|
|
|
 |
David Littlejohn's paean to Seattle's new Seattle Central Library (Leisure & Arts, Jan. 13) might have
bothered this Seattle resident if his opinion of this bizarre building were not so widely shared. Everyone
in a position to express an opinion on this glass menagerie—local political pooh-bahs, weekly magazine columnists, and the like—have been patting their backs so hard in self-congratulation for their city's hipness that they doubtless spilled chai tea latte on their Kenneth Coles. But ask any normal person what they think and you'll likely get a different take. Normal people, like me, understand intuitively or otherwise that classical forms became classical because people generally like them; they are based on humans and resonate with humans, who are the usual occupants. But modern architecture—like its hideous parent, modern art—is designed not to resonate with humans, not to please them, but to get in their faces. It challenges people, not to appreciate its nuance and grace, but to stomach it, to try to understand what
on earth someone was thinking. Should you dare to point out that the emperor's building has no class, you are derided as a hopelessly backward rube, as one who gazed at the magic eye puzzle but, tragically, never saw the pretty sailboat.
The people who drafted Rem Koolhaas to conjure the kaleidoscopic greenhouse that is the new Seattle Central Library seemed hell-bent on out-stranging Frank Gehry's Experience Music Project just up the road.
“Look what we can do with glass, steel, protractors, and your tax money!” the
new library shrieks. Indeed, it is the kind of freak show that is almost always built with someone else's money. (At least modern, tax-funded sports stadia are constrained in design by the activities that take place in them, and most are at least decent looking, if not downright attractive.) Putting aside why governments are even in the business of renting books, CDs and DVDs for free, why did Seattle's bureaucrats feel entitled to build a shrine to gratuitous weirdness with tax money? The Experience Music Project was at least built with Paul Allen's dime, so the only price we Seattleites pay is occasionally having to look at it.
Back to top
|
|
 |
The recent opinion piece Boxed in on Dearborn Street
(Seattle Times, 24 May) claimed many people in neighborhoods
near Rainier & Dearborn don't want a mall built there. That seemed odd
because people in low-income neighborhoods usually beg major retailers
to come.
The authors say "Commuters...might like having a huge, low cost shopping
mall on their way home." So would people who live nearby, like me. Commuters
already have those things close to home. Residents of Rainier Valley and
East Seattle, however, must travel to Northgate, Factoria, or Southcenter.
The authors say "we're fighting to stop poverty" -- while opposing a mall
they say will create 1200 entry-level jobs? Entry-level jobs are the kind
poor people need, and if the people in the neighborhood don't want to work
for those wages, they are perfectly free not to.
The authors say that when the 1200 workers' shifts are done, "they'll take
the long bus ride home because they can't afford to live in the
neighborhood." But earlier, they described the neighborhood as low-income.
(And what's wrong with taking a bus to work anyway? Isn't that what these
protesty types are always trying to get people to do?)
The authors' complaints continue:
- There are 2300 parking stalls planned. Good. I'd be complaining
if the mall planned on using city streets for parking.
- There will be more traffic. If you drive through there now,
you'd know there could hardly be more traffic. And the
authors failed to consider all the driving to Northgate, Factoria, and
Southcenter that won't happen once this mall is built.
- Toxic runoff. This is a modern shopping mall, not a
19th-century silver mine. Try building anything in 2007 Seattle with runoff
more toxic than a spilled soy latte.
Then, near the end of the article, it all becomes clear: "We're asking
Seattle's mayor and City Council to support our efforts toward a
community-benefits agreement with the developer." (As if the mall itself
wouldn't be the single biggest benefit this community has seen in decades.)
Now I get it; it's the modern version of the old protection racket. Nice
store you got planned here. It would be a shame if a bunch of protestors
went around stirring up trouble for ya.
Back to top
|
|
 |
According to the article Mother's Rights, the
Washington family leave law is needed because "Many of us are
living just one calamity away from financial ruin." One mother
says "I'm upper middle class, with tons of education, and still
we live paycheck to paycheck." Since when is fiscal imprudence a
candidate for government intervention? Perhaps if these mothers
didn't live in McMansions and drive new SUVs, they could put
something away for a rainy day instead of demanding the rest of
us buy them umbrellas.
