli.

Footnote: Of course, Lew Rockwell laments the U.N. authorization against Qaddafi. You see, it's all a plot against Muslim peoples and China, for oil. His insane rant has to be seen to be believed. Anarchists for Qaddafi, good grief...but well up to his usual standards.

Why the silence?.

2011-03-17T21:41:00.003-06:00

Regarding UC's recent hiatus... I've been laid low by a couple of nasty illnesses, followed by five days of consecutive power outage from an ice storm, followed by a third even nastier illness afterwards. None of this has been serious, but it's kept me from commenting on the latest unravelings, of which there are many.

But like Ukraine, we at Unforeseen Contingencies are still not dead yet, and are getting back into action again!

Unforeseen Contingencies can hardly wait...

2011-02-24T17:41:00.005-07:00

until these two guys... ==>

look like this:

Photo: the execution of Elena and Nicolae Ceaușescu.

A quick note on Egypt

2011-02-10T20:25:00.006-07:00

In lieu of a longer post with analysis...

Mubarak's hand picked vice president Omar Suleiman says that Egypt isn't ready for democracy.

Good point, that. Being subject to suppression, arbitrary arrest, and torture must be good for them as they aren't ready for freedom. But it raises the question of when Egyptians would be ready and how we would know it... what conditions would have to be met? It can't be that the Egyptian people are currently too apathetic; they are badgering Mubarak a bit too much for that to be the case. It must be that they aren't sufficently developed to recognize the wonderfulness of being suppressed, oppressed, arbitrarily arrested, tortured, and killed by such a "wise" man?

Bah! It's high time this sociopathic egomaniac ends his thirty years of "service." He's a brutal dictator with no legitimacy at all, and should abandon his position, else he's likely to face the fate of scoundrels like Ceausescu...which is, frankly, something he deserves. Get the hell out, Mubarak, while you can!

Artwork by Pep Montserrat.

Packers!

2011-02-06T20:54:00.004-07:00

31-26, Packers over Steelers.

"The Lombardi Trophy’s 14-year sabbatical from Wisconsin has ended..." I followed the game on a radio station from Cincinnati. Whenever something exciting happened, the combination of the announcers shouting and the static made it impossible to really tell what was occurring, and I was something of a wreck by the end.

I'll no doubt hear more complaints from my friends who are fans of Chicago, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Denver, and all those other also-ran teams about how the Packers are a community-owned, non-profit corporation. Yes, that's one more reason I am a Packer fan. Every time they beat one of those private for-profit subsidized corporate teams, it's a victory for peoples' capitalism over mercantilism. Hah!

Green Bay Packers, World Champs!

Freedom vs. religion superstition

2011-02-05T20:49:00.007-07:00

I stumbled across this while looking for something else. No comment necessary, other than je suis d'accord. This is right on target. I've been away from this topic of late, but it's time to return.

Enjoy!

UC defends two billionaires, attacks another!

2011-02-04T19:35:00.009-07:00

...because liberty is our fundamental value...

In the last 24 hours, two of my close friends (who do not know each other) independently sent me two different "exposés" of brothers David and Charles Koch and the Charles Koch Foundation. I’ve dealt with the Koch Foundation and am very well informed on their activities, so I was quite taken aback by the viciousness of these articles and their plain dishonesty. There's been a smear campaign against the Kochs underway for a while, and it’s very disturbing. Unforeseen Contingencies explains.

The Kochs run an extremely successful private enterprise, and are billionaires because of it. They produce valuable goods and services that people actually are willing to pay for on the free market - this isn’t Halliburton getting sweet deal contracts from the federal government, paid for by the taxpayer, nor Goldman Sachs, getting special protection and bailouts from its agents in the federal government. Nor is it speculators, gambling that governments have overextended themselves, and hoping to trigger and profit off a currency collapse that harms millions of unsuspecting citizens. This is actual free enterprise, producing useful goods that successfully compete in the market because people want them.

The Kochs also use their personal wealth to fund libertarian activities - think tanks, academic institutes, scholars, and students. Institutes such as Cato Institute, the Mercatus Center, IHS, and Atlas Foundation are important recipients. These are serious and respectable operations.

The recent attacks appear to be coming from a variety of directions, and – to me – appear to be coordinated. But whether they are coordinated or not, they’re bizarre. Perfectly legitimate activity is being portrayed as sinister, and smeared in the most bizarre fashion.

Case in point is an article a German friend of mine sent (she's now an American citizen, and highly regarded professor of history at a nationally ranked research university). The article is an incredible (literally) smear: the article alleges, but does not establish, that Charles and David are shirttail relatives of important Nazis. This is enough for the authors to claim Nazism, the John Birch Society, neoconservatism, libertarianism, and the Tea Party are all pretty much the same thing...all Nazism, of course. It’s totally insane. My response to my friend:
...........................

"Good grief. Your grandfather was a Nazi, right? Therefore you are too, and your politics as well. That's the level of this "expose." [Note: my friend is a progressive with libertarian tendencies who voted Obama.] It's part of a continuing effort to smear and destroy libertarianism. There's been quite a bit of stuff written recently attacking the Kochs, from all sorts of unrelated angles. It seems to be an orchestrated smear campaign - I think because they are important financiers of libertarian causes.

