Next Summer

The fog of summer lingers 
as it dims our ambitions.

We blink through laze seeing glimpse 
of anxious thoughts, worrying loss.

Where, how did the time slip by?
Is there a chance to regain?

We had plans. Well, plans for plans.
What goals still attainable?

Should we just let it move past
giving up yet another?

Perhaps next year . . . yes next year.
Start sooner . . . set reminders.

But isn't that what we promised 
last year this very moment? 

Three surprising stats for last month’s celebration.

I. You’ve come a long way, baby. From Jeremy Horpedahl:

II. You contain multitudes. From Daniel Fetz:

[A]bout 642 million people have lived in the United States since it became independent in 1776.

III. Isn’t it about time you grew up and put away your childish things? From Colin Grabow:

From 2020 to 2025, 16 countries have outbuilt the United States, including the Netherlands, Norway, and Singapore (the last two of which each have populations smaller than the metro Atlanta region). Such numbers underscore the Navy’s fiscal year 2025 shipbuilding plan, as cited by the Government Accountability Office, that US commercial shipbuilding has experienced a “near-total collapse.”

The reason for our dismal performance, of course, is the Jones Act and its unattended consequences of protectionism.

Minimum wages are perhaps the quintessential example of Bryan Caplan’s pithy axiom, which goes in part: “Governments do the bad things that sound good.”

His own rejoinder to that point is: “Markets do the good things that sound bad.”

Minimum wages are attempts to achieve good intentions with a tool that doesn’t work in theory and predictably fails in practice. The kicker is that theory is hard (for most people) and teasing out reality in practice is quite tricky indeed (yet again, the seen versus the unseen).

To be sure, I really don’t find this to be a very divisive issue from the standpoint of the style of arguments being repugnant to one side or the other. I think reasonable people on each side will still find the arguments targeted for the other side to be persuasive to them as well. I will allow that those arguments won’t resonate strongly, but they won’t be repulsive. So the instructions below are not as important in this case as others.

Still, as always:

****DON’T READ THE MESSAGE NOT MEANT FOR YOU****

Conservatives Only

The desire for minimum wage laws is driven by a sense of fairness, but this is precisely where minimum wage laws fail.

Before any discussion of the practical outcomes of a government policy, one must first determine if the government has the right to make the intervention proposed. Some good outcomes must be foregone if they are nonetheless illegitimate. The principle that the ends do not justify the means reigns here.

Minimum wages might lead to desirable economic outcomes—the evidence is scant and relies on fairly esoteric theoretical positions that are not likely found much less sustained in the wild. Regardless, our first question is “does the state have the right to prevent two consenting parties from reaching certain employment agreements?”

Historically there has been a great tension in the United States between a sentiment that employers have asymmetric power in the employment arrangement and a fundamental adherence to freedom of association and contract. The push and pull of this ranges from special legal privilege for unions to at-will employment generally and right-to-work specifically.

How this relates to the fairness issue with minimum wage laws is to consider both sides of the employment agreement. Even if there is asymmetric power in the dynamic, that alone should not override either party’s ability to compromise in order to come to a mutually-beneficial solution.

Proponents of minimum wages will take issue with the ability for a mutually-beneficial solution when in the presence of asymmetric power. Let me grant them their premise so as to still show that minimum wages violate fairness and that mutually-beneficial outcomes do emerge at wages below a state-imposed minimum.

The only element of force rather than persuasion in the employment agreement at issue here is when government imposes a minimum wage. The employer might be is greedy in his negotiation. So too is the employee. The employer (I am granting) does have more information and/or power in the negotiation. Yet, the would-be employee is neither forced nor coerced to accept or continue with what the employer offers. That the employer might be able to offer more (in wages), might have to offer more if not for his asymmetric power, or might want to offer more if he knew more himself (see efficiency wages) are not themselves reasons to force him to offer more. His freedom matters more than his bad decision making—bad in either the case of an outcome we might socially want (higher wages for employees) or economically want (if the higher wage at the employer’s expense was better for society in general however that might be defined).

