The Rumble of Rent Control Don Boudreaux There's plenty wrong with the presumption -- embodied bountifully in _this editorial_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/opinion/11sun1.html) appearing in today's New York Times -- that New Orleans can be rebuilt only if there's "a comprehensive plan" to define and guide the rebuilding effort. _Here's my take_ (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_401009.html) on centralized versus decentralized approaches to rebuilding my hometown. I was also struck by the NYT editorialist's fear that the recent "rumbling" that New Orleans's levees might not be rebuilt quickly will stall the rebuilding effort. That might be so. But an even more ominous rumbling is being heard throughout New Orleans -- a rumbling that will do at least as much to disrupt rebuilding as any uncertainty about levee reconstruction. The rumbling that I speak of is the rumbling of calls for rent-control. When my family and I were in New Orleans at Thanksgiving, we heard the local television stations report that several prominent politicians in the city are considering rent control. And NPR ran _this report_ (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5030544) a couple of weeks ago. It's entitled "New Orleans Considers Implementing Rent Control." Uncle Sam can build levees that will withstand category 10 hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, locusts, and any other natural disaster you care to name: if the government imposes rent control, the rebuilding of New Orleans will be, at best, fitful and slipshod. Additionally, what rebuilding there is will be of owner-occupied homes and of condominiums -- structures that escape rent control. The population of rebuilt New Orleans will be artificially biased toward middle- and upper-income people -- and artificially biased against low-income people. Posted in _Prices_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/prices/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_rumble_of_r.html) | _Comments (5)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_rumble_of_r.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_rumble_of_r.html#trackback) Property Rights Protect Trees Don Boudreaux _John Reader_ (http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,0_1000026740,00.html) writes the following in his 1997 book _Africa_ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067973869X/qid=1134331282/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-5157387-269 2147?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) :
Trees are another important source of fodder for the cattle and it is remarkable that while firewood demands have stripped rural areas bare of trees throughout Africa, Ukara [an island in Lake Victoria] remains notably wooded. Indeed, a visitor would be struck by the contrast. Mature trees up to fifteen and twenty meters high line the trackways (there are no made roads on Ukara) and offer refuges of deep shade beside streams and in the folds of the uplands; saplings flank cultivated plots; each homestead is surrounded by trees -- and all this living wood on a tiny, densely populated island where trees are a source of cattle fodder, building materials and firewood. What is the explanation? The fact that every tree is privately owned ensures that the use of this indispensable resource is sustainable. Every tree is protected by vested interest. Indeed, the ownership of some trees is shared among as many as three individuals. Trees are rented for their leaf harvest. Building poles, timber, and firewood are bartered and sold [pp. 250-251; original emphasis]. Hat tip to Karol. Posted in _Property Rights_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/property_rights/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/property_rights.html) | _Comments (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/property_rights.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/property_rights.html#trackback) Some Social Capital Don Boudreaux Today at Home Depot I did something that I, and others, increasingly do: use the self-checkout lanes. All sorts of things can be said about self-checkout. For example, it's an example of technology eliminating some jobs -- that is, doing away with the need to use human labor in the time-consuming process of manning checkout aisles. More of the scarcest resource, the ultimate resource, is freed-up to produce other goods and services that would otherwise remain unproduced. But the point that struck me most this morning as I watched my fellow customers use the self-checkout lanes is the fact that an enormous amount of trust is necessary to make self-checkout work. I'm sure that Home Depot and other stores that use self-checkout lanes have systems in place to monitor these lanes and protect against cheating. But with just a tad bit of cleverness, a devious and dishonest person could easily cheat the store. The fact that the number of self-checkout lanes is increasing tells me that these lanes are proving to be successful -- proving to be worth their costs. In turn, this fact tells me that the people who shop in these stores are generally honest. The number of cheaters, although