Libertarians are enemies of the omnipotent state, and advocates of individual freedom. OTOH, Progressives can't say when government is too big, and can't identify any dimension of life in which the state can't intervene. American progressivism sprang from German Historicism, at least in part...the same intellectual tradition that German National Socialism came from. They are all for the omnipotent state, ultimately.

There's also an Austrian economics connection with this. The Austrian School began in part in opposition to German Historicism. Schmoller and the rest of the Historicists self-identified themselves as the intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern. Carl Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Wieser, Mises, and the rest of Austrians fought them on theoretical and methodological grounds in the Methodenstreit, and also saw themselves as champions of enlightened liberalism opposed to German statism. Koch Foundation has been an important source of funding for Austrian economics. And while I've received funding, no one has ever monitored me or exerted even faint pressure on anything I've done. They don't finance people doing things antithetical to their purposes, obviously - no one does. But it's strictly legitimate fostering of intellectual inquiry in which they have an interest.

I'm always astounded when I hear people, especially Americans, denounce libertarianism and libertarians. Freedom seems like such an obviously valuable thing in itself; and being dictated to by government so offensive... it shocks me that people could be anti-libertarian... but they exist, and are the enemy."
...............

Only minutes thereafter I received a second "exposé" of the Kochs from another friend. This one, from Salon.com, refers to Common Cause's ongoing campaign against the Kochs. Common Cause bused a large number of protestors to a remote resort in order to, umm, what? Disrupt a private conference. Some of the demonstrators were arrested after entering the resort and trying to break into the conference; to the Salon writer this means the Kochs have effectively suspended the First Amendment. My reply to my second friend:
...............

I'm astounded by the barrage of attacks directed against the Charles Koch Foundation. Apparently the one idea wealthy people are not permitted to finance is libertarianism.

The story as told by Pareene is a complete misrepresentation of what happened, at least according to NYT and
ABC news and New York Times.

"Common Cause" is funded by billionaire George Soros, the man who
announced an objective to drive free market economics from the university system, and apparently receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from his Open Society Institute. They've been conducting a sort of war on the Kochs.

[I can send links re "Common Cause" and Soros-OSI to anyone who requests -- conservatives publish this stuff all the time, but I got mine off the OSI site, always preferring not to simply trust critics to get things right, and the links on OSI are a mess to wade through.]

So where is Pareene and the rest of the critics when this particular billionaire is spending at least $50 million to decide what is to be taught, and not taught, in universities? Or when he finances an attack on his intellectual opponents?

I should note that Kochs have been quite active in financing Austrian economics - not in trying to shut ideas they disagree with from academia, but simply financing an intellectual tradition they do support. I've been a recipient of funds from Koch, and noticeably, no one has ever checked to see if what I've done with the funds met a political litmus test. It certainly has not met the standard "creation of political consensus around various government policies that allow them to pollute as much as they want" since some of what I've done, and what others receiving Koch funding have done, is about how to reduce negative externalities such as pollution. The characterization of "free market economics" in this piece is so far from accurate as to not even be a cartoonish version of the truth - it's diametrically wrong.

This article is bizarre - the Kochs are bashed for financing libertarian think tanks while protecting their (own, honestly earned) money from taxes "for school lunch programs." You won't find Pareene making this argument about Soros or Kennedys or other billionaires who fund the left... even though open Society Institute shelters Soros' money from taxes and instead funds his own preferred political action groups -- e.g. those who pursue the Kochs. In these screeds "left" is intellectually respectable, and "libertarian" is evil, simply by assumption. This article is particularly dirty, though, since the headline could be taken to say that the Koch brothers are Christian right-wingers, and the Michelle Malkin-Chiken-Filet-Koch picture reinforces this, even though these are entirely different stories, and phenomena. Kochs are libertarians, not right-wing bible-thumping Baptists.

A more accurate account of this story would be: "Members of a leftist group financed by billionaire George Soros were arrested while trying to crash a private conference held by billionaires Charles and David Koch. Soros, who has created an institute to purge academic economics of ideas he opposes, is now financing political action groups to harass the Kochs, who have for years financed research by economists of the Austrian school." This has me wondering whether Soros or his affiliates own Salon.com stock. That would be an interesting story to investigate.

The level of venom and illogic in these attacks is quite dangerous. I take them quite personally because they are such outlandish misrepresentations of what I do, what my students do, what Cato Institute does, what Mercatus Center does, and what the Kochs do. (Kochs help a number of our students pay for college, you realize.) This kind of viciousness is plain evil.
...............................

In the end, it looks to me very much like George Soros and his scoundrelly friends are out to smear and silence the few people who speak out consistently for individual liberty, including freedom of individuals to trade: the free market. It's not a battle of ideas at this point, since this kind of vile attack has no pretense to better ideas – it's obvious disinformation, and an attempt to simply destroy opposition. Since it’s directed at exponents of freedom, it follows that it’s on behalf of statism, tyranny, and dictatorship. Soros' Institute for New Economic Thinking is explicitly about replacing economic reasoning that concludes free markets work with economics that begins by assuming the state and socialism have an important role. "Never mind science, our pre-conceived conclusions are too important for that." Well, to hell with Soros and his lackies in this.