So too is the freedom for the would-be employee. He has the right to make his own contracts. His freedom includes a freedom to make choices that might be mistakes from an outsider’s point of view. This is true even before the very strong argument that the outsider is likely not in a position to second guess the person making the decision. Imposing force even if done for his own good to prevent his right to exercise his freedom of contract is a violation of his rights. Falling back on the assumption that it is in his best interest is fundamentally illegitimate, hence unfair, before the consideration that it is economically dubious.

Yet many will be unpersuaded by this fairness argument. Those opponents are likely in the progressive camp for which the arguments below are crafted. But so as to arm conservatives with the needed armor against such attacks, I offer this.

It takes second-order thinking to realize that hard-to-fire leads to hard-to-hire. It should be, but sadly is not, easier to understand that expensive-to-hire-must lead to hard-to-hire. Price controls introduce economic distortions. Those distortions cannot be assumed away.

NO ONE knows exactly what the economically correct wage should be in each and every general circumstance much less highly specific ones. The more fine-tuned a minimum wage law is crafted, the more absurd it becomes to believe it is accurate. Yet the more general one is applied, the more gaping holes it creates damaging both the economy generally and targeted beneficiaries, low-wage/low-productivity employees, specifically.

Setting one policy for a nation as large as the U.S. quite obviously ignores cost-of-living differences between regions and economic margins between industries. But every step one might add to adjust for important considerations like these adds bureaucratic costs and, more critically, manipulative opportunities to exploit the nuances for personal gain by those with power (assumed to reside with the employers).

This hints at a problem for those who wish to impose minimum wage laws. Consider the oft-made implied argument of “why not set it at $100,000?” This is presented as a slam dunk by those opposed to the minimum wage, but it falls flat. It falls flat not because it is unsound as a reductio ad absurdum, but because minimum wage proponents don’t think that what they are proposing runs into the obvious problem a wage floor that high would create.

So they reject $100k in favor of . . . fine tuning . . . moving it down to a “living wage” without offering much in the way of showing how that doesn’t have the same problems just at a smaller scale. A good reply would be that if you lower the minimum wage low enough to prevent or minimize those problems you eventually aren’t able to help anyone at all. To wit: only about 2% of wage earners fall into the minimum wage category and many are only there temporarily as teenagers.

Here is where proponents inadvertently twist themselves up. Raising the legal minimum wage will at some level start to have the $100k problems. Their task then becomes being able to either live with the damage for the greater cause of forcing employers to pay more or assume both that some magical level exists at which those economic problems don’t exist and that they can determine it—memorializing it into law across time and place. Now that is one hell of a fine-tuning feat.

If they bite the bullet allowing a bad economic outcome and assuming all the burden falls on only employers, they are giving away the game of fairness to accept an outcome that also fails on the economic merits. Thus, proponents of minimum wages quite quickly paint themselves into a very uncomfortable corner.

Presuming a conservative will not be offput by the arguments from a progressive persuasion, I ask they consider also the economic points made below regarding how the economic case against minimum wages includes how it harms the intended beneficiaries.

Leaving that aside, the conservative case against minimum wage laws rest upon freedom first (the ultimate fairness) and sound economics second (a hearty reinforcement).

Progressives Only

The desire for minimum wage laws is driven by a sense of fairness, but this is precisely where minimum wage laws fail.

Minimum wage laws are intended to make fairer outcomes in an unfair world. This is not an unworthy goal by any means. But attempts to do it using various means require that it actually achieve the outcome in order to consider it successful.

Support for minimum wage laws presume a right to intervene in a market outcome—an employment arrangement that would otherwise come into being through mutual consent. Non-consensual arrangements have other laws meant to prevent or correct undesired outcomes. Minimum wage laws are attempts to correct consensual agreements deemed unfair.

Quite obviously the unfair outcome targeted is employees earning less than what is socially desired. By implication the law is imposed to bring about correction. So the key question to ask is “do these laws work for the purpose they are intended?”

The answer, sadly, is no. This problem is not that easy to fix.

Employers are greedy. So are employees, but employers are also powerful. They generally have more information and more tools at their disposal. They negotiate from a position of asymmetric advantage over employees (would-be and current).

