the-economy : Duthie On...

Wow. This post, on successful government reform in New Zealand, is remarkable and inspiring. If nothing else, it gives one hope that perhaps there will be at least some last bastion of liberty in the world if the libs have their way here in the U.S. Certainly, I'll have to put NZ on my list of places to visit soon.

Almost 4 full months to earn enough to pay your taxes...too much:

Who would have predicted this:

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.

Oh yeah, that's right...I did, almost a year ago:

So it seems to me that even granting the best possible assumptions for CFL supporters we are going to end up trading mercury emissions in US coal-fired plants for:

1. Mercury emissions from Chinese coal-fired plants
2. Mercury pollution at CFL facilities in China
3. Mercury pollution in the US waste stream

This just doesn't seem like a wise trade-off to me.

The article notes:

As long as the mercury is contained in the bulb, CFLs are perfectly safe. But eventually, any bulbs — even CFLs — break or burn out, and most consumers simply throw them out in the trash, said Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University and editor of the journal Environmental Research.

“This is an enormous amount of mercury that’s going to enter the waste stream at present with no preparation for it,” she said.

Welcome to the party, folks.

Oh, and make sure to read the sidebar to the article, too, which contains the 11-step process the EPA recommends for cleanup after a CFL breaks. Thanks, but not in this house, at least not until the federal ban on incandescent bulbs kicks in.

One last thing...the article doesn't do the math, but here's an interesting quote:

Consumers bought more than 300 million CFLs last year, according to industry figures, but they may be simply trading one problem (low energy-efficiency) for another (hazardous materials by the millions of pounds going right into the earth).

Let's see...5 milligrams of mercury per bulb (.005 grams) x 300,000,000 bulbs is about 1.5 million grams of mercury, or 1,500 kilograms. That's one and a half tons of mercury that may potentially enter the waste stream or end up elsewhere in the environment. And that's before the federal ban on incandescent bulbs takes effect. That's a lot of mercury to trade for warming that may not even be happening anymore.

Shining a light on fluorescent bulbs - Environment- msnbc.com

...translated:

 

Here's a Laffer Curve Tutorial from Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute. Should be required viewing for Congress, in my opinion.

via The Corner on National Review Online

OK, so when you've failed to convince Rolling Stone that a favorite liberal solution is a good thing, you've got a real problem (WARNING: article contains some strong language):

The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.

Of course, author Jeff Goodell, who goes on to describe ethanol hype as "dangerous, delusional bullshit" is right on target. Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline, less efficient, and has the nasty side effect of raising prices for everything that depends on corn, which includes dairy products, meat, and oh, yes, corn tortillas, which are a staple of poor Mexicans, who are likely to suffer greatly from this pork being larded out to American corn farmers.

Read the whole thing.

Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles : Rolling Stone

Time to fire up the fear engine:

With another summer upon us, the media is again abuzz with news about the West Nile virus. News agencies across the nation are offering tips and advice on how to avoid contracting the disease. Advice ranges from the pragmatic (drain water on your property) to the impracticable (limit time outside at dawn and dusk, when mosquitoes are most active). Innumerable experts have been consulted and their consensus is clear: be afraid, very afraid.

So begins a column from AFF Brainwash that provides a critical reminder that what the media tells us to fear isn't always so fearsome:

If you get bit by a mosquito infected with the West Nile virus, there’s a 20 percent chance that you’ll develop West Nile fever. Even if you bit by a mosquito infected with the West Nile virus (not likely) and you develop West Nile fever (even less likely), there’s just a one in 150 – .67 percent – chance of developing a severe illness!

Doesn't sound so scary now, does it?

The problem, of course, is that the media fear machine leads to expensive attempts to mitigate this miniscule threat, diverting resources that would be better used to deal with real threats (or...shocking thought...perhaps government could let us keep our money instead of spending it on attempting to eradicate vanishingly small risks). According to the article, federal and state officials spent tens of millions of dollars last year, between efforts towards a human vaccine, and mosquito control.