Ironically, if I were pressed to do it, it would take me less than five minutes to document that there are worthwhile institutes and activities that Kochs and Soros simultaneously fund…and not much longer to document that the Lewdwig von Rockwell Institute thinks they are all neocons. But let's not go down those rabbit holes.

Disclaimer: I have on occasion received funding from both the Charles Koch Foundation and from George Soros' Open Society Institute. I estimate that I've received roughly an order of magnitude more from Soros. Neither one has ever imposed any check or attempted to influence my research, teaching, or opinions. And unfortunately, neither of them has paid even a cent to Unforeseen Contingencies.

Emergent phenomena and civil disobedience

2011-02-03T22:07:00.002-07:00

Here's a fascinating piece from the Guardian. Computing, GPS, and social media are being combined to thwart police tactics against crowds of demonstrators. At a secret location, computer geeks track tweets, texts, and GPS readings from demonstrators, and maybe police reports as well, and text information back to demonstrators. In a recent demonstration in London, police failed to "kettle" (i.e. trap and effectively arrest en masse) a crowd, apparently because of this.

The amount and power of information now available to individuals is astounding and revolutionary. We're essentially at the point where an assembly of people in the streets might move like a flock of birds, in which information available to one person at one point in the crowd might almost instantly be communicated to the rest, or in which a central command center might direct a crowd to move effectively against police or counterdemonstrators. (In Egypt these seem to be the same thing.)

I've not written on how information technology empowers citizens, because I've not had much to say. But it's clearly a development of crucial importance. AlJazeera has been webcasting a powerful documentary about Egyptian bloggers who have opposed the state and been persecuted as a result. Great stuff. Early seeds of what is happening now. I hope they succeed.

BTW, the blog of the young couple featured in the film isn't currently accessible. I have no idea whether it's still in existence, but the URL is www.manalaa.net.

Tunisia, Egypt

2011-02-02T17:40:00.007-07:00

A few thoughts...not necessarily connected.

I think the Tunisian and now Egyptian stories are quite exciting, and I hope the Mubarak regime is at an end. It's a mixed bag because both liberals and Islamists have been repressed; they have common cause now, but are probably incompatible. And more generally, opposition to economic stagnation, corruption, and dictatorship is not equivalent to support for a better system. But this revolution is a necessary thing, if these societies are to modernize, as they must. It's also inevitable. A regime can't perpetually govern against the will of the majority. Mubarak now seems to prefer civil war to losing power...a sure route to losing power. May he go soon, and to hell with him. And may Egypt move to a freer society and economy.

This revolution also reminds me of the limits of America today. The administration seems utterly unable to fathom what to do. (Condemning dictatorship a long time ago might have been a nice start.) The American media seems unable to cover the story coherently -- both government and media seem to have been blindsided by these events and very slow to respond.

AlJazeera, on the other hand, has had great coverage. I particularly recommend their live English language webcasts, which are quite informative, professional, and non-sensational. As I listen now, there's more or less a war of attrition in Tahrir Square.

AJ also has a very surprising op-ed (surprising to me, at least) on Jews praying for the Egyptian opposition. I found it sort of moving.

But for sheer Middle East strangeness, it's hard to beat the this one: the Saudi government has arrested a vulture for suspicion of being an Israeli agent.

Of course, when it comes to being blindsided, Unforeseen Contingencies is right up there. My own recent dismissal of social networking looks silly to me now, after Tunisia, and after seeing how frightened Mubarak is of Facebook and Twitter.

As usual, I see these events as part of a growing process for human civilization. Kardeshev theory predicts tumultuous times. Here's hoping we build something better out of the tumult.

Flag of Egypt image courtesy of 4 International Flags

Update: the war of attrition just got hot, as there's substantial gunfire and tanks moving. It sounds very much like the anti-Mubarak protesters are being attacked, and the army is -- maybe -- trying to intervene. If indeed Mubarak's forces are attacking, he should be tried for it.

Green Bay Packers

2011-01-23T17:40:00.003-07:00

I am not a football fan...American football, I mean...let's not even contemplate that other silly pretender. But I've been a Packer fan since before the great Vince Lombardi took them to the world's first Superbowl. (Yes, I was a wee lad then.)

Go Pack!

Pongracic, part 2

2011-01-21T21:27:00.002-07:00

Part 2 of Professor Ivan Pongracic's essay, "The God of the Market," is up!

Best Post of the Year?

2011-01-20T21:06:00.003-07:00

OK, it's a bit premature to be handing out awards just yet, but on the Steele-Wolfram blog we have a guest post from Professor Ivan Pongracic, Sr. that is worthy of your time.

I had the good fortune to hear Prof. Pongracic speak last fall, and it was one of the best lectures I've ever heard. Pongracic had been a state auditor in Tito's Yugoslavia, and told how in the course of his work he came to realize that the alleged prosperity of the state, of state firms, and ultimately of everyone around him was illusory. It was based entirely on debt...debt that could never be repaid. As he put it, "we suffered from three things: phony accounting, bad economic theories and dishonest leadership." Believing Yugoslavia would ultimately collapse, he took advantage of an opportunity to study in the United States and moved his family -- permanently -- to the U.S. It was a gripping lecture, but the punchline was the real kicker: "now, about 25 years later in the U.S., I see the same things being repeated here -- phony accounting, bad economic theories, and dishonest leadership."