surely positive, is not great enough to make the provision of self-checkout lanes a losing proposition for retailers. This honesty creates and justifies trust in strangers. This trust in strangers, in turn, makes possible some transactions and production and distribution processes that would otherwise be too costly. As a result of this 'social capital' of honest, trustworthiness, and trust, we are all wealthier. By the way, the self-checkout computers offer a Spanish-language option in addition to an English-language option. And each of the three other customers who I observed this morning using the self-checkout lanes were Hispanic. Posted in _The Economy_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/the_economy/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/some_social_cap.html) | _Comments (4)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/some_social_cap.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/some_social_cap.html#trackback) Not Quite Yet Lennon/McCartney, But.... Don Boudreaux Roberts/Boudreaux are quoted extensively in _this article_ (http://sptimes.com/2005/12/11/Perspective/Why_gouging_laws_don_.shtml) appearing in today's St. Petersburg Times. The author, Graham Brink, is one journalist who understands that government regulations against so-called "price gouging" are harmful. Posted in _Prices_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/prices/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/not_quite_yet_l.html) | _Comments (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/not_quite_yet_l.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/not_quite_yet_l.html#trackback) December 09, 2005 Blogjam Russell Roberts I participated in a blogjam over at _Pajamas Media_ (http://www.osm.org/) earlier today on the state of the economy and various policy issues. It was a free-for-all with Andrew Roth, James Hamilton and Paul Hoffmeister moderated (kind of) by Larry Kudlow. You can find it _here._ (http://blogjam.pajamasmedia.com/archives/2005/12/post.php) Posted in _Weblogs_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/weblogs/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/blogjam.html) | _Comments (5)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/blogjam.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/blogjam.html#trackback) What Is it About Immigration??? Don Boudreaux In a comment on _this blog-post_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_about_the_.html) , Ivan Kirigin repeats a claim asserted frequently by people who are suspicious of open immigration: "illegal immigrants are more likely to be a burden on society through higher taxes." I doubt that this assertion is true, but I confess that I don't have any numbers to present at the moment to support my position. But I do have handy a widely known fact whose persistence is evidence against Mr. Kirigin's claim. This fact is the government's many restrictions on the ability of foreigners to work lawfully in the United States. If immigrants come to these shores largely to free-ride on taxpayers, Uncle Sam wouldn't have to spill so much ink and spend so much effort trying to prevent them from working. But I confess that it's possible that the numbers might show that the typical illegal immigrant (or even typical immigrant) drains more from taxpayers than does the typical native-born American. If so, this fact does not mean that the net contribution of these immigrants is negative. Against the amount they consume in taxes must be weighed not just the amount they pay in taxes but also the amount of value they add to the economy. But let's assume for the moment that the net contribution of immigrants, even properly measured, is negative. Rather than restrict them from coming to America, the first and best step surely is to remove all restrictions aimed at preventing them from working. Removal of such restrictions would surely increase immigrants' contribution to the economy and reduce their reliance upon government. Posted in _Immigration_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/immigration/index.html) , _Myths and Fallacies_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/myths_and_fallacies/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_is_it_abou.html) | _Comments (27)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_is_it_abou.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_is_it_abou.html#trackback) What About the Bedroom-men? Don Boudreaux _Proponents of immigration restrictions_ (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002290.htm) , and especially of the so-called “Minutemen” who police against “illegal” immigrants, often make the following argument: Whether current levels of immigration are good or not, the fact is that many immigrants are in the United States illegally – that is, without the permission of the government. Breaking laws is wrong. Therefore, anyone in the U.S. illegally is a wrongdoer and should return to his own country. If he then applies for and receives permission to enter the U.S. legally, then he’ll be welcome. Minutemen help government enforce laws on the books; therefore, they should be applauded. (The wording above