The article notes that mothers are already discriminated against
at hiring time. Indeed, and think how much worse it will be when
every mother (or potential mother) comes with the threat of five
weeks of paid leave every time she gets pregnant. (Not to
mention the likelihood of losing these employees completely if
they decide to become full-time moms.) The family leave law
makes non-parents just that much more attractive to employers.
The folks at MomsRising.org say that motherhood is the most
important job in the world. I've little quarrel there, but why
are these folks then outraged that employers take this other
job--the most important one in the world--into account when
considering job candidates? Look at this from an employer's
point of view. How dare the state saddle businesses--many of
which go under every year anyway--with yet another burden, this
one being to play the role of rich uncle.
People have been adapting to personal crises forever, and
everyone's situation is different. Why does anyone think that
five weeks leave is a one-size-fits-all solution to any family's
woes? Maybe I'll need five months off, maybe five years.
Whatever my problems, they are not my employer's. Shifting some
of the cost of parenting onto businesses isn't simply unfair; it
burdens parents and those of child-bearing age with a liability
they might not want. You think unemployment among working moms
is high now? Just wait till this law is passed.
Back to top
|
|
 |
I love Fine Homebuilding, but lately there has been far too much eco-preaching. It's fine to have articles on green building, given that some people want that. But spare me the self-righteous hippie crap, like Alex Wilson's "Down the Drain" in the last issue, which would have us believe that using water is a sin.
The article points out that "nobody is making any new water"; that's because nobody needs to. Water is the most
abundant substance on Earth, and is continuously recycled with no help from man.
The article says "water belongs to all of us". No, comrade. The water you buy belongs to you. The water I buy belongs to me. And if I want to bathe daily under a 100-gallon-per-minute shower, that's nobody's business but mine.
Back to top
|
|
 |
In Jeff Voltz’s article, Taking Back Our Food System, he worries that “We are becoming more disconnected from our food and the land and people that produce it. This is costing us and threatening our food security.”
But why would anyone want to be limited to buying only what could be grown locally? Modern agribusiness has made food cheaper, more plentiful, and more varied than could have been imagined a century ago, all while freeing millions of people from having to be farmers. Food security? America’s biggest food problem is having too much.
Voltz laments that the average grocery item travels 1500 miles before being purchased, but when everyone eats locally, a crop failure or bad weather makes everyone starve locally. The 19th Century Irish could have used some groceries from 1500 miles away. See present day Africa for how well the local model is working.
I don’t want to “take back my food system”. I’m glad corporations grow, process, ship, store, and sell food for me. Granted modern tomatoes taste like wood, but I can buy strawberries in winter, chickens in nuggets, fresh lobster from Maine, 14 kinds of orange juice, and still have time to right cranky letters.
Back to top
|
|
 |
I was stunned by the reporter's conclusion that the question is settled. I am not an atmospheric scientist, just an interested layman, but based on the books I've read on the subject, the more cogent arguments are on the side of "We still don't know enough about how the Earth's climate works."
But two things I do know are: 1) scientific consensus gets turned on its head quite regularly, and 2) those who claim to have "The Truth" are less reliable than those who claim to be looking for it.
As for the consequences of global warming, many scientists think they could be beneficial. Although it is usually wiser to err on the side of caution, many economists (this year's Nobel winner Thomas Schelling among them) have pointed out that it will be vastly cheaper to ameliorate any adverse effects later than attempt to slow or halt carbon dioxide production now.
Back to top
|
|
 |
Even in the movie "Traffic," which reveals the drug war in all its misguided, tragic lunacy, drug users are portrayed as degenerates and chemical slaves. The drug czar's daughter goes from bright schoolgirl to pathetic crack whore in the blink of an eye.
Come on. Even for heroin users, the most reliable estimates are that a mere 10 percent become addicted. Not great news, but on a par with booze. The simple truth is that the vast majority of drug users use drugs recreationally and are no more in need of detox and counseling than is a tavern patron.
People take drugs to enjoy themselves, not destroy themselves. The biggest myth about drugs is that drug use equals drug abuse. The truth is that only the unfortunate few come to ruin, and most do so with a legal drug anyway.
Back to top
|
|
 |
I have no doubt that black drivers are ticketed by police more often, but I do doubt that racial profiling is the main cause for their overrepresentation ("Blacks ticketed more often, Seattle police study confirms," July 20).
If the data were sorted by driver income, I'm sure we would find that poorer drivers are also overrepresented. But we wouldn't conclude that income profiling was being used by the police; we would conclude that poorer people drive less-well-maintained vehicles and hence get more equipment citations.