In the Hillsdale-Econ.com guest post Pongracic details America's version of the phony accounting, bad economic theories, and dishonest leadership. Keep in mind that this post was first published in April 2007, before most people were even aware there was a financial crisis.

I suppose we could call Pongracic "prophetic," but I think a better way to put it is that he's an unusually perceptive observer of politics, and a darned good economist.

Read the post!

Shocking news from Denver: macro might make sense!

2011-01-10T20:30:00.005-07:00

I've been taking the "New Developments in Fiscal and Monetary Policy" course with Martin Eichenbaum and Sergio Rebelo, both of Northwestern University. So far it's the single best macro course I've ever taken. E & R are doing an excellent job of sorting out the models and theories, and then connecting them to reality. I am rather pleased that this stuff is really making some real world sense; I've been in too many macro courses where this didn't hold.

Synopsis so far...Eichenbaum kicked off the lectures by developing the rationale for the models we're using (a simple New Keynesian model and a DSGE approach): plenty of technical stuff on vector autoregressions, analysis on various kinds of macro shocks, and the motivation for the models we're using. Today he developed the NK and DSGE models, going fairly carefully into how they work and demonstrating some applications, including analyses of booms, the Taylor principle, and how monetary policy might be a source of volatility.

Rebelo took over this afternoon, and began by developing a sort of empirically-based theory of sticky prices. He subsequently has used the NK and DSGE models that Eichenbaum developed to analyze the effects of monetary and fiscal policy under various conditions. Tomorrow we're going to be looking at government spending multipliers under the extreme case of the zero bound for interest rates. I'm looking forward to it.

The average non-economist reader (we have readers?) will likely get almost nothing from the two previous paragraphs. And frankly, until I've gone over this stuff a bit more, I won't be in a position to explain it in English or proffer opinions based on what I've learned. But for now, it'll do to simply report the shocking news that macro is actually making some sense!

More thoughts on Taylor

2011-01-08T21:53:00.002-07:00

Update from Denver!

Insightful research -- good ideas on teaching -- a variety of interesting perspectives on how to do economics...our interviews of candidates are going extremely well. We've been meeting with an extremely sharp bunch of people. It's fun. It also brings home how important human capital is -- I've never really bought the "education as signalling" idea. Knowledge really does enhance one's ability to create value -- Adam Smith was right on this. I've certainly learned some useful stuff from speaking with our interviewees.

I've been thinking a bit more about Taylor's talk. He made another point I should have noted, because it's related to something I've contended for some time. IMO, commonly accepted descriptions of the political landscape tend to be all wrong. The common practice is to take whatever is the current received model -- e.g. in the American context progressive vs. conservative -- and force anything being considered into that mold. It amounts to defining a couple of categories -- not exhaustive and probably not exclusive -- and arbitrarily sorting things between them, whether they fit or not. E.g. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 are conservatives, and Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama are all liberals.

Bah! I've argued for quite some time that Reagan-Bush (for example) makes less sense than Carter-Reagan. Both Carter and Reagan were deregulators, both opposed the Soviet bloc (in ways Bush 41 refused to), both tended to reduce Federal power. Similarly, Bush 41-Clinton have important commonalities, and more importantly, Obama is in many important respects a continuation of Bush 43 (ugh)... all largely on their practices (as opposed to rhetoric) on economic regulation, foreign policy, and civil liberties.

Taylor made a very similar sort of argument in his address yesterday, but focused on macroeconomic policy. He divided the recent presidencies as follows. Kennedy through Carter: discretionary and activist. Reagan through Clinton: rules based, non-activist. Bush 43-Obama: discretionary activist.

There's great deal of sense in this sort of analysis. It amounts to looking at the details of something and trying to figure what the heck is really going on. Admittedly it's not as much fun as stuffing complex phenomena into preconceived pigeonholes, but it does offer the slim hope one might actually learn something.

Tomorrow -- more interviews, plus the start of a very promising continuing ed course in macro policy.

Wow! There really is a chance I'll be learning something!

Facebook-Goldman Sachs: more hellishness

2011-01-07T22:58:00.002-07:00

Simon Johnson has a posted an unsettling warning about the Facebook-Goldman alliance. The gist: as a TBTF bank holding company, Goldman is effectively subsidized by the federal government. Its borrowing costs are lower, and hence it piles on debt, and the risk to the taxpayer.

Luckily in this case Goldman is investing in social networking, one of those things that can only go up in price, never down... just like real estate.

Rules vs. Discretion: John Taylor Address

2011-01-07T22:08:00.003-07:00

Today at the ASSA meetings John Taylor of Stanford spoke at a joint AEA/AFA luncheon(American Economic Assn/American Finance Assn). His topic: a short history and comparison of rules vs. discretion in both fiscal and monetary policy. He more or less argued that policy cycles between the two, and that the more discretion, the worse the effects for economic performance. He gave some simple arguments, both empirical and theoretical, for his contentions -- I found them useful. It was an interesting talk, although not as exciting as I'd expected. You can download his talk right here, and it's worth reading.

At the luncheon (some odd chicken dish, of course) I sat between two chaps from Africa, one of whom runs a think tank, the other a Ph.D. candidate in Japan, of all places. I think I learned more talking with them than I did from the luncheon address, mostly because there wasn't much new to me in Taylor's thesis, while I'd never even heard of Ghana's health insurance system before, nor several other of the things we talked about.