And outside observers including government are at a disadvantage informationally even before considering how employers likely have enhanced influence over government policy. Even if employers are not crafting the laws that would regulate them, they are able to legally evade the laws’ intentions by looking to other margins (margins that lie outside of the laws’ necessary limitations) remaining always one step ahead. Thus, they are the clever mouse in never-ending cat-and-mouse game.

But what if we, society through government, could by working harder and smarter close these gaps? Unfortunately, there is another player in this game. A player much more powerful and informationally competent than the employers and even more so than the government: The Market.

The market is not a biased actor here as are the employers, employees, and government. The market is simply the implications of reality. And those implications are where minimum wages however perfectly crafted will inevitably fail—failing for the very people they are intended to help, low-wage employees.

This is the crux of Art Carden’s evidence and arguments in this article. Our desire to help low-wage employees cannot overcome economic reality without cost. Minimum wage laws assume that cost is just a burden put upon employers. It isn’t and cannot be. Even if employers willingly wanted to bear this burden economic reality as imposed by the market will not allow it.

The cost they would incur even if coming directly from their own pockets, would leave employers with less resources and worse information. Consider this analogy: If I wanted to aid the poor to the maximum of my ability, every effort I make to this end (be it explicit gifting of my wealth or devotion of my time) comes at the expense of future resources and abilities to provide aid. If I give enough, I will myself starve.

The lesson is clear: there are always tradeoffs.

Employers do not just want to make adjustments along other margins in the face of forced higher wages (margins like future labor-capital decisions, current work hours, work benefits and conditions, etc.). They must make these adjustments in order to find more profitable outcomes. Before you scoff that they are not the intended beneficiaries so this is not a consideration, understand that their profitability is their current and future ability to employ workers.

Michael Munger provides more along these lines in this article with the concluding quote:

If you care about the people struggling to keep their jobs in a difficult economy, you should oppose raising the minimum wage: it hurts the very people you want to help. Being able to work, and feel productive, is an important part of the social aspect of our economy. Service jobs are disappearing fast enough, without having the process accelerated by misguided support for increasing the minimum wage.

There is another angle to fairness that the above has breezed past. It deserves higher consideration.

In seeking redress for a presumed unfair outcome of wages that are “too low”, why are we asking only the employers to bear the burden? Although I have shown above that it is not just the employers who bear it, that is the design and largely that is the outcome. To be clear: it harms both employers and intended beneficiary employees (and consumers and the economy at large), but it is supposed to harm employers only.

Realizing it harms employees (and others besides employers) is itself my fairness critique with the implication that minimum wage laws should be opposed. Still, this other fairness issue is worthy of consideration if for no other reason than to avoid an awkward position. That awkward position would be that minimum wage proponents want all-of-us-together (society/government) to force a-few-among-us (employers) to bear all the burden even though it is only them (the employers) who are up to this point doing something for the intended beneficiaries (employees).

This is Steven Landsburg’s argument starting with point #10 in this post. If the “too-low” agreed-to wage is, say, $10/hour and we (society/government) believe it should be $15/hour, why is it the sole duty of the employer to close that gap? They are already doing 2/3rds of the work. Now we are asking them to do the rest presuming we are correct that it should be $15.1

Perhaps this fairness issue regarding employers is a bridge too far for progressives. We still are left with the basic point: Minimum wages laws are good from the progressive point of view if and only if they benefit low-wage employees themselves. Because they do not in practice, forces us to reject them as a solution to the low-wage problem.

More thoughts

This short film is a good summary of the conflicts between minimum wage laws’ social-desirability bias, fairness, and economic reality. And the brief commentaries (parts 1, 2, & 3) offer good discussion as well.

Partnership (for my anniversary)

Choosing can be the closing of doors
   If that is how one wishes to see it.
      But that is a choice as well.
         All optionality lost,
         All multiverses collapsing into one.
Yet choosing can be a new life opening.
   One should see it as such.
      If one looks with fresh eyes,
         The joining of two in partnership allows new worlds,
         New hopes, new treasure; all opportunities unlocked.
Commitment brings real promise.
   All the rest was just potential.
      All the rest was wistful dreaming.
         Having chosen, being chosen, committed each to one,
         Bonded together at last all dreaming becomes real.
The challenges are now coupled with sincere consequence,
   Yet consequence implies meaning, implies attainment.
      Once in, one can never look back other than to smile at what, 
         Once held as valuable, melts into insignificance.
Then, one felt the world stood ready before him and for him.
   Now, one realizes that was a world devoid of substance
      Incomplete and unsatisfying.
The life from before seemed real, 
   But it was just a dream of what a real life could be.
The life now reveals that which was before a charming trap
   From which he most gratefully has escaped
      To a new real world, a real life,
         With beauty and mystery and fulfillment 
         That he could only glimpse in mere wish before.