Before any racist conclusions about overrepresentation can be drawn, a study must control for all variables that might reasonably affect one's likelihood in getting a ticket: age of driver, gender of driver, age of vehicle, type of vehicle, type of offense, time of day, location, etc.
Back to top
|
|
This is me at my crankiest. This letter lead to a phone interview on the
Bob
Rivers radio show. I think it was for their Local Nutjob segment. They could
not believe I was under 60 years old.
I
wasn't just angry when I wrote this; I think I was also drunk. (It's an awesome
combo.)
Oh, and neither of my grandfathers saw action on D-Day, by the way. Note that I
said my grandfather didn't spill his guts... Truthful but misleading.
(Isn't that Fox News's slogan?) |
I drive solo in the HOV lanes all the time because my tax dollars paid for those lanes.
My grandpappy didn't spill his guts on Omaha Beach so some unelected bureaucrat
can tell me how many people I have to have in my car before I can drive there. HOV lanes are a crock
anyway. What—if I take my kid along, I'm suddenly helping to ease traffic congestion? Their goal is not to ease congestion
anyway, but to make it worse, thereby punishing us for the sin of driving alone and making us more willing to grasp at billion-dollar straws such as light rail.
So there's talk of opening HOV lanes to all drivers at night and on weekends? Big deal. We don't need them then. Open them during rush hour Monday through Friday, and you can do that yourself the same way I do; just get over there and drive. We want more lanes; that and that alone will ease traffic congestion.
Too expensive? Adding lanes will cost plenty, but unlike monorails, choo-choo trains, and Metro subsidies, more lanes will actually reduce traffic congestion. Heck, let private companies build the extra lanes and charge a toll and it won't cost taxpayers a cent.
Did you ever hear of a private company worrying about having too many customers? They find ways to serve them, or other companies step up and do it. Only with government-run roads do you get such lousy customer service.
Concerned about pollution? A car going 60 mph for 15 minutes burns a lot less gas—and burns it cleaner—than a car going 15
mph for 60 minutes. Until they give us more lanes, drive in the only ones
they'll give us: the ones with the diamonds on them.
Back to top
|
|
 |
There I was reading your front-page article about Ken Griffey Jr. trying to get his 56th home-run ball back from a fan, and you had to go and point out that 56 is the most home runs ever hit by an African-American.
So what?
Why can't Junior just be a ballplayer? What possible relevance does his skin color or nose shape or hair type have to baseball, or anything else? It had never occurred to me to rank Junior on some "coloreds only" list. Why does this type of thought always occur to the staff of The Seattle Times?
Your PC editorialists would be the first to proudly bleat how wrong it is to judge people by race, yet every chance you get, you point out the obvious: Gary Locke is an Asian-American. Ken Griffey Jr. is an African-American. You slap a racial label on everyone so you can judge them against others with the same label. That's racism.
Back to top
|
|
 |
Why is everyone suddenly picking on Nike? Who cares what they pay their workers in Asia? Don't all these self-righteous meddlers (such as Garry Trudeau) realize that those workers are there because it's the best job they can get? If it weren't, those workers would go back to what they were doing before Nike came along.
People who rail about sweatshops fail to realize two things. 1. Pay is relative. $1.60/day in Cambodia is different from $1.60/day in Manhattan. 2. Nike didn't force or trick people into taking these jobs; the people came and stay of their own free will. Yes, their choices are much more limited than yours or mine, but at least a Nike factory offers them one more choice than they had before. No one's putting a gun to their heads.
The fact of the matter is that poor people the world over throw down their hoes and run to menial factory jobs as fast as the factories can take them. Apparently, they prefer 12-hour days indoors making shoes for $1.60 than 16-hour days trying to scratch a living out of the dirt as subsistence farmers.
Pressuring Nike will only cause fewer foreign factories to be built, thus denying others the chance to better their lives.
Vilify Nike? If anything, they should be commended. By investing in these impoverished communities, Nike does more to improve them than a boatload of CARE packages.
These shoe-factory jobs look menial, even degrading, to Americans, but they are the first rung on the ladder out of poverty. These workers don't have the skills to land jobs at Boeing or Microsoft. But if these workers save and invest, each succeeding generation will be better off.