is mine, but if you survey much of the anti-immigration, pro-"Minuteman" literature -- including some of the comments on _this blog-post_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/minutemen_vs_mi.html) -- you'll find it, I believe, to be a fair rendition of a much-used argument.) This argument is weak. First, it fails to appreciate the fact that unjust laws deserve to be broken, or at least don’t deserve to be obeyed. Wasn’t it noble to violate the fugitive-slave laws and Jim Crow legislation? (I understand, of course, that there’s some danger in a decentralized system for deciding which laws are worthy of respect and which laws aren’t. But there’s also danger in a centralized system for declaring which laws should be obeyed.) My moral sense is that politicians, bureaucrats, and “Minutemen” have no business telling me which peaceful persons I can befriend or make love to in my own home or hire in my own factory. My moral sense tells me also that foreigners are not morally obliged to obey American politicians who would keep them from engaging in consensual capitalist acts on these shores. Second, the “if-government-says-it,-we-must-obey-it” mindset does not support “Minutemen” interventions. Government determines “law” not merely by what it says (usually in the form of statutory language), but also by what it does. If government chooses to devote an amount of resources to “immigration control” that is inadequate to prevent substantial amounts of illegal immigration, shouldn’t we – by the “Minutemen’s” own logic – respect this government decision and not interpose our own opinions about what the level of immigration enforcement “should” be? Who are we, mere private citizens, to dare to second-guess with our actions a decision on the level of immigration control made by our leaders? Aren’t the “Minutemen” breaking the law just as illegitimately as are persons who come to America without formal approval of our leaders? Just because words are written on paper and subjected to hocus-pocus beneath a soaring marble dome does not mean that these words are truly “law,” or even that the government officials who wrote and voted for them want them to be taken literally. I believe that several states still have on the books “laws” declaring sex outside of wedlock to be a criminal offense. How many of us would applaud a private group calling themselves “Bedroom-men” snooping around our residences trying to prevent unmarried adults from having consensual sex with each other? Would we excuse the “Bedroom-men” by saying “Well, like it or not, because Dick and Jane aren’t married to each other, it’s unlawful for them to make love to each other. The law’s the law, and the Bedroom-men are just assisting government in upholding the law.” How many of us would respect the Bedroom-men? How many of us would believe that the members of such a group have no selfish, unsavory reasons for doing what they do? How many of us would wish that any unmarried adults consenting to have sex with each other be jailed or fined simply because some statute book declares their behavior to be “unlawful”? Posted in _Law_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/law/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_about_the_.html) | _Comments (9)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_about_the_.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_about_the_.html#trackback) Markets in Everything Russell Roberts _Ogre slaying_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/technology/09gaming.html?hp&ex=1134190800&en=d5d225932e8ebecb&ei=5094&partner=homepage) . (NYT: rr) (ht to _Marginal Revolution_ (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/) for the category) Posted in _Markets in Everything_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/markets_in_everything/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/markets_in_ever.html) | _Comments (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/markets_in_ever.html#comments) | _TrackBack (5)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/markets_in_ever.html#trackback) Doom and Gloom Russell Roberts Whenever I hear people complaining or worrying about how modern agriculture or technology is poisoning us and giving us cancer, I always point out the U.S. life expectancy numbers. Americans are lviing longer than ever. That's not to say that there might be things we could change and live even longer if we so choose, but overall, taking all factors into account, we're healthier, despite all the cigarettes and ice cream and fatty foods and insufficient exercise and unclean air and too many cars and so on and so on and so on. The latest numbers would warm Julian Simon's _ever-optimistic_ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691003815/qid=1134145091/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3805587-8 967316?n=507846&s=books&v=glance/invisiblehear-20) heart if it were still beating. The _AP headline_ (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/08/D8ECEHUO0.html) (ht: Drudge): U.S. Life Expectancy Hits All-Time High Alas, despite the cheerful headline, the reporter, Mike Stobbe (or his editors, perhaps) cannot bear to begin with such