One thing during the luncheon really struck me. While we were discussing African development, the role of China came up. After a bit of discussion of what China has been doing (buying raw materials, for one thing), the fellow from the think tank said "if anyone wonders about whether China or the West is making more headway in Africa, the results are in: China won." He went on to explain why he thinks Africa can successfully develop, fairly quickly, without the West -- and it did make some sense.

A comment over lunch isn't exactly definitive research, but I jumped in my seat nonetheless.

Photo: economist John Taylor of Stanford University.

AEA/ASSA 2011

2011-01-06T22:44:00.004-07:00

Greetings from Denver, host to the 2011 meetings of the American Economics Association and Allied Social Sciences Association. I'm here for the full run of meetings. Much of the time I'll be conducting job candidate interviews for my current (top secret) employer, but also will sit in on some sessions, and will take the continuing education course on New Developments in Monetary and Fiscal Policy with Martin Eichenbaum and Sergio Rebelo, both of Northwestern University. Expect reports.

Getting to Denver has been quite fun, and worthy of a report itself. I spent New Years' Eve in Bozeman MT with friends, including some top ultrarunners. New Years Day training partner Fran Zelenitz and I did a one hour run on snowpacked trails in Bozeman, which felt great. The next day we made a summit attempt on Baldy, just north of Bozeman. Fran wasn't feeling 100% and turned back after an hour or so. I kept on, accompanied by canine companion Chaos, but gave up around the halfway point when I hit ice slopes that were too much for the snowshoe crampons -- real crampons would have worked, as would have stronger legs. I decided not to risk injury and turned back, doing an off trail leg that took us to a lower trail where we slogged up slopes and through timber, getting a total of 6 and a half hours of solid snowshoeing in. Another snowy run on the third, and then down to Cheyenne Wyoming, where I stayed with my longtime friend Jeff Ross and his lovely lady Terry.

On the 5th Jeff and I did a great snowshoe trip in the Snowies under somewhat tough conditions -- cold and extremely high winds. (On the way there Jeff saw a semi trailer twice tip on one set of wheels -- the other side was lifted off the ground by the wind.) It was a great high altitude trip (over 9,000 feet) and with luck I'll have a photo or two to post at some point.

Today Jeff, Terry, and I visited the Denver Museum of Art for the Tutankhamun exhibition plus quite a number of the regular exhibitions. This was certainly a much better way to get to the AEA/ASSA meetings than my usual flight, and best of all -- no TSA idiots were involved!

Next, the meetings...more news soon!

A match made in Hell?

2011-01-03T09:20:00.006-07:00

What do Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and Russia's Digital Sky Technologies have in common? Facebook is selling shares to Goldman and DST. Simultaneously Goldman is developing a structured investment vehicle so as to circumvent SEC reporting requirements. Facebook will have possibly thousands of high-end investors, but with the SIV it will be considered just one investor -- Goldman Sachs.

I've been anti-Facebook for a long time. It's difficult to find another activity that is so vacuous and pervasive as Facebooking; television watching is the only thing I can think of. But television watching, mind-numbing as it is, at least does not require you to give up your privacy. But now users will be surrendering their privacy to secret unnamed investors. Do you really want to give all this info to... umm, Putin? The Chinese? The Saudis? Who knows who? There'll be no way to find out.

Couple Facebook with the most corrupt and conniving of financial entities (Goldman, of course), add the Russians and who knows who else, and you have quite an alarming operation, to say the least. Most "social networking" is simply empty distraction from the standpoint of the user, but increasingly the information we put out is being used for manipulating us under the guise of marketing. Social networking is really social engineering on a mass scale. We at Unforeseen Contingencies strongly urge everyone to break the habit and get rid of their Facebook and similar social networking accounts.

Yes, a match made in hell. This is not innocuous.

2011: Off to a strange start

2011-01-01T18:19:00.002-07:00

Happy New Year from Unforeseen Contingencies!

The year has barely begun, and we already have a strong candidate for weirdest story of the year. In December 2009 the Taliban kidnapped two French journalists working in Afghanistan, and held them for ransom. The French government has refused to pay the ransom, and the men are still held hostage.

Today the Taliban issued a press release condemning the French government because it has "not paid much attention to our conditions and the rights of their citizens." Lebanon's Naharnet has the story.

A year that begins with kidnappers expressing outrage that others are insufficiently concerned with the rights and well-being of their victims might turn out to be quite interesting.

May all of our Unforeseen Contingencies readers (we have readers?) have very interesting, successful, and happy year in 2011!

Story of the decade: The Financial Crisis

2010-12-31T01:06:00.003-07:00

Well, it's the end of the decade, and we here at Unforeseen Contingencies have selected what we think is the top story of the decade, and - so far - that century.

Depressingly, it's the financial crisis. Even more depressing, it is questionable whether the story will ever be told correctly. Was it the private sector being victimized by the government, or was it the free market? Well, it was neither. Here's why.

Paul Krugman usually is not one of my favorite commentators, but he is almost right on target in this NYT op-ed in which he blasts the Republican members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission for trying to remove all blame from Wall Street for the mess we are in. My one reservation is that Krugman calls the Republican position "free market fundamentalism," but it's not. It's protection of well-connected financiers with monopoly power -- exactly what Adam Smith called Mercantilism.

