May they reject all systems and try liberty
–Lauren Ruhland, MCPP intern
Many of us intern bloggers are returning back to school as summer winds down, but after Josh’s fantastic coverage of the RMGN proposal (not to mention Jim’s amazing initial PowerPoint discovery) I don’t think we can ignore this:
Detroit Free Press: “Attempt to change much of Constitution fails court test“
Detroit News: “Reform ballot proposal rejected“
AP (via Booth Newspapers’ MLive): “Appeals Court says Reform Michigan measure can’t go on ballot“
–Lauren M. Ruhland, 2008 MCPP intern
You’ve heard the arguments before– it’s simply unfair to let somebody to choose to put his life on the line for his country but prohibit him from having a beer with his buddies. It defies logic that a young woman can make the decision to marry and start a family at 18, so long as she doesn’t sip champagne at the wedding. Many agree that the United States’ minimum drinking age is unreasonably high given that the age of legal majority is set at 18 in most of the country. It’s not surprising to me that a new organization is calling for a return to a minimum legal drinking age of 18, but I am surprised about the source– college presidents.
As signatories of the Amethyst Initiative, college presidents are calling on America to rethink the the current minimum drinking age. Says the Free Press:
College presidents from about 100 of the nation’s best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State … [say] current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.
…
“This is a law that is routinely evaded,” said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. “It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory.”
However, Laura Dean-Mooney, the national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, seems to want to put these college presents on Double Secret Probation. “It’s very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses,” she says in the Freep article above.
I don’t think you can draw Dean Wormer (couldn’t resist!) Dean-Mooney’s conclusion from the stated goals of the organization. The administrators state on the Amethyst website “that the 21 year-old drinking age is not working, and, specifically, that it has created a culture of dangerous binge drinking on their campuses.” If these administrators were ignoring the law, they probably wouldn’t feel the need to push for a discussion of the issue– it’s more easy to simply continue turning a blind eye than to call others’ attention to their perspective.
A short piece on the redistribution of wealth. It is located on the SFE Blog.
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
Looking around the world today, it is not hard to spot inequality. There are some individuals who own multiple homes and eat large meals, while other individuals are just trying to survive. An easy solution to this problem would be to make everyone equal; take wealth from some to give to others. This way, everyone could eat and we would all be equal.
This system of equality raises a few alarming questions. Should people be given wealth according to their need, or according to their work? Is a system of equality obtainable?
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
I was on www.MichiganLiberal.com this morning and found an interesting piece regarding wind power. The author of the post expressed his concerns about an article written by Paul Driessen, who is the senior policy advisor of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality). The article was titled “Wind power is costly, ineffective source of electricity.”
The blog post seemed to be focused on the funding of CORE, rather than the content of the article. Additionally, It seemed as though he did not like the idea of opposing views reaching the public.
Regardless of your stance on environmental issues, there are some sound economic arguments against wind energy. This is not to say that wind energy is bad or that we do not need to help the environment. I am simply stating that perhaps we should consider the opportunity cost before allocating resources to this technology.
A direct link to the blog post is here
A direct link to the wind farm article is here
It is turning into quite a debate.
Check it out at http://michigansfe.org/Home/tabid/53/EntryID/5811/Default.aspx
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
My business, XYZ Corp, produces cassette tapes. In the past, my business has been a success. It had the capability of taking $2.00 worth of raw materials and $6.00 worth of labor to create a cassette tape. The market value for a cassette tape was $12.00, generating an average of $4.00 in profit per tape.
In recent years, there have been all sorts of innovations in production as well as new technologies like CDs, DVDs, MP3 players, and blue ray disks. These new technologies are complicated, so I focused on producing cassette tapes. Because of the fierce competition and innovation, the market value of a cassette tape has dropped to $3.00 per tape. Due to high gas prices and minimum wage increases, it now cost XYZ Corp $14.00 per tape.
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
Suppose you’re on a game show and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door.
What would you do?
–Lauren Ruhland, 2008 MCPP intern
I’m not an expert on health issues, but among the biggest projects of my academic career was a research presentation on advancements in the treatment of cervical cancer, the culmination of countless hours of research during my final semester. In particular, my project focused on new vaccine technologies that promise protection against human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a common (and incurable) STD that causes virtually all cancers of the uterine cervix. Gardasil was the first vaccine against the disease approved by the FDA.
As with any new medical technology, there are risks to consider before getting vaccinated (or choosing to vaccinate your child.) If it were up to Erin Brockovich, though, you wouldn’t even have to make that decision. No, she doesn’t want to make HPV vaccines mandatory– though many state legislatures have tried to do effectively that. Instead, Brockovich siezes on reports of a few tragic deaths that have occurred after vaccination and concludes that Gardasil manufacturer Merck is killing young girls in the pursuit of profits.
I’m taking her blog post on point-by-point, here. It’s pretty long, so consider yourself warned.
Gardasil, as you should know by now, is an HPV vaccine sold by Merc(sic), a vaccine with a flawed marketing campaign targeting young girls. The premise is that the vaccine will protect young girls from cervical cancer, as well as a couple of varieties of HPV.
The vaccine prevents infection with four varieties of HPV– two are associated with cervical cancer, while the other two are associated with genital warts, an unpleasant but not deadly disease. Though there are many risk factors for cervical cancer, like tobacco use and family history, these factors are not sufficient on their own to cause the disease. Upwards of 99% of cervical cancers are directly associated with HPV infection, though most women with HPV won’t ever get cancer.