Schools will be built, and filled with children no longer needed in the fields. These more-educated workers will attract industries with better paying jobs, and the upward spiral will continue. Capitalism works slowly, but it works.
Back to top
|
|
This letter was actually run twice. The second time, with the following humorous
intro:
Correction: Due to a production error in some editions Tuesday, part of a letter from Bill Muse was deleted and replaced with a portion of another letter on the same subject but with an opposing viewpoint. Mr. Muse's original letter is reprinted below.
The first version was pretty incoherent.
|
David Adams' op-ed piece, "ATM surcharge scheme: a bonanza for big banks" (March 20) was typical of the pernicious nonsense that masquerades as consumer protection. He thinks it's wrong that some banks charge $1.50 to use their ATMs (automated teller machines), and he supports state Senate Bill 5813 which would temporarily prohibit such charges, supposedly to allow little banks and credit unions to build their own networks of ATMs, all under the banner of consumer protection.
First, I think it's damn-near miraculous that most grocery stores and many street corners have machines that dispense money 24 hours a day in a matter of seconds to anyone with a checking account or credit card. A buck and a half seems a bargain to me.
Adams says that in small towns, there's usually no free ATM, so consumers there have no choice but to pay a big bank's fee. Nonsense. They can do whatever they did before the ATM came to town. ATMs replaced nothing; they merely gave consumers yet another option. The fact that ATMs are such big money makers is proof that lots of people prefer paying the fee to whatever they did before this choice was offered.
Adams says stopping the fees for eight months will give small banks a chance to build their own networks. Huh? How is making big banks' ATMs free going to make small banks' ATMs more appealing? And how exactly are big banks "picking off (the small banks') members and customers" by "gouging" them? A free market is the fairest thing there is; everybody votes several times a day. Businesses are free to innovate and set their asking prices, and consumers are free to trade or not.
Adams says that "86 cents out of every dollar paid for ATM fees is pure profit." If true (did he figure in the up-front capital costs these banks laid out?), that's plenty of incentive for others to offer similar services for a smaller profit. That's how it's done in America, by competing, by doing it a little smarter than the other guy, by giving consumers another choice, a better product, or a lower price, not by getting some politician to pass a law that cripples your competitors or gives you a break. Who is going to risk investing in the next innovation if the ability to gather the fruits of your effort and risk can be stripped away by capricious politicians? Government meddling is the only thing that actually limits the choices of consumers, and that's the only thing we really need protection from.
Back to top
|
|
 |
You were critical of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's public comment about a pending case when Scalia said it is "absolutely plain that there is no right to die. . . . It does not belong in the Supreme Court as a constitutional question." (Seattle Times editorial, Nov. 5.) You declared that it is wrong for a justice to make a comment that pertains to a pending case because judgments should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Judgments about individual cases, yes. But not judgments about principles. If a county judge had an upcoming armed-robbery case, would you criticize him for saying armed robbery is always wrong? Would you say, "But the judge does not even know what type of weapon was used, or how much was stolen. He is not familiar with the facts in this case"?
Of course you would not. If you agree that armed robbery is always wrong, then the details of any individual act of armed robbery are superfluous to determining whether the act itself was wrong. (Guilt or innocence is another issue entirely.)
That was the crucial point of Scalia's comment. It was not about a pending case; it was about the U.S. Constitution and that document's purview. He is quite right that the right to die simply is not mentioned there, and therefore any cases concerning the right to die are not appropriate for the Supreme Court; they should be decided at lower levels.
I'm no Scalia lover, but I cannot help but admire his conviction that the purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court is to decide constitutional issues and not to make policy. The hear-every-case approach you advocated is what has allowed so many justices to impose their ideologies on the nation.
Yes, Scalia has a well-documented, very conservative ideology, but his belief is that no Supreme Court justice—including himself—should be allowed to impose ideology on this nation. The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of a law or judgment. Scalia knows this and lives the creed.
Back to top
|
|
 |
Ross Anderson's June 19 column was excellent as far as it went. Anderson's political columns routinely make much more sense than the typical cliche-peddler. That's why I was pained to see him attribute the creation of Social Security to a "market failure."
The only people who use the phrase "market failure" are those who don't understand what markets are or dislike a particular market result. The fact is, markets cannot fail, any more than the laws of physics can fail. Markets cannot even be actively suppressed; just ask the Soviets.