good news. Instead, we get doom and gloom: After a century of nearly uninterrupted medical improvements and longer lives, it looks like the baby boomers could screw things up. A new government study shows deaths from heart disease, cancer and stroke continue to drop, but it also shows that half of Americans ages 55 to 64 _ including the oldest of the baby boomers _ have high blood pressure, and two in five are obese. The baby boomers could screw things up? Putting aside the charmless language, what does that mean? Is there a prize for living longer that we get as a nation, that is now in jeopardy, like some gold-medal streak for basketball in the Olympics? The implication is that if we fail to keep living longer we'll shame our ancestors who kept on the straight and narrow. If we like ice cream and smoking and watching TV, isn't it possible that we prefer the pleasures of those alleged vices to a longer life? And of course, it's also possible we will have our cake and eat it too, that even with our stressful obesity being out of control, we might still live longer anyway. The reporter grudgingly admits it: Medical improvements in coming years might offset these problems before they affect life expectancy, but there are no promises, health officials said. Not until the sixth paragraph of the article, having endured the lecture on our naughty high blood pressure and obesity, do we get the "news": Among the findings: Deaths from heart disease, cancer and stroke, the nation's three leading killers, all dropped in 2003. They were down between 2 percent and 5 percent. Americans' life expectancy also increased again. According to the government's calculations, a child born in 2003 can expect to live 77.6 years on average, up from 77.3 the year before. In 1990, life expectancy was 75.4 years. U.S. life expectancy has been rising almost without interruption since thanks to several factors, including extraordinary advances in medicine and sanitation, and declines in some types of unhealthy behavior, such as smoking. Why doesn't the increase in life expectancy lead the article, given the headline? Well, those loving health officials are worried about us: Still, health officials are trying to draw attention to unhealthy behavior, and this year chose to break out data on people 55 to 64. The National Center for Health Statistics looked specifically at the 55-to-64-year-olds: The center found that rates of hypertension and obesity were higher for the current group of 55-to-64-year-olds. When the 1930s group was tested around 1990, 42 percent had high blood pressure. That compares with 50 percent for the 1940s group. The older group's rate of obesity was 31 percent back then, compared with 39 percent for the 1940s babies now. Sounds very bleak, doesn't it? But then comes some cheering news: Because of the advent of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the prevalence of high cholesterol actually went down, from 35 percent for the 1930s group to 23 percent among the 1940s babies. I don't know why the reporter was allowed to sneak that in. It does seem to challenge the earlier statement: Medical improvements in coming years might offset these problems before they affect life expectancy, but there are no promises, health officials said. No promises. But evidently some improvements have already arrived. And then in the closing paragraphs of the story, a few odds and ends--slightly more than a quarter of all Americans have lower back pain, spending on health care is up, pharmaceutical spending is way up and oh, this little nugget: Infant mortality in 2003 dropped slightly to 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births. Infant mortality has been on a general decline since 1958. More good news. But in case you thought it was something to cheer about, it's really just a force of nature, sort of, or maybe just good luck. After all, it's been declining since 1958. it's a trend, don't you see? So what would you expect? No big deal. Doesn't declining infant mortality belong a little higher up in the story? Ignore the doom and gloomers. You can even risk just a titch of complaceny, the reaction they evidently dread above all others. This is a very good time to be alive. Posted in _Health_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/health/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/doom_and_gloom.html) | _Comments (4)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/doom_and_gloom.