The financial crisis is in many respects an intentional looting of America. It was facilitated by the federal government, but "the gov't vs. the private sector" is a false dichotomy that serves mostly to confuse the public, and also the economists. Forget "gov't vs. private sector," it's a single band of crooks, with members who move back and forth between government and private sector. For example, the U.S. Treasury is practically a Goldman Sachs subsidiary, as we documented in an earlier post.

Or see this excerpt from Ezra Klein's "Wonkbook" today: "More government regulators are bolting to the industry they regulate, reports Zachary Goldfarb:'The president's recently departed budget director is joining Citigroup. The New York Federal Reserve Bank's derivatives expert is joining Goldman Sachs. And numerous investigators from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are joining Wall Street's top law firms. The vast overhaul of financial regulations and the renewed intensity of investigations into white-collar crime has been a boon for regulators, prosecutors and financial policymakers looking to cash in on their government experience and contacts...Lawyers making the move, who often were in the private sector before joining the government, can reasonably expect their income to go from less than $200,000 to $400,000 or more, legal recruiters say.'"

So keep in mind, the "gov't vs. private sector" story makes sense in some settings, but not when it's the same bunch of guys running both sectors.

How did these "Masters of the Universe" cook up the financial crisis? Here's the essence, stripped of niceties and technical details. They knowingly cooked up fraudulent mortgages (e.g. Fitch Ratings took a sample of subprime mortgages they'd already rated AAA and found that 100% appeared to involve fraud -- overwhelmingly on the part of the originator.) Then the banks sold them so they could be turned into mortgage backed securities that the designers themselves admit they do not understand. Then they sold all this toxic waste to unwitting investors, giving essentially phony prospectuses, and then took out hedges against the securities they'd sold. And then every crook involved paid themselves huge bonuses, effectively looting the shareholders of their respective firms, and also fired the risk assessment people after lecturing them they weren't contributing to the bottom line. And let's not forget plenty of cheap credit from the Fed to inflate the bubble. And finally, when it all fell apart, the most politically connected ones convinced the head of Goldman Sachs (oops, I mean ex-head) Hank Paulson to get the Dept. of Treasury and the "politically independent" Fed to bail them out. It's possibly the greatest scam in history, and it is still going on.

It's been facilitated by many, including efficient market hypothesis economists who claim it simply can't happen because markets are perfectly efficient; in part by supply-side economists who tell the lie that everything the private sector does is wonderful if the government would only get out of the way; and in part by progressive economists who spout the nonsense that is the natural consequence of a "deregulation" (that never happened) and the free market." The big debate is whether more power should be given to the band of crooks when they are wearing their private sector hats, or their government hats. It's inane. No one bothers to mention the crucial importance of individual rights, without which there's no free market. I wonder if anyone even understands that markets without protected individual rights are extremely dangerous, destructive things, just as are governments.

When the financial crisis broke into full public view in September 2008, economist Nouriel Roubini (who had warned early on it was coming) warned we were on the verge of becoming the USSR-America and correctly labeled Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke as American bolsheviks, in that they were trying to grab unchecked power and in doing so bail out their associates in the private sector by socializing the losses, i.e. passing them to the politically unconnected majority of us in the private sector. But the system really is not socialism so much as mercantilism. But whatever we call it, it's surely not the free market.

So that's the story of the decade, in our view. The damage is ongoing. May the next decade brings us something much, much better.

Happy New Year.

A note on Holbrooke

2010-12-14T19:21:00.005-07:00

UC pays its respects to Richard Holbrooke. His politics really weren't ours, but we're sorry to see him gone. Why?

Richard Holbrooke seemed to have relatively decent objectives in mind, and was willing to pursue them in a realistic fashion. He was the key figure in the Dayton Accords that stopped the bloodletting in Yugoslavia. He later played a role in stopping Milosevic's butchery in Kosovo. His solutions weren't optimal, whatever that might be, but they were solutions that ended butchery and laid the grounds for a semblance of peace. It's too bad he couldn't have done the same for Afghanistan.

Rihard Holbrooke, R.I.P.

Richard Holbrooke

2010-12-11T22:05:00.003-07:00

Unforeseen Contingencies wishes Richard Holbrooke a recovery, full and speedy. We're not big on bureaucrats, nor Democrats, but Holbrooke is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful man who has done some good for the world. May he return to work soon.

Abolish the TSA

2010-12-11T22:01:00.001-07:00

While I'd prefer to avoid discussions of current policy, America's present approach to policy is so noxious and "in your face" that it's hard to blog on anything else. Federal government power has greatly expanded of late, particularly under the Bush and Obama regimes; both have greatly expanded the government's ability to intervene in the economy and both have waged war on our civil liberties. The invention of the airport Gestapo (a.k.a. TSA) is a case in point.

A friend of mine worked for the TSA for a short time. He is an ex-USMC parachutist and ex-SWAT team member (from a very rough jurisdiction). He did a short term with the TSA, and quit in disgust. He told me he'd never worked for such a dysfunctional, corrupt, and useless bureaucracy. The TSA is the agency that decided it needed to x-ray or grope airline pilots, allegedly to make certain said pilots didn't put explosive into their underwear so that they could crash their airplanes. Good lord! Underpants bombs are extremely ineffective at best, and if a pilot really wants the aircraft to crash, I think we all can understand that s/he has much more effective methods... like simply crashing the plane. There's no reason at all to scan pilots, if the purpose is ensuring safety.