Since young women are the most likely to be infected with HPV and the benefits of vaccination greatest for females, that’s where Merck chose to focus its research. Because the research was conducted among this age group, the FDA has only approved the vaccine for girls and women between the ages of 11 and 27. Continue reading ‘Erin Brockovich’s Bad HPV Science’
-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008
Channel 4 WDIV Detroit reports on a new bumper sticker campaign prompting people to “Buy American Products: They’re Better and Safer.”
1. If American products were, in fact, better, we consumers would purchase them. As it turns out, however, foreign cars (at least in my experience) are markedly more reliable. Maybe American companies should focus on making not-crappy cars instead of trying to guilt people into buying subpar vehicles.
2. Toyota employs over 35,000 Americans (2007 figure), and this number is growing rapidly. Furthermore, MSNBC/ForbesAutos report that some “foreign” cars have more parts manufactured in the U.S. than “American” cars. It just goes to show that this is a global economy. It wouldn’t make any sense for Washingtonians to boycott Idaho potatoes, and it doesn’t make sense for Americans to boycott foreign goods. Consumers buy the best and cheapest products, regardless of origin, and producers make what they’re best at making, regardless of their products’ destinations; international economic cooperation is a good thing. And yes, my dad’s job was outsourced.
3. Trade sanctions are a favorite foreign policy tool we use to “punish” other nations. (We won’t get into the fact that this alleged middle ground between words and war has the effectiveness of the former and the destructiveness of the latter: Sanctions strengthen dictators’ grips on their people and primarily harm the innocents and the poor in the target nation.) It doesn’t make any sense to voluntarily sanction ourselves from global trade, either in one industry or across-the-board.
This has already been up at Cato@Liberty and the Club for Growth, but it’s well worth posting again. Yes, Prime Minister was a British sitcom from the mid-1980s. This clip features a meeting with the head of the Department for Education and Science (later the Department for Education and Skills, now split into the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills), and a proposal to implement parental school choice in Britain.
<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern
Trying Liberty’s Hannah Mead wrote today’s Current Comment. Mead looks at the current situation of ethanol growth in Michigan. She talks about a cellulosic ethanol plant in which GM and the state have put significant money, but which might end up harming the environment while doing little to affect the price of fuel. Also important to note is that because this plant creates cellulosic ethanol, it primarily uses wood as its raw material, not corn or another quickly replenishable crop. I am inclined to agree with Mead that this new plant is probably not what Michigan needs. with global food supply, global ethanol supply, and global corn supply. Something does not quite add up, she argues, and concludes that ethanol simply has to go. It is not the green fuel some claimed it to be - a wonder that would usher in a new era of global prosperity. Go ahead and read the Current Comment to find out why.
(Edit: I wrote this post quickly and sloppily. Sorry about that. Hopefully, the edits reflect a bit more carefully what Mead has actually written about.)
–Lauren Ruhland, 2008 MCPP intern
I almost feel a little guilt after my third Detroit post in three days– I don’t live or work there, and I visit maybe once a year. However, just as NYC is many people’s first association with the Empire State, so Detroit is the face of Michigan to those with no real knowledge of the state’s geographic and cultural diversity.
That said, it’s with some reluctance that I bring up Forbes Magazine’s list of the America’s fastest-dying cities:
Canton, OH
Youngstown, OH
Flint, MI
Scranton, PA
Dayton, OH
Cleveland, OH
Springfield, MA
Buffalo, N.Y.
Detroit, MI
Charleston, WV
At least Detroit’s got Flint to keep it company. From the article:
These [metropolitan statistical areas] face fleeing populations, painful waves of unemployment and barely growing economies. By our measure, they’ve struggled the worst of any areas in the nation in the 21st century. And they face even bleaker futures.
<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern
Paul Graham, an author and influential programming guru, hints in his essay You Weren’t Meant to Have a Boss! that perhaps markets operating inside an organization would be a better strategy than traditional chain-of-command leadership. The entire essay is worth the read, but this quote was particularly interesting:
…[S]ince human nature limits the size of group that can work together, the only way I can imagine for larger groups to avoid tree structure would be to have no structure: to have each group actually be independent, and to work together the way components of a market economy do.
Graham goes on to say that perhaps someone should take a deeper look at this idea. One person who has thoroughly investigated the concept of incorporating markets into companies and other organizations is Charles G. Koch. His company, Koch Industries, is one of the largest private companies in the United States. His ideas have been encapsulated into a book called The Science of Success, and are central to the ongoing research of the Market-Based Management Institute.
The idea of operating an organization like a market is a potentially good one, granted that the rules and incentives are properly set up. Has anyone else done serious work in this area? What are your thoughts about organizing a company around an internal market? Leave your ideas in the comments below.
<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern
Yeah, we like capitalism here. And, we are not ashamed of that. Markets are good things. So, let’s hear a little applause for Armin Heinrich, a developer for the iPhone who released a new application at the App Store yesterday. The program, called I Am Rich is designed to nothing other than illustrate to other that you are indeed rich. The app costs $999.99 and does nothing other than display a small red, glowing gem on the screen. Oh wait, there is also an information button that can be clicked to provide a mantra, the secret to staying ” rich, healthy, and successful.”
Folks across the blogosphere are up in arms against Apple and Heinrich for allowing such an application. Yet, this program illustrates one of the great beauties of capitalism - supply and demand. Not everyone wants to buy the $1000 application, and nobody is forced to do so. But, the folks who would like to show off their wealth can do so (or could until Apple pulled the app). People should, for the most part, be allowed to buy what they would like to buy. If that is an iPhone application that self-admittedly does little to nothing, so be it.
Thanks to Marginal Revolution for this story.