Sadness For Those Who Don't Look Up

From the upper tower office perch
He blankly peers out his window bank.
Attention on the phone at his ear.
The high rise tower allows grand views
Needed distraction from the dull call.
   Nearby tall scrapers piercing the sky
   Horizons that fade sloping away
Mindlessly his unfocused gaze drifts 
Near to far then up to down.
Hanging up, he stays standing.
He can see people.
   Tops of heads
   Weaving walkers
   Some fast, deliberate 
   Some slow, aimless
From the traffic flow a school bus emerges
Making an uneasy park.
Young kids pour out into loose assembly.
They shuffle, gather, and break.
Order comes finally after brief instruction.
Hold old? Hard to say from such vertical perspective.
Unlike others, however, they are really here.
Taking it in as they follow in busted line.
Some bump into each other eyes not where they are headed. 
Rather raised to the heavens
Transfixed by clouds passing above the majestic towers. 
Such heights deserve wonder.
These are impressive monuments to what has been done and what can be.
It is not lost on newcomers.
Not yet have they fallen into the trance
Of neglecting the amazing.
For many this is mundane. 
Still to them it invites proper regard.

Longing for the Solace of Being Needed

His gait is but a shuffle
as he wears a fragile smile.
With eyes begging recognition
others quickly pass all the while.

Once a player, a mover
he shook big in his small world.
Many clamored begging to be 
in his circle where he swirled.

Phone calls, where once they
promptly met return,
Now garner only a pitiful
duty to be addressed without spurn.

Always dapper dressed to the nines,
he would strut; he would entertain.
Still though trying much with effort, 
softer shoes show humbled refrain.

As some remember,
they dare not accept.
To truly see one's future is
an unacceptable regret.

This one starts as a surprising stat and then transitions into a pithy quotable.

Today about a quarter of the US workforce are required to have a license to work in their chosen profession, up from just 5 percent in 1950. Almost always the trend has been to add occupational licensing over time, but in 1983 Colorado did something unusual: it delicensed funeral service workers such as funeral directors. Brandon Pizzola and I analyzed what happened in our 2017 paper, Occupational licensing causes a wage premium: Evidence from a natural experiment in Colorado’s funeral services industry.

What we found was that delicensing reduced wages, reduced prices, and caused a shift towards cremation rather than the more expensive mortuary services preferred by funeral directors.

. . .

But that is not the end of the story. In 2023 a series of gruesome abuses came to light involving the sale of body parts, rotting bodies, and worse. Newspapers repeatedly noted that Colorado was the only state not to license funeral service workers. As a result, Colorado is relicensing funeral service workers as of 2027.

The problem is that there is no evidence that abuses were worse in Colorado. It’s easy to find similar abuses—including sexual abuse of corpses—in states with heavy licensing.

. . .

People want what cannot be guaranteed: good behavior in all circumstances. And they will reach for a licensing regime if it promises that, even when such promises are empty.

Next comes a positive story of improvement from Innovate Animal Ag (HT: Human Progress):

Original research conducted by Innovate Animal Ag shows that as of June 1, 2026:

• 40% of the EU’s commercial egg layer flock was sexed with in-ovo technology–a 6-point penetration increase from April 1, 2025.

• Since 2021, over 281 million male embryos have been removed before hatching globally.

• In Europe, in-ovo sexing technology has reached a production rate of 100 million female chicks per year, climbing from 500k chicks per month in 2021 to well over 8 million female chicks per month by the publication of this report, a CAGR of over 75%.

• In-ovo sexing is beginning its market-based rollout in the US with over 4% of the country’s commercial layer flock having publicly announced a transition to use the technology as existing flocks are retired.