By the way, the most damning thing that can be said against Social Security is that it is a Ponzi scheme. It wasn't always; for the first four years, money stolen from workers was indeed put in a trust fund for them to reclaim upon retirement but, of course, the politicians raided this and soon payoffs were financed by current intake.
Charles Ponzi developed just such a scheme 10 years prior to the New Deal. He promised investors 50 percent returns on their money, and he made good on those promises by paying old investors off with the new investors' money. As you surely know, everyone got paid except the last investors. That's why Ponzi schemes are illegal now. If only Uncle Sam had to play by the same rules as the rest of us. At least Ponzi's victims had a choice with their money.
Back to top
|
|
 |
Don Hannula's outrage (April 25) at the recent spurt in gas prices is impotent and confused. Don says, "Big Oil is reaching into our wallets again."
No, the only ones reaching into our wallets for gas money are us. If you don't want to pay $1.59 for unleaded, then don't. Unlike taxes or armed robbery—and I realize I'm splitting hairs with that distinction—the choice is completely yours. (If he wants to be outraged about something, how about taxation at all levels approaching 50 percent of the GNP?)
If Don or anyone else keeps buying gas, then it is inarguable that they value a gallon of gas more highly than they value their $1.59; if they did not, they would not make the trade.
Don says, "Gas pricing has always been one of the big mysteries of our time." To whom? The only mystery to me is why it is so cheap given that demand remains nearly constant regardless of price. Gas has always been cheapest in the U.S. and, until the recent increases, was at a historical low in this country (adjusting for inflation). So what if oil companies have "a long history of cooperation"? For all anyone knows, that cooperation has kept production costs and prices down.
Anybody is free to pump oil out of the ground, or buy oil to refine, or start their own chain of gas stations if they think they can make or sell gas cheaper than that ol' bogeyman, Big Oil. That no one is rushing to do so should tell us something. (Would you invest in a company that claimed it could produce and/or sell gas cheaper than ARCO and Exxon?)
We know there's no cartel at work because the failure of OPEC proved once again that monopolies and cartels cannot exist in a free market (government protection is required). Some cartel member will eventually undercut the cartel, and demand will slacken as alternatives are found. The higher the price goes, the more incentive there is for both. All OPEC succeeded in doing was destroying the market for petroleum. Goodbye Cadillac, hello Pinto. Oil prices still have not recovered.
The beauty of a price system is that no one needs to ascertain what a "fair" price for anything is, which is good because it is impossible; the Soviets tried for decades and could not do it. Their ruined country speaks to the folly of trying. The price is all the information you need. If it can be done cheaper, someone will do it. Buy it from A, buy it from B, buy something else or nothing at all. Me, I'm riding my bike to work.
Back to top
|
|
 |
In the Oct. 16 Media Beat column, the authors asked, "If big government is bad, why not big business?" I would like to answer.
The major difference between government and business is that governments are the only entity legally allowed to use coercion, whereas businesses conduct their dealings through voluntary transactions.
When people talk about big businesses having power, they confuse the metaphorical power of a big business with the real power of government. General Motors has no real power over people. They can't take a dollar from you that you don't give them of your own free will. But if GM had the power of government, men with badges and guns could drag you from your house and jail you for failing to buy a Chevy.
Even those who realize big business has no power over consumers will talk of big business's power over their workers, but those workers are free to leave anytime they want. Some say that these workers have "no choice" but to work for that particular company, and therefore that company has "economic power" over those people.
Yes, business dealings can have deep and far-reaching effects on people's lives, just as government dealings can, but businessmen who make decisions that do not coincide with their customers' interests—intentionally or not—are held accountable by the market; businesses fail all the time. Politicians, however, quite often pursue their own interests at the expense of their constituents. Sure, we can vote each election day, but choosing your master is hardly the same as choosing not to be a slave.
This is why, as the Media Beat column pointed out, government gets exhaustive press scrutiny and businesses do not, except when lawbreaking is suspected. One has the complete legal use of force to pursue its interests; the other can legally pursue its interests only through voluntary transactions.
Back to top
|
|
 |
The Jan. 10 op-ed article, "Sustaining the health and vitality of Seattle," by Nea Carroll raised a question for me:
What is she talking about? Apparently, she and her group, Sustainable Seattle, don't know either; from the article:
"Sustainability has become the catch-word of the '90s. . . . We're all using the `S' word now, and we are all searching for what it means." Um, is this satire?