Is that a good use of funds? The article never answers yes or no, but rather points out that there are clearly less expensive ways to do more to save lives:

Unfortunately, a limited budget means doing finite good in society. Each lifesaving technique has a different cost-effectiveness: it costs just $39 per life saved to install defibrillators in emergency vehicles for resuscitation after cardiac arrest, but it costs $18 million per life saved to strengthen buildings in earthquake-prone areas. While it's easy to say which costs are worth it, it can be hard to say which are not.

Is WNV intervention worth it? Perhaps, the answer pivots on information that we don't have. To know if we’re making any progress we need to know how many mosquitoes are infected in the general population. At $20 a pool, taking samples is cost prohibitive. So instead, we test what we can and hope that the millions of tax dollars spent on public intervention is doing something.

Unfortunately, one of the consequences of a population that is generally ignorant of both basic economics and statistics and probability is that it makes it much harder to recognize government spending that sounds good (eradicate West Nile risk), but may turn out to be a very poor bargain, particularly given what we're not doing with the resources spent.

Source: AFF's Brainwash :: Not Just A River In Egypt

Instapundit asks an important question: 

WILL ETHANOL LEAD TO FOOD SHORTAGES?

Ethanol is a renewable, homegrown fuel that can help lower U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But as more and more ethanol is made from corn, less and less corn is available for food production, and that’s causing some unforeseen problems.

Corn is a mainstay of American agriculture— it’s an important ingredient in cereals and baked goods, and corn syrup is used to make processed foods like candy, chips and soft drinks. But most importantly, corn is the major source of food for cattle, pigs, turkeys and chickens that are headed for the dinner table.

A recent study conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (which receives funding from grocery manufacturers and livestock producers) reported that U.S. ethanol production could consume more than half of U.S. corn, wheat and coarse grains by 2012, driving up food prices and causing shortages. The study estimates that booming ethanol production has already raised U.S. food prices by $47 per person annually. In Mexico, protests have already erupted over the high price of corn tortillas, a staple food in the local diet.

Read the whole thing, but it seems clear to me that making ethanol fuel out of foodstuffs is a bad idea. Ethanol from waste biomass is another story.

Of course, the answer is obvious...ethanol is already diverting corn from food production and increasing prices. The idea that these problems were "unforeseen" only highlights what I've said before...the enviro-lefties (and politically connected farmers) pushing ethanol mandates are conveniently short-sighted when it comes to enacting their policy preferences. There are very few policy consequences that would be entirely unforeseen, given a reasonable economic analysis, and this one should have been predictable by even a cursory analysis.

Source: Instapundit.com -

I used to respect and admire Linda Chavez. Hers was a voice of reason on race and racial politics, among other subjects. I greatly enjoyed her book, An Unlikely Conservative, and found her story inspiring. But reading the following, I cannot believe my eyes:

Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

I find it hard to believe that she truly thinks this. Chavez has lost my respect by insulting me, and those folks like me, who believe that we should be enforcing our immigration laws. Not because we "don't like Mexicans" but because we believe in the rule of law, and we believe that unrestricted immigration in violation of our laws is bad for the country in many ways, both culturally, and economically.

I'm not sure why Chavez has suddenly lost her ability to see and speak clearly on race, and I'm not sure I care. I'm very tired of being called a racist for my desire to have the US government enforce and protect our borders.

And for the edification of Chavez and those like her, I make it a point to seek out and purchase goods made in Mexico, particularly higher-ticket items like consumer electronics, in the hope that by encouraging more trade, we can help Mexicans find higher-paying jobs at home, rather than risking their lives and breaking our laws crossing the border into the U.S. Seems to me that that would represent a nice win-win.

Source: Townhall.com::Latino Fear and Loathing::By Linda Chavez

Does anyone actually believe this conversation actually took place:

"I was at a funeral Saturday, and when the monsignor greeted me, he said, 'My God, Bart, you have to do something about these gas prices!' " said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chief sponsor of the anti-gouging bill.