• In Switzerland, where in-ovo sexing technology kicked off in 2025, in-ovo sexing penetration climbed rapidly and now sits at around 85 to 100% of the country’s layer flock. In Norway, in-ovo sexing has hit a 52% market penetration.

• The global penetration of in-ovo sexing is forecasted to continue its sharp growth in the next few years, led by expansion in the US, continued strength in Europe as a consequence of Italy’s ban on male chick culling, growth in markets where the technology has recently entered such as Australia and Brazil, and potential penetration into greenfield markets like Canada and China.

This is a very significant and morally-relieving trend. For those who don’t know, for both layer chickens, those used for egg production, and broiler chickens, those eaten for meat, males hold no value. Hence, they are culled at hatching—billions each year. Often this involves tossing the newly emerged baby chick into a shredder. By being able to sex-determine the chicks before hatching, the male embryos are removed before developing.

While you might not have known that baby chickens were being brutally slaughtered like this, you probably do “know” that AI datacenters use lots of electricity—and are worried about that. Good news, a little bit of perspective courtesy Our World in Data might alleviate your concerns:

So unless you’re ready to go to the barricades to protest hot showers, TV viewing, and microwaving popcorn, you should probably relax regarding AI electricity use.

Finally, this from Jeremy Horpedahl regarding the cost of air travel doesn’t surprise me, but it may surprise some [emphasis added]:

In 1970, a roundtrip flight on Pan Am from New York to London was $420. First class was $750. To put those numbers in context, the average wage in 1970 was $3.40, meaning it would have taken 124 hours of work to buy the coach ticket, and 221 hours to buy the first class ticket. The average wage today is $32.31, meaning that the coach ticket is the equivalent of almost $4,000 today, and the first class ticket is over $7,000.

A theme throughout this post is that things are getting better if we let them. Encouragement takes a delicate, nuanced touch, however. Just simply trying to legislate it often fails as in the case of licensure (first link above) or regulation (hidden implication in the fourth link since removal of regulation led to this improvement). So too might it in the case of animal welfare (second link). Forcing change upon the food industry could simply lead to supply chain changes to even worse conditions, which would be bad for animals,1 or reductions in food supply, which would be bad for humans and maybe bad for animals considering the substitution decisions that might result.2 And do we really want to retard the innovation that promises medical advances previously only dreamed of (the third link)?

• To get less “hate speech” and less hateful speech and less bad speech we need very strong protections for “hate speech” and all speech otherwise.

• Special benefits and privileges for under-privileged groups can and often do greatly harm those intended beneficiaries. Two specific examples:

  • Minimum wages set above zero results in a wage of zero or at least significantly less than the total wage the employee would have gotten before the minimum wage was implemented.

  • Rent control to limit the cost of housing strongly tends to increase the cost of housing for the targeted beneficiary (both in availability as well as total cost).

• Increasing criminal punishment including longer prison sentences and more harsh penalties otherwise can in many cases have virtually no affect on criminality and can in fact cause more crime.

• Making it harder to fire employees makes it harder to hire employees resulting in higher rates of unemployment.

• Increasing the penalty severity and/or the enforcement of penalties for any prohibited behavior (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.) results in worse versions (from the point of view of the prohibitor) of the prohibited behavior.

• Barriers to imports (tariffs and quotas) are barriers to exports that result in reductions to both.

• Investment concentrations are much more likely to make the (relatively) poor rich than are investment diversifications, but investment concentrations are much more likely to keep you poor (if poor already), make you poor (if rich already), and make you poorer in general than investment diversifications.

• Speed indeed kills. However, the fastest method of travel for a given distance is generally the safest method of travel.

• Almost always average cost is minimized after marginal cost; thus, stopping once the next unit takes more effort (is more costly) than the last unit falsely appears to minimize cost overall. As an example, adding one more input (e.g., a worker) to a production process, even though that worker’s addition results in less additional output than did the addition of the previous worker, can still (almost always does) result in a lower total cost per unit produced. This means the output is being more efficiently produced even though the last input (worker) was less helpful than the prior one added. In other words colloquially, adding a weaker link can strengthen the chain overall.