I don't believe that Janet Napolitano, or Michael Chertoff before her, are really so stupid as to think such scanning makes sense from a security standpoint. So why do they develop such inane policies? Most critics call the TSA's shenanigans "security theatre," meaningless activity designed to make people think TSA is doing something. In this view, such "security theatre" satisfies the public demand for "something to be done" about terrorism, and also helps justify the $8 billion devoted to TSA (and $43 billion spent on DHS) this year.

I'm not so sanguine. I lived in the former Soviet Union; a fair amount of the old ways of doing things remained in place, and I experienced firsthand some of what the Soviets did to cow and control their populace. Subjecting people to warrantless ID checks and searches, humiliating them, and controlling their ability to travel is the essence of the Soviet system, not the gulag. America is becoming increasingly Soviet. I'm inclined to think this is all about controlling citizens, not terrorists.

Does any of this security theatre make us safer? Security expert Bruce Schneier has an eloquent analysis that suggests the new TSA measures are utterly useless for security. He discusses the technical aspects of detecting explosives, the inanity of the new TSA measures, and then observes:

"The truth is that exactly two things have made air travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing cockpit doors and convincing passengers they need to fight back. The TSA should continue to screen checked luggage. They should start screening airport workers. And then they should return airport security to pre-9/11 levels and let the rest of their budget be used for better purposes."

Schneier also has a word for us, the America people: "We have a job here, too, and it's to be indomitable in the face of terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to terrorize us: to make us afraid, and make our government do exactly what the TSA is doing. When we react out of fear, the terrorists succeed even when their plots fail. But if we carry on as before, the terrorists fail -- even when their plots succeed."

We should indeed be indomitable in the face of terrorism, and in the face of intimidation as well...including intimidation from our own government. Schneier doesn't go far enough. The TSA should be abolished. As my friend suggested, it's already a sclerotic bureaucracy. We need to wipe out its "institutional memory" and move to a system compatible with individual liberty. If we need a baggage screening service, let's abolish TSA and start from scratch. But mostly let's just abolish TSA.

Russia's One Party System

2010-12-10T22:09:00.005-07:00

Nice video, sad story.

For more details, see this article.

Postscript: For a time, the video didn't work, but seems functional now. But if you cannot access it here, you can get it on the NYT link.

"What the hell goes on here?"

2010-12-09T21:54:00.006-07:00

This supposedly is of one the two first things Josef Stalin learned to say in English. It's a good question, especially today.

What goes on here? Evolution, that’s what. Or so suggests Kardeshev theory.

I have blogged little of late, and the little that has appeared here is not up to standard, I think. In part, this blog has come to focus a little too much on current events, and trying to comment of the current world shenanigans has not seemed a very attractive proposition. Too much is happening, and too much of this too much seems very dark for liberty. The Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs advance. Afghanistan is a shambles. Europe is a financial mess. China seems to be on the rise (as well as enjoying the greatest real estate bubble in history). Israel is on the verge of war with its neighbors, who in fact fear Iran more than Israel but can’t admit it. Western Europe is bankrupt. The United States are simultaneously bankrupt and the world’s financial "safe haven." The Republican party and conservatism, destroyed forever in 2008, are now fully in charge, and the Democrats and Progressivism, the unstoppable wave of the future, are now destroyed forever … or at least until 2012. After Senator Mitch McConnell declared that replacing Barack Obama would be the primary goal of the Republicans, Mr. Obama has allied himself with the Republicans and lashed out at his Democrats. Dick Cheney is facing prosecution in Nigeria for corruption. (A nice irony, that.) And Wikileaks is preparing to make public everything that was ever said by everyone.

Trying to comment on all of these is a hopeless task. But as the year is winding to an end, I think it is a nice point for "us" to return to "our" roots.

"Unforeseen contingencies" well describes much of what has gone on of late. The financial mess and the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq do not surprise me. But it strikes me that currently the world situation is unusually unstable, unpredictable, and in flux. It’s always possible to make conditional predictions, but guessing at what tomorrow’s conditions will be, even roughly, seems essentially impossible. The unforeseen, unpredictable, unimagined, and unguessed at prevail.

There is a larger sense, though, in which none of this is a surprise. As I’ve mentioned before, as part of the USSR’s SETI program, astrophysicist Nikolai Kardeshev developed a classification system for civilizations, based on level of technological development. In the course of this, he also developed theory concerning necessary institutional underpinnings and transitions from one level to another. In the Kardeshev system, a Class I civilization is one that can control energy resources at the planetary level. He also argues that the transition to Class I is particularly difficult; it is fraught with difficulty as the species in question wrestles with new found power. It's a time when a proto-civilization is most tested: it has an enormous potential to make a sharp advance, and also is most vulnerable to self-destruction.

This is us.

Our primary difficulty is that we are developing technology that puts us on the verge of Class I. But it's less clear that our institutions, formal and especially informal, have advanced as well. Our ethics remain mired in mysticism and faith. Our politics too often is based on the premise that our fellow humans are prey. And we’ve failed to absorb the lessons of our one genuine social science, economics, and have tended to substitute rent-seeking and party lines for it.