So the Democrat-controlled House (with help from moronic Republicans) have passed a bill, which if enacted into law, would have the perverse effect of discouraging investment in the petroleum industry (why would anyone want to invest their money in an industry in which it would be impossible to price their product to reflect actual economic conditions, including increased demand or supply constrictions?), which would result in the legislation having the exact opposite of its stated intent.

Could someone with enough money please buy each member of Congress a copy of Sowell's Basic Economics? And while we're at it, pay someone to babysit them and make sure they actually read it.

Source: House passes gasoline gouging bill - Los Angeles Times via Drudge

This time, from corn-based ethanol.

via Instapundit

For those of you who've either never read it, or perhaps never heard of it:

I, Pencil

Arguably the most concise explanation of the power of the free market to give people what they need, in the most efficient fashion, and the why freedom is not only the best, but the only way, to meet those needs.

The Foundation for Economic Education, the publishers of I, Pencil, have a great library of economic literature available, with many publications available free of charge in HTML and PDF format. Check them out.

I suppose that all depends on whether you're a worker that wants a union or not. As the Center for Union Facts web site amply demonstrates, there are many workers for whom unions are not so great, and for some, deadly.

An excellent explanation of the fundamental reasons behind Spring gasoline price spikes. Here's a clue...price gouging isn't in there.

In Friday's Washington Post, South Carolina Governor (and Republican) Mark Sanford has an opinion piece on climate change and politics.

My response can be found here, on the American Thinker website.

Think ethanol is the way to hedge against middle-east instability or other concerns about our consumption of petroleum?

Think again.

I'm a big fan of Aussie Prime Minister John Howard, who is as stalwart an ally as the United States could hope for in a world where too often those whose freedoms came at the price of American blood view the U.S. as an enemy. So it's disappointing to see his administration jump on the greenhouse gasbag bandwagon, deciding to ban incandescent light bulbs in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When the government can decide for you what kinds of light bulbs you may or may not purchase, that's a pretty strong indication that government has:

1. More power than is healthy
2. Run out of important things to do

From what I've been able to tell, John Howard seems to generally be a strong defender of freedom, so why his administration can't see the rather totalitarian bent of such a policy is hard to understand. If it's OK for the government to regulate what kind of light bulbs individuals can buy, then what's to stop the government from interfering with any purchasing decision an individual might make?

And from a practical standpoint, what makes government the correct arbiter of which kinds of lightbulbs people can purchase? What innovations may never come to market because of the thumb Australia will be placing on the scale? And just who is going to help those at the low end of the income scale afford these more expensive bulbs? Will the Australian government also subsidize the cost for low-income families? And if so, who pays for that?

There have been a number of times recently when I wondered whether perhaps our Aussie allies weren't a little more rational than the U.S., for example when they recently did away with a government agency for "multiculturalism" (OK, it was just a name change, not an elimination, but still). But given this news, today is not one of those times.

You don't say...

Over at The New Atlantis, there's a pretty thorough debunking of the overhyped potential (or lack thereof) of hydrogen as a fuel for motor vehicles.

If only half of the article's claims regarding the costs of hydrogen-powered vehicles are true, it really puts a stake through the heart of this particular vampire of taxpayer dollars, not that it'll die as a result, alas.

Popular Mechanics covered much of the same ground in a cover article on hydrogen recently, so I'm inclined to accept the conclusion that hydrogen is pretty hopeless without some dramatic changes in the production and transportation technologies available.

I'm less sanguine, meanwhile, about the author's conclusion that ethanol/methanol represents the most promising alternative to petroleum. Given that current ethanol mandates and blends are little more than additional subsidies to corn growers (see this chart for a comparison of the costs of ethanol/methanol vs. gasoline for a cross-country trip), I have my doubts about whether they represent a practical alternative. I'm also firmly against additional government mandates in the energy arena. The notion that the feds are more capable than the free market of choosing the best energy technology for the future is utterly laughable, even without considering the tendency for such mandates to end up lining the pockets of those with an interest in them (i.e. - corn producers).

That aside, I think the clear case the author makes against wasting taxpayer money is a worthwhile contribution to the energy policy debate.