I was not part of the fight. Had I been, I would have joined his side (pro-construction). Not because he is my friend. He isn’t (yet)—we’ve never met. He lives in Dallas having recently purchased the home here in Norman. From what I’ve gathered, he plans for his daughters to use it while they are in college here. The ADU is so he and his wife can have a place to stay while visiting including for OU gamedays.

To me those details are trivia. For many of my other neighbors they were important clues about how they might oppose his plans. Was this a secret plan to rent to multiple members of his daughters’ future sororities?

Questions that were raised included:

• “Does he know about the restriction on more than 3 unrelated people living in the same house in Norman?”

• “How does he plan to accommodate all the ungaraged cars?” — seriously, this was said.

• “Will the ADU bring unwanted noise to the alley it will adjoin?”

They might as well have asked if he was planning on using it to house a sleeper cell of Texas Longhorns who would plan an assault on the Sooner homeland.

I was wise to stay out of the fray for two reasons. For one this isn’t my fight, and one should be careful about what battles one chooses to engage in. For another, I was likely to be unhelpful to the cause as I would likely have insulted the opponents (my other neighbors). I take a dim view on economic innumeracy as well as people who don’t respect property rights. I see in the opponents strong examples of both.

So let’s take this example and build something more constructive—an attempt at targeted persuasion in regard to new housing and renters in a rental market. For the latter my example is prime as we are one block from a major university campus that has, you know, lots of short-term residents with high turnover.

In one case I will be writing to convince conservatives and in the other progressives. What will be interesting is to have readers try to figure out which one they are as horseshoe theory is strong here.

For those who want a balanced explainer from an highly credible source, I very much recommend this short video from Alex Tabarrok.

As always:

****DON’T READ THE MESSAGE NOT MEANT FOR YOU****

Conservatives Only

A man’s home is his castle. This 17th-century proverb from English common law by jurist Sir Edward Coke isn’t up for debate. Yet too often we make challenges to it (some direct and others indirect). While it has to be balanced against true public policy concerns and cannot be used to justify transgressions on others, we should tread lightly when pursuing anything that conflicts with this core principle.

My desires to experience the world around me are limited in two important ways. The first is that I have limited resources in this world of scarcity generally. The second, which flows from the first, is that the desires of others might conflict with my own.

I may want an oak tree in my garden; so I plant one there. I may decide an existing oak tree in my garden is in the way of some other desire of mine; hence, I choose to remove it. These are my prerogatives.

I may like the sight of my neighbor’s oak tree looking out my own window including the shade it provides my garden, but if my neighbor has other desires for his tree, that is his prerogative. The best I can do is attempt to persuade him to change his mind including potentially paying him for the curtesy.

He doesn’t have to satisfy my desires nor should he nor should I his regarding my own tree.

Similarly, his choice to remove the tree and build an addition to his home is his and his alone. I may not like the sight of more house and less tree. My desire is in conflict with his, and his is the only one that decisively matters in this case.

If he desires to remove the tree in favor of a machine he will use to burn garbage sending noxious smoke out into the surrounding air and producing extremely loud noises, his desire has escaped his own domain. He is now encroaching upon my (and others’) property rights and creating a nuisance.

Nuisance law is a common law concept to handle such problems. But my desires being thwarted by his desires being fulfilled in the case of the home addition do not constitute a nuisance. I should not have a veto on his desires within his domain nor he in mine.

Might he be changing the composition of the neighborhood? Certainly. So too does every other little and large choice and change made by all of us living nearby. Beware this nebulous concept that can be too easily invoked as if it were itself a law of the Universe.

His private property must be respected as should the private property of all neighbors. If his choice to remove the tree and build the addition is a poor one, it is his mistake to make. He will bare the burden of lost property value.

Might the tree versus the addition have negative impact on my own property value? Certainly it could in theory. We could even suppose it enhances his value while detracting from mine. There are two responses:

1. The first is to understand how limited and unlikely this is.1 Quite simply this is not how conglomeration value works in almost all cases. Thought experiments like this lead to absurd outcomes where small changes external to a property have bigger impacts than large changes internal to the property. Another absurdity this leads to is assuming any external change will be detrimental as if the world as we see it right not without change is the maximal market value outcome. It is best to let those with skin in the game (risk of loss) make resource decisions. Do not be confused about it affecting your own personal value versