Challenging Bad Info

When you think you can move on from a personal crusade against faulty workplaces, such as the media, academia, and the sciences, an article appears in a prominent publication that is misleading at best or presents poor work in support of a particular point of view—Richard Fryer’s “The Economics of Slavery, an op-ed in the Wall Sreet Journal June 18th, in anticipation of the Juneteenth Holiday the next day. I join the masses of humanity in celebrating the end of chattel servitude anywhere in the world. My upset isn’t with the holiday but rather with someone using it as an opportunity to mislead.

My criticism is similar to what I wrote when I first read “The 1619 Project.” Both are tracts that consist of desired conclusions based on questionable data and straw men.

In Roland Fryer’s case, he claims to refute the idea that slavery was unprofitable. He mentions the “Woodson Center’s “1776 Unites.” However, the center notes Adam Smith’s idea that slavery was inefficient in comparison to his free trade principles. The fact that slavery exists nowhere capitalism is dominant is proof that Smith is correct. However, that has nothing to do with the rewards that owners of human chattels have received through the ages. Smith never said that British Caribbean island sugar plantation owners didn’t benefit. Home weaving was “profitable” for centuries, but hardly exists today because it’s uncompetitive in today’s mass market. Apples and oranges.

Has any of the millions of people who read or saw the movie “Gone With The Wind” concluded that Tara was unprofitable? Could an institution dating back to the Sumerians and practiced across the world in some form for thousands of years last if it was “unprofitable.?’

The author then supports his attack on this straw man with evidence he presents as well-founded scholarly work by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman; however, their work is highly contentious regarding both facts and methods. What is the shock in finding that plantations keep production data? Similarly, Roman and Greek slave-owning large landowners did the same. Hammurapi’s Babylon had cuneiform tally clay tablets. What would be enlightening would be comparisons of methods.

Continue reading

Only The Next Rung Is Important

Successful politicians are those with an ear for what people are thinking. Recognize what’s bothering most people and let them know you hear them; if possible, offer a solution. At least, I thought I understood how it works, but I was wrong. How else can you explain why so many politicians are staking out positions with only minority support?

On the left, politicians have taken positions supporting biological men competing in women’s sports. Blue State leaders stand in the way of banning this unfair competition. Criminals here illegally get support from the same group when the federal government tries to remove them.

On the right, we have an administration levying tariffs willy-nilly against both friends and foes. The same administration berates Ukraine while asking nothing of Russia in their conflict. Neither position has majority support.

What do these positions have in common? They are highly unpopular. Sizable majorities deplore these positions, so why do supposedly intelligent politicians stand foursquare for them? The realization is that in today’s politics, you climb one rung at a time. If you don’t grab the lower rung, you have no upside.

In most cases, that lower rung is your party’s nomination. This situation means winning primaries. In my series on “The Future Party,” I noted that while primaries appear to be the democratic expression of the people’s will, the results often fall short of this ideal.

It isn’t hard to see why primaries fail to reflect the mood and concerns of the general electorate. It has to do with turnout. Primaries typically draw less than half the participation of a general election. For instance, according to the last statistics I could find, the 2022 Utah primary drew 19% of eligible voters. The General Election drew 44%. Most primaries draw less than a quarter of voters, while the General election draws 40 to 50%. Presidential elections draw over sixty percent.

Continue reading

We’ll Know Soon

With so many things coming together this week, we may be closer to a watershed movement than we knew. Many of them validate points I’ve been making. Ukraine launched well-planned attacks on military targets deep in Russia. That nation does have cards to play, much to Trump’s and others’ dismay. A bunch of expensive and irreplaceable bombers, along with essential bridges destroyed, bring the war home to Russia in the most embarrassing way. Enhancing Ukraine’s ability to continue to hit deep into Russia is the decision by European nations to remove restrictions on how the Ukrainians use the weapons they provide.

I pointed out how foolish it is not to support Ukraine’s ability to strike back at military targets anywhere in Russia. Why should Russia give an inch in any peace talks if little of theirs is at risk, while they can attack at will, not only military targets but civilians as well?

Bolstering the ever-increasing attacks on the homeland with new sanctions with teeth that may be in Russia’s future. Sen. Linsey Graham’s bill to target Russian oil already has bipartisan support, with 67 sponsors evenly divided between the two parties. Even with Trump’s foot-dragging on anything causing Putin pain, the Russian dictator will face increasing torment. The question is whether Trump will lean even more toward Putin.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is homeless. By that, I mean he’s lost his last political home. Like many highly educated individuals, he began his political journey on the left, establishing his businesses in the true-blue state of California. The Democratic Party stood up for our liberty, or so he thought. Dealing with the California bureaucracy and the government’s overt interference in free social networks and free speech altered his perspective. The migration of his enterprises to Texas followed. He bought Twitter and exposed the government agencies that distorted the flow of information.

It made sense for him to gravitate away from the big government Democrats to the party of small government and free trade.

He produced Autos both here and abroad, and his products required worldwide supply chains. He craved less regulation and interference. When the Democrats didn’t align with his needs, he moved to the only other choice, the Republicans.

Continue reading

A Fork In The Road?

It all seemed so easy. Resolving the war in Ukraine upon Trump’s return to office—peace in Gaza and the return of all hostages. Manufacturing is sprouting up across the Rust Belt, providing a multitude of good-paying jobs, all protected by a solid tariff wall. Everyone at the rallies cheered for a new day. Well, Trump has been president for over 100 days, and it all seems like a distant memory.

If anything, the Ukraine war is even nastier, with Russia targeting civilians. While directing all sorts of pressure and humiliation toward Ukraine and its leadership, Trump, up to this point, refused to cause Russia any discomfort. Why does our president coddle an unfriendly power that is the aggressor? As I demonstrated in my post, “What’s Trump Thinking,” the notion that Russia would abandon its alliance with China is a fantasy. China isn’t about to allow a Russian defection to put the developing Arctic trade route in unfriendly hands. Putin knows that if he can’t subdue the much smaller Ukraine, he stands no chance against China. Trump seems unaware that Russia is China’s vassal state. He continues to treat Russia as a great power.

While retrieving some hostages, the war in Gaza rages on, with many still unaccounted for. A truce with the Houthis has allowed shipping to return to the Suez route, but Israel is still subject to attack.

As Iran closes in on becoming a nuclear power, Trump is in talks to trade sanctions relief for Iran putting off a nuclear weapon. This negotiation is similar to the Obama administration’s tactics. The pact they made with Iran resulted in that nation funding its pawns, Hamas, the Houthis, Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah. We all know how that turned out.

Trump’s industrial policy, centered on the use of high tariffs, has so far engendered much confusion, numerous paper promises, and little difference in Rust Belt manufacturing. Where the almost daily tariff changes lead is anyone’s guess.

Continue reading

Trumping Trump

O.K., who left the closet door open and let Peter Navarro, the White House trade advisor, out? All I know is I woke up Friday morning to find Tariff Man, A.K.A. President Donald Trump had threatened the European Union with a 50% tariff on June 1st if they didn’t bend to his will. Added to this blast was a 25% tariff on any iPhones built outside the U.S. Apple has been moving production to India.

So much for the assurances uttered by those behind Trump’s first-term tax success; as I’ve pointed out, Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore, and Art Laffer led us to believe massive tariffs were only a tactic to obtain fairer trade terms. On “Liberation Day,” we saw high tariffs, only to be partially rolled back, but here we go again. How often do we hear the cry of “wolf” without any canine attack before we stop listening about wolves and anything else we hear from the Crier?

We may have legitimate complaints against our trading partners, and they have their concerns. But why not negotiate in good faith rather than making enemies out of friends and potential friends? Our relationship with Europe is already shaky over the Ukraine conflict and NATO. Do we need a more estrangement?

As the most populous nation on earth, India, as an ally, could help offset China. India is a rapidly developing nation willing to produce things we’ve been getting from China. We should be happy that Apple builds phones there rather than in China. No, Trump demands Apple make expensive phones in the U.S. India has every reason to feel stiffed by the U.S. Do we want to punish an American Tech company while we’re claiming that’s what the EU is doing? Why take business from India?

Trump claims he has all the cards, and everyone must give in to his desires. This blog is devoted to public policy, ours, and other nations. Looking at things from the perspective of different countries, Trump’s contention isn’t necessarily so.

Continue reading