That's my response to the "day without an immigrant" protests planned for today. Shop, work, dine out...let's make it a banner day for the economy. If a bunch of people who broke our laws to come here want to demonstrate how little we really need them, so be it. Perhaps once we've gotten through these pseudo-protests backed by the labor unions, we can start discussing how to secure the border.

This article, in the Financial Times, illustrates to devastating effect the extent to which the current debate on global warming and what, if anything, we should be doing about it, rests on a foundation of ignorance. While adherents of the Kyoto protocol insist that current computer models of global warming are accurate and predict a dire future, apparently these models have missed a few things.

For one, apparently climate scientists missed the fact that trees and other plants may be producing as much as 10 to 30 percent of the methane (a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, according to the article) entering earth's atmosphere. As the article explains, this means that plans to offset atmospheric CO2 by planting more trees may not have quite the benefit anticipated. Given that in certain parts of the world, including the U.S., reforestation has already been going on for some time, one wonders to what extent this may be contributing to observable surface temperature increases.

The article also discusses new research (published in the journal Nature) that suggests that aerosols (which includes the particulate matter produced by coal-fired power plants), which play a role in reflecting the sun's rays back into space, may be twice as effective in that task as previously thought.

Finally, the article highlights research that suggests that alternate sources of energy may not be the panacea they've been touted to be. Hydroelectric, for example, turns out to be associated with large quantities of rotting vegetation, which is a prime source of...methane. As a result, such setups may end up producing more greenhouse gases than the hydrocarbon sources they're meant to replace.

Once again, the earth's climate and environment shows itself to be far more complex than the global warming nannies are willing to admit. In their hubris, they appear to have been promoting so-called solutions that have the potential to be worse than the problem they're attempting to solve. It will be interesting to see how they respond to these recent developments. If the response described in the article is any indication, denial ("the findings are preliminary") appears to be the order of the day.

[via The Corner]

Very interesting speech from Michael Crichton (author of State of Fear, among others) on the way that our response to the fear industry (the touting by the media of the latest thing or things that will kill us) and our arrogant belief that we understand (and thus the government can successfully manage) natural systems such as national parks. He uses compelling examples such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident (claims of anywhere from 2,000-15,000 dead...in fact, only 56 died in the accident itself), and the federal government's mismanagement of Yellowstone National Park (where park rangers managed to completely eliminate several predator species, exploded the elk population, and destroyed the habitat of many other native fauna) to make a compelling argument that while fear-mongering may be great for selling advertising on cable channels, or raising money for environmental causes, it's not very useful for actually making the world better...and may, in fact, make things worse.

Crichton notes that the environment, like the stock market, or other similar systems, is a complex system that's not terribly amenable to complete understanding and predictability. An input to the system on one day may produce a completely different reaction than the same input on a different day. There are a couple of important things to note about this. One is that this suggests that folks like the U.N.'s IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) who claim that their computer models are a good predictor of what will happen to world climate, are apt to be spectacularly wrong (indeed, Crichtons references to the "global cooling" scare of the 70's are quite instructive on this point). The second (which Crichton doesn't get into, which is a shame) is that this complexity and unpredictability is precisely why free market capitalism works so much better than socialism or communism (i.e. - where the state owns and controls the means of production). When decisions are being made by people who are at some remove from the negative impact of bad decisions (or insulated from them), bad decisions are more likely to result. This is also why local control of decision-making is typically better than regional or national...the closer the decision-maker is to the problem, the more quickly they can respond to unexpected consequences of prior decisions.

Seems to me this is yet another reason to be highly skeptical of the touted advantages of handing more power to the United Nations...not to mention an argument for taking some back.

Read the whole thing.

You just can't make this stuff up. Apparently there's a "feminist-based environmental group" that is asserting that men are the primary culprits in global warming, and that women are bearing the brunt of its purported effects. No, I'm not joking. One might hope that it's an elaborate hoax, but I think one would be disappointed in hoping that. An example of this idiocy is the statement of Ulrike Rohr, the director of the group:

"To give you an example from Germany, it is mostly men who are going by car. Women are going by public transport mostly."

And yet it's the right that's so often accused of dealing in stereotypes? Perhaps this is a strategy by the left to rob us on the right of the ability to parody them by moving even further left than our most outrageous parodies? I'm at a loss for any other explanation of such transparent nonsense.

Clearly some folks haven't mastered the concept of irony.

Apparently, according to this story in Las Vegas Weekly, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union doesn't grasp that there's something a little weird about hiring temp workers at $6 an hour, with no benefits, to stand out in 104 degree heat and protest the poor working conditions (and lack of union representation) at Wal-Mart. It apparently didn't occur to UCFW organizer Bill Hornbrook that there's some inconsistency here.

In addition to low wages and no benefits, the non-union workers hired by the union to picket outside several Wal-Marts in Nevada have experienced heat stroke, blisters on their feet (for which they've had to purchase their own balm), and no doubt unhealthy levels of exposure to the sun.

One could almost wonder if this story was meant as parody.

[via The Corner]

OK, so perhaps that headline bears some explanation.

There's abundant evidence, including this Washington Post article, that demonstrates that one of the best indicators of the survivability of any given natural disaster is the wealth of the society in which the disaster occurred. And it's important to note, despite the constant drumbeat from the mainstream media, that this benefit of societal wealth accrues to both rich and poor in a wealthy society. That's not to say that poor blacks in New Orleans weren't hit hard, compared to those who had the means to leave the city ahead of Katrina. But compared to victims of natural disaster in other countries, for example the 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran (a 6.6 magnitude), which left over 43,000 dead (by comparison, the Northridge, CA earthquake of 1994, a 6.9 magnitude quake, killed only 57), or the heat wave that blanketed Europe the same year, which took tens of thousands of lives.

What that suggests to me is that perhaps the most important thing we can do to further reduce the toll of future disasters, since we know we cannot prevent them, is to strive for continuing to increase the growth of the U.S. economy, and to increase the overall wealth of its citizens. Given that the tax cuts enacted by President Bush in his first term were clearly beneficial in improving the growth of the U.S. economy, and given that increased growth and wealth directly corresponds to improved survivability in natural disasters, it would be reasonable to conclude that Bush's policies are responsible for saving lives that might otherwise have been lost to a disaster of Katrina's magnitude. Something to keep in mind the next time someone tells you that "Bush doesn't care".

I want the government (the feds in particular, but in this, probably the states as well) to get out of the business of subsidizing risky behavior.

I'm not going to hold my breath, however, given the way that the U.S. Congress is collectively falling all over itself to send as many taxpayer dollars to the gulf region for "rebuilding" (never mind how much of what's committed will actually be used for that purpose).

So here's my prediction, though it pains me to say it: We're going to see more Katrinas, and more suffering of the kind that Katrina prompted, because we are so busy attempting to appear "compassionate" that we are ignoring the plain fact that people respond to incentives, subsidies, and costs in fairly predictable ways.

If the cost of living near a flood plain, below sea level, or on the beach is that every few years you must bear the cost of completely rebuilding your home, how likely would it be for you to choose to live in one of those places? Likewise, does anyone really think that, absent government mandates, any private insurer would willingly insure properties at risk of being destroyed that regularly?

The problem is that when we isolate individuals from the costs associated with the risk decisions they make, it's not just costly in terms of dollars, it costs lives. It's not compassionate to ensure future suffering by subsidizing risk today, and those who argue that debating the wisdom of massive subsidies for rebuilting New Orleans is wrong are completely missing that point.

I have to wonder about the striking Northwest Airlines mechanic who, according to this story, said the following:

"People are reluctant to hire a guy on strike"

You don't say. I wonder why that might be? But that's not the only classic quote from those with only a distant attachment to reality. There's also this doozy, describing the same guy:

He has also had trouble finding a job that pays as much. Union mechanics made $70,000 a year on average. "The last company I interviewed with, the compensation was a joke," Pounds said.