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/doom_and_gloom.html#trackback) Minutemen Vs. "Minutemen" Don Boudreaux _I'm not one to believe_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2004/08/spontaneous_pro.html) that the state possesses exclusive moral authority to create, define, and enforce law. And yet I get the creeps whenever I read or hear about the current crop of so-called "Minutemen" -- self-appointed enforcers of immigration restrictions. These "Minutemen" today likely believe that they are the intellectual and moral descendants of the Minutemen of revolutionary-era America. But they aren't. One of the main motivations of the American revolutionaries was to free themselves from burdensome restrictions on their economic activities -- restrictions meant to protect monopoly privileges for British merchants -- restrictions enforced with threats of violence by what was then the world's most powerful army and navy. Today's "Minutemen," as _this story_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802068.html) in the Washington Post makes plain, are enemies of freedom. They are officious, narrow-minded, xenophobic, selfish meddlers seeking to inspire the state to unleash greater force against peaceful foreigners who want to work. While the _Minutemen_ (http://www.ushistory.org/brandywine/special/art01.htm) of Concord and Lexington fought in an effort to abolish the British empire's monopoly privileges in North America, today's "Minutemen" seek to create and enforce monopoly privileges. Posted in _Current Affairs_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/current_affairs/index.html) , _History_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/history/index.html) , _Work_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/work/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/minutemen_vs_mi.html) | _Comments (10)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/minutemen_vs_mi.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/minutemen_vs_mi.html#trackback) Recent Posts * _The Rumble of Rent Control_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/the_rumble_of_r.html) * _Property Rights Protect Trees_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/property_rights.html) * _Some Social Capital_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/some_social_cap.html) * _Not Quite Yet Lennon/McCartney, But...._ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/not_quite_yet_l.html) * _Blogjam_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/blogjam.html) * _What Is it About Immigration???_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_is_it_abou.html) * _What About the Bedroom-men?_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/what_about_the_.html) * _Markets in Everything_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/markets_in_ever.html) * _Doom and Gloom_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/doom_and_gloom.html) * _Minutemen Vs. "Minutemen"_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/minutemen_vs_mi.html) _Archives_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/archives.html) * _December 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/index.html) * _November 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/11/index.html) * _October 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/10/index.html) * _September 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/09/index.html) * _August 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/08/index.html) * _July 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/07/index.html) * _June 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/06/index.html) * _May 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/05/index.html) * _April 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/04/index.html) * _March 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/03/index.html) ** All Rights Exclusively Reserved and None are Waived at Anytime. Copying and reposting are only authorized with exclusive authority from the author/owner ** SPONSORED LINKS _Federal prison_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Federal+prison&w1=Federal+prison&w2=United+states+of+america&w3=Death+penalty&w4=Financial+support&w5 =Positive+attitude&w6=Online+petitions&c=6&s=137&.sig=yZRzElEz2VdIH5Pz-4Hasg) _United states of america_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+states+of+america&w1=Federal+prison&w2=United+states+of+america&w3=Death+penalty&w 4=Financial+support&w5=Positive+attitude&w6=Online+petitions&c=6&s=137&.sig=BW MozIXE3cJ49RjYyZYmhA) _Death penalty_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Death+penalty&w1=Federal+prison&w2=United+states+of+america&w3=Death+penalty&w 4=Financial+support&w5=Positive+attitude&w6=Online+petitions&c=6&s=137&.sig=NQ fvftHx2Is27qBbazb9vQ) _Financial support_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Financial+support&w1=Federal+prison&w2=United+states+of+america&w3=Death+ penalty&w4=Financial+support&w5=Positive+attitude&w6=Online+petitions&c=6&s=13 7&.sig=fHfxkWUe71e6_hZFQcvwlw) _Positive attitude_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Positive+attitude&w1=Federal+prison&w2=United+states+of+america&w 3=Death+penalty&w4=Financial+support&w5=Positive+attitude&w6=Online+petitions& c=6&s=137&.sig=8hnUSmT1bhpuCWuP8J5W-w) _Online petitions_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Online+petitions&w1=Federal+prison&w2=United+states+of+ame rica&w3=Death+penalty&w4=Financial+support&w5=Positive+attit ude&w6=Online+petitions&c=6&s=137&.sig=cnJrRidhxi2ei7nO5NVdXA) ____________________________________ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit yourYahoo! Groups is subject to the _Yahoo! Terms of Service_ (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) . ____________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/X6CDDD/lzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