Later its meaning becomes clearer: "Cities and nations around the world are struggling with a rising awareness that we have been on a growth and development path this century that may leave future generations bankrupt."
I'm struggling with a rising awareness that ill-informed new-age would-be social planners are gaining credibility among lawmakers, which may leave the
present generation bankrupt.
This century's growth and development will enrich future generations, not bankrupt them. Each generation inherits the capital of the previous generation, both physical capital (money, buildings) and intellectual capital (knowledge, technology). Otherwise, we would constantly be re-discovering fire.
Growth and development is the nature of man. Humans are not gazelles on the veldt. We can no more remain static for thousands of years than gazelles can engage in agriculture. And, unlike other species, we create new resources when old ones run out. Yes, future generations may be bankrupt of petroleum and wood, just as our generation is bankrupt of whale oil and parchment. Perhaps there should have been a group called Sustainable Plymouth in 1600 to ensure that future generations would have an ample supply of pemmican and oakum. Trying to predict what will be valued or necessary in the future is the highest form of folly.
Because Sustainable Seattle is still searching for what "sustainable" means, let me take a stab at it: at best, it means stagnation; at worst, socialism lite. It is gallingly pretentious to presume that we here now, the current occupants of earth, have reached a point beyond which we should not go.
I don't mind if these sustainability folks want to freeze their lives in 1993 (though personally I hope they pick 1976 so I can sell them my wardrobe). What bothers me is that after they've picked all their new catch-words, they're going to get around to drafting a master plan or a five-year plan or something that we all should conform to (for our own good, of course). Lord save us from another group that wants to tell us how to live in order to achieve its own version of utopia.
Back to top
|
|
 |
Your April 8 editorial favoring the elimination of log export subsidies was correct, as far as it went. However, it contained the following line: "Some subsidies to stimulate exports make economic sense. . . ." This passage demonstrates an unfortunate lack of understanding.
No subsidy ever makes economic sense. If one party to a voluntary transaction must be bribed to make that transaction, that transaction by definition does not make economic sense; if it did, neither party would need additional persuasion.
Subsidies and other governmental meddling in the market are undesirable noises that mask true economic information. They are artificial stimulants designed to get people to make transactions they would otherwise not. If people will not voluntarily make a transaction, then that transaction should not be made. Subsidies, then, are nothing less than thievery by government from the public to promote economic inefficiency, which eventually further diminishes the public's lot.
All of this is well understood by anyone who has completed an introductory course in economics, which (if I may be so bold) I urge your editorial board members to take.
Back to top
|
|
 |
Lawrence Cheek's "Mansion Mania" has a fatal omission and a common misconception (Nov. 13).
The omission is any mention of the government's role in the sizes of houses built. Zoning mandates large minimum lot sizes and setbacks on all sides. Permits, fees, inspection delays and utility hookups cost as much for a mansion as for a shack. It is simply not economic to build 1,200 square-foot cottages if there is a large market for mini-mansions.
What sane builder wants to fight to build houses that few people want to live
in? Attempts to build small and/or cheap housing often bring protests anyway, even when not prohibited by law.
(There was an "affordable" house built in Renton a few years ago. Despite all
the cost-cutting building techniques used, the majority of the savings came from
being exempted from all government regulations except safety codes.)
The article's common misconception is that smaller houses are good, not because some people want them, but because large houses are immoral. Cheeks writes, "Shouldn't everybody be able to build whatever they can afford? Sure -- on an uncrowded planet with unlimited natural resources." Lucky for us, we live on such a planet.
Earth is remarkably empty of people; look out the window next time you fly. If every human lived like American suburbanites
(four people per house, each on quarter-acre lots), we would need 375 million acres, or 586,000 square miles, roughly the land area of Alaska. Throw in some extra space for farms, roads, factories, shops and parks, and the entire human race could still easily live in Western Canada in modern suburban comfort, leaving the rest of the world people-free.
That doesn't sound like a crowded planet to me.
As for our natural resources, they truly are unlimited because we keep making new ones. Sure, things like oil will get
scarcer, but as the price climbs, so does the incentive to find alternatives. There will still be plenty of oil in the ground a millenium from now because people will not be using it to power their cars.
Over the long term, the real price of every commodity has trended down since records were first kept. You name it, it just keeps getting cheaper.