Mr. Pounds, it would seem, is due for a little reality check. The last time I saw the annual Parade magazine "what people make" issue, it would be fair to say that outside of celebrities, CEOs, and professional atheletes, the vast majority of the folks profiled made considerably less than the average union mechanic cited in this story. Perhaps that's because those people haven't bullied their employers into paying higher-than-market wages through threats of (or actual) strikes.

Good for Northwest for threatening to hire permanent replacements for the striking workers. You want to unionize and bargain collectively? Fine. But don't come crying to me when your entire collective ends up out of work.

If I told my employer that I wasn't happy with my compensation and was going on strike, they'd fire me before I could blink, and deservedly so. If you really think you're worth more than what you're being paid, the marketplace offers you the ability to prove it. The fact that Mr. Pounds isn't getting any takers for his services, even at lower wages than what he's accustomed to, suggests that perhaps his services aren't worth what he thinks they are.

Here's the response I sent to an email I received last Friday, which requested that everyone (a list of many emails, all in the To: field) receiving it sign onto a "PETITION TO LOWER GAS and Diesel PRICES IN THE UNITED STATES":

OK, let’s stop this right here, please. 

First of all, I’m putting all of the addresses on BCC, so we don’t continue to run the risk of some spammer picking up this email and putting every person on the TO: line in their SPAM database.

Second, please *don’t* forward this email or anything similar, for the following reasons:

1. Email petitions are largely meaningless to politicians, because it takes so little effort to participate in one. If you want to make a difference on any issue, call your elected representatives, or better yet, write an individual letter.
2. President Bush (or any president) has little or no immediate control over gas prices. He cannot simply proclaim that gas prices cannot go higher, and even if he could, the results would be disastrous (anyone remember the gas lines of the 70s? That’s what happens when you put price controls on gasoline).
3. If you want gas prices to go down (or at least not rise more quickly than they have been), reduce your consumption. Gas prices are driven by supply and demand and when, as is happening due to Katrina, supply suddenly drops and demand rises (because people are panicking and all rushing out to get gas at once), prices are going to rise…period. There’s nothing any politician can do about it that wouldn’t make the situation worse, rather than better.
4. I highly recommend that anyone who doesn’t believe the above, or understand it, read the following book:

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

Please understand that I’m not trying to be mean or rude, but demands of this type, if followed by politicians, can cause real harm. If you don’t understand economics, you have a responsibility to yourself, and to your fellow citizens, to educate yourself before attempting to influence policies that can impact others negatively.

If you want to do something positive in the wake of hurricane Katrina, I encourage you to make a donation to your favorite charity. I chose to contribute to Catholic Charities USA (http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/news/katrina.cfm), but as long as you’re careful to find a legitimate charity, it’s up to you where to help.

One last thing…when you send email to large groups of people, it is polite to use BCC (blind carbon copy) rather than TO or CC. Otherwise, you are putting everyone’s email at risk for theft by spammers and others who abuse email to send unsolicited sales or other emails.

I wish it hadn't been necessary to send this to a large group of people (even by BCC), but it's pretty clear that too many Americans do not understand some very basic economic facts. The fact that many people believe that the President can simply wave his magic wand (or his pen, as the case may be) and lower gas prices, is cause for concern since, as I note above, if these folks succeed in pressuring this president or any other to "do something" about prices, the result will be shortages, as surely as Nixon's price controls in the 70s had that result.

So the next time you're inclined to complain about the high cost of gas, and perhaps to demand that the President or Congress lower prices by fiat, ask yourself whether $3-4/gallon gas is better than no gas at all.

Yesterday, in one of the more ugly political hatchet jobs I've seen recently, the L.A. Times asserted in an editorial entitled "Bolton's Mischief" that actions by U.N. Ambassador John Bolton "would be a death sentence for millions."

This remarkable assertion comes because among the hundreds of amendments the U.S. has proposed to a draft reform document, "[h]is most odious change was to delete all references to the Millennium Development Goals, which commit industrialized nations to cutting world poverty in half by 2015. " The editorial goes on to say:

Part of the deal was that rich countries would eventually contribute 0.7% of their gross national product to foreign aid. The goals were a world-changing burst of optimism from international leaders in 2000, a recognition that all people have the right to be free from misery, starvation and preventable disease and that those able to pay have some responsibility to alleviate needless suffering.