Advanced technology in the hands of mercantilists, rent seekers, religious fundamentalists, totalitarians, and anyone else who does not respect the rights of the individual is dangerous. Power in the hands of the malevolent (or the stupid) is a bad idea. Individual rights - property rights, properly understood - are the fundamental constraint by which we must bind ourselves if human civilization is to advance any further. Talk of an alternative model, such as a Chinese-style authoritarian market system, is claptrap. Perhaps something like this works for social insects, but not for a race of individuals.

"We" at Unforeseen Contingencies can’t guess how the near future will unfold. Kardeshev theory predicts rougher times ahead. Humans have evolved this far, and our belief is that we'll successfully make the transition to being a civilization. We'll see what we can say that might help. As ultrarunners, we recognize that even a tiny step forward counts. As aficionados of contingencies unforeseen, we'll enjoy the surprises as they unfold. It beats boredom.

Photo: Russian physicist Nikolai Kardeshev.

Even worse: UC endorses...Michelle Obama?

2010-11-09T19:09:00.004-07:00

In keeping with our demonstrated preference for contrarianism (including contrarianism against our own principles and positions) "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies are very happy to be able to take our hats off and give two thumbs up to First Lady Michelle Obama. During the Obama's visit to Indonesia, the First Lady shook hands with Indonesia's Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring during an official reception.

As it turns out, Mr. Sembiring is a conservative Muslim (not one of those fundamentalists who distort Islam, mind you) and isn't to touch any woman to whom he isn't related. (Yes, I know this is pregnant with meaning, and no, I don't know what it actually is supposed to mean; I'm just relating what Yahoo News has reported.) Hence he's now backpedaling and claiming Mrs. Obama forced herself on him. And yes, the video indeed captures his horror at having his pious abstinence ruthlessly violated by Mrs. Obama.

"We" have never been a fan of Mrs. Obama, and while we haven't commented on her, we have been increasingly upset by her and her support for the nanny state and her anti-French-fry-ism. But negativity always pains us, and so we are happy that at long last we are to be able to say, in good conscience, "way to go, Mrs. O!"

Enjoy!

UC endorses ... Christine O'Donnell?

2010-10-31T19:26:00.006-06:00

Sure. Why not?

Her religious ideas might be batty as can be, but so far as I know she hasn't suggested that the government make us obey, say, the Catholic doctrine on Onanism. That's more than I can say for the Democrats, who are well on track to having government "nudge" us into total obedience on everything from health insurance to diet to speech and beliefs. It's hard to imagine O'Donnell voting for multibillion dollar bailouts for Goldman Sachs and its ilk, or for laws that violate the Second Amendment. And she's a far cry better than her crooked and thoroughly statist opponent Chris Coons. So yes, good people of Delaware, vote O'Donnell!

More generally, the Tea Party phenomenon is an extremely hopeful sign. It's grass roots, and it is based on skepticism of big government. The absurd demonization of it by the establishment media is unfortunate (New York Times, Washington Post, and National Public Radio have been particularly despicable in their disinformation campaigns), because opposition to corporate bailouts, opposition to pork barrel stimulus, and opposition to a destructive health care fix that increases budget deficits and insurance costs without providing any counterbalancing benefits to the citizens should cut across ideological lines.

That the Tea Party cuts against the status quo should be obvious. Look at how Republicans have "welcomed" Tea Party types like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, and Sharron Angle -- these candidates are a threat to the GOP as much as to the Democrats, because they might actually take away the trough at which the pigs of both parties feed. None of them are libertarians, and all are flawed, but the GOP leadership hates them because they rock the boat. The opposition to Tea Partiers by the likes of power-seeking insiders like Karl Rove, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, and Lisa Murkowski show where the real sympathies of the Republican establishment scoundrels lie: the one driving interest of the GOP political class is political power, and in this they are fundamentally the same as Democrats such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

Well, as Heinlein put it, "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." It is great that we have the Tea Party, because it falls on the right side of this divide, while none of our political parties do.

So regardless of any warts the Tea Party candidates might have (and they do have them), "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies are strongly endorsing all Tea Party-ish candidates in this election, and for that matter anyone else who systematically opposes the growth of government power. We're hoping for repeal of the hideous Obamacare, and auditing and eventual abolition of the Fed. And we don't need any "moderate" Republican scoundrels who will go along with anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court nominees like Justices Sotomajor and Kagan. The United States of America are at a real crux, so may the candidates most willing to actually reduce state power be elected. We need all the boat-rocking we can get!

And of course, before any election, UC always does its utmost to violate McCain-Feingold, hence the importance of late endorsements. So to the voters of Wisconsin, please vote for Ron Johnson, and to Arizona voters, please vote for Rodney Glassman. Neither of these men's positions quite dovetails with UC's principles, but then neither one sponsored a bill that criminalizes fee speech concerning elections.

For additional takes on the elections, see this post on the most important issue, this post on the Democrats, this post on the Republicans, and this one on voting in general, all from yours truly, available on Hillsdale-Econ.com.

Photo: Christine O'Donnell, possibly the most photogenic political candidate since Yuliya Timoshenko.