Back to top
|
|
 |
Richard Reeves, in his Dec. 29 column, sings another verse in a tired song: fat cat CEOs screw John Q. Public when workers get laid off from companies enjoying record profits while top executives get huge raises.
His implied point is, apparently, that some or all of the record profits and executive raises should instead be used to retain the laid-off workers. Such behavior would be neither wise nor kind. Workers are laid off because they are no longer needed. Retaining unneeded workers is fiscal folly, a subsidy that comes at the expense of the remaining workers, company stockholders, and all who buy its products.
Like most of the economically untrained, Reeves fails to see the big picture. He fails to see the laid-off workers as a freed resource that can be used for more productive endeavors. He fails to see the goods and services produced by them. He fails to see the companies able to exist or expand because there is affordable labor for hire. He fails to see the greater efficiency of the companies that laid off the surplus workers, and the greater efficiency of our whole economy that results when people are employed because their work is valuable, not because a manager would feel bad about laying them off.
Companies do not exist to give people paychecks. They do not exist to give CEOs unearned bonuses. They exist to provide goods and services to people as efficiently as possible. They exist only as long as they do so.
I've been laid off, and I'll grant you it's no day at the beach. But like leaving a warm bed on a cold morning, it is a temporary discomfort that must be endured to achieve a better world. Liquid labor and liquid capital are necessary for a dynamic economy. The alternative, socialist stagnation, is much less appealing than occasional unemployment.
As for those huge executive bonuses, there is no point in questioning the pay of people working for private enterprises. Apparently the people signing the checks think they're getting their money's worth. I don't happen to think Ken Griffey Jr. is worth what he makes, but as long as his employers do, that's all that matters. It's not my money and it's not yours. Companies that spend unwisely cease to exist; irresponsibility is self-correcting.
Mr. Reeves wrote that the average American CEO makes 149 times what the average American factory worker makes. Reeves assumes this is self-evidently bad. All it means is that the average American CEO is
worth 149 times as much as the average American factory worker, hence the pay discrepancy.
If a factory worker wants a CEO salary, he's free to try to become one. If Reeves or anyone else thinks he can offer a better value to American companies, they should submit their resumes. Judging from the market price, CEOs who can lead companies to record profits are in demand.
Back to top
|
|
 |
American Gun Nut
The Economist,
unprinted, because they couldn't handle the truth, man!
Had I read your essay about the Virginia Tech shootings twenty years ago, my head would have been nodding in vigorous agreement, for I used to be very much anti-gun. What has changed my mind is that I have become aware of the much-less-heralded goodness of guns.
Focusing solely on the badness of guns gives a distorted picture; it would be like arguing that cars be banned because they kill and maim scores of thousands yearly while polluting the air. The goodness of cars is obvious to all, however. But what is the goodness of guns?
Guns in private lawful hands prevent hundreds of thousands of crimes from
occurring each year in the United States. Some studies say 2 million. The US Justice Dept. says 1 million. The Centers for Disease Control (hardly a gun-loving bunch) says 500,000. Even using the lowest figure, that is a huge number of robberies, assaults, rapes, and murders prevented—95% of the time without firing a shot. And while some criminals flee from the brandished weapon, a sizable fraction are taken into custody or killed, thereby preventing scores of thousands more crimes.
I'm all for reasonable measures to keep guns away from crazy people, but if those
measures prevent decent people from protecting themselves (as "gun-free" zones at Virginia Tech and elsewhere tragically have), then they do vastly more harm than good.
Restricting guns doesn't stop sociopaths; it actually helps them by allowing them to carry out their plans unopposed. It's not because they can't read that these murderers walk past "Gun Free Zone" signs in schools and shopping malls. Schools are so frequently
targeted precisely because the killers expect armed resistance to be a long time coming.
I wish laws could prevent this kind of mayhem, but Scotland's restrictive gun laws didn't protect the 16 children in Dunblane (1996), nor did Germany's save the 18 people at the school in Erfurt (2002).
There have been scores of these events in recent years, but many of them barely make news because so few people are killed before the murderer is met with armed resistance. When a teacher or student uses his own pistol to stop the attacker, the event is much less newsworthy.
Even if guns disappeared tomorrow, weapons of even greater destruction are all around us, be they airliners full of fuel, or rented trucks filled with fertilizer. The crazy ye shall have with you always. And it is interesting to note that while gun-carrying was more popular in the past, these kinds of mass killings of strangers were more rare, not more common.
Back to top
|