According to the Times, merely stating goals changes the world. I guess actual results don't matter, which makes sense, since there's abundant evidence that simply throwing more money at the problems of poverty doesn't help, and can sometimes make things worse. Whether it's cash foreign aid that ends up in the pockets of despots or food aid that drives down the price of grain locally such that it puts local farmers out of business, exascerbating food shortages over the long run and increasing dependency, foreign aid is often a net negative for those being "aided". This is pure socialist nonsense, and whether the Times wants to acknowledge it or not, it's pretty clear today that socialism is not an especially effective means of reducing suffering. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I think Marian l. Tupy describes foreign aid, its purpose, and its effects quite well:

Foreign aid serves an important purpose. It expiates the guilt that we — the rich — feel for living a comfortable life. Such guilt is misplaced because consumption depends on production. To put it differently, the total value of what we consume equals the total value of what we produce or obtain through voluntary exchange with others. But the cleansing feeling, which comes from lavishing money on the poor, should not be confused with the effect that foreign aid has on African countries. A growing body of evidence suggests that far from helping the poor countries, foreign aid slows economic reform and retards growth.

Much like the domestic "war on poverty," which can only be described as an abject failure given the disparity between the intended and actual results of the programs enacted in its name, foreign aid is too much about making guilty liberals feel better using other people's money (thus the requirement that "rich countries would eventually contribute 0.7% of their gross national product to foreign aid," which in practical terms is mostly about soaking the U.S. since we're "those able to pay" in the Times' parlance), and not enough about measuring and responding to actual results.

If the L.A. Times is concerned about consigning millions in the third world to a "death sentence," then perhaps they could get a little more serious about the actual causes of suffering in the world (hint: John Bolton isn't one of them) instead of engaging in petty political attacks.

At least that seems to be the theory in the latest lawsuit filed against Microsoft by a company named Mythic Entertainment:

Fairfax-based video-game developer Mythic Entertainment Inc. yesterday sued Microsoft Corp., saying the software giant's forthcoming game, called Mythica, infringes on the local company's trademarks.

Mark Jacobs, Mythic's president and chief executive, said his company has had to contend with consumers and journalists mistaking the Microsoft title for one of his company's games since Microsoft started promoting the game earlier this year.

"Each day that goes by, our name is damaged by this," he said. "How would Microsoft react if someone made an operating system and called it Microsoftic?"

I certainly hope that Jacobs and Mythic get laughed out of court on this one. The fact that Mythic chose to use a rather common word for their company name, and that Microsoft is making a game that uses a word derived from the same word doesn't entitle Mythic to squat, in my opinion. The story goes on to compare the case to the suit that Microsoft filed against Lindows.com, and to discuss Mythic's flagship role-playing game "Dark Age of Camelot" and asserts that Microsoft's new game "offers similar character classes and draws from similar source material". As a gamer, this elicits a loud "DUH!" Just about all RPGs draw from similar source material, as do about 90-95% of fantasy novels.

It appears that the case ultimately comes down to whether or not a judge can be convinced that Microsoft, a $40 billion+ company, is attempting to trade off the good name of a small game company. Seems unlikely to me, but here's the money paragraph:

Peter A. Jaszi, a law professor at American University, was unable to handicap Mythic's or Microsoft's odds after briefly reviewing the filing yesterday. "This is more an art than a science," he said of trademark cases. "It's impossible to predict the outcome."

And it's precisely because of this uncertainty that Mythic might well come up with a big payday out of this. And even if their case wouldn't convince a judge, they still might manage to get a settlement, simply so that Microsoft can avoid being distracted by another nuisance lawsuit. And every case like this that Microsoft (or similarly situated companies with deep pockets) settles is money out of the pockets of shareholders, out of retirees' 401ks, and money that could have been put to more productive use elsewhere.

Tort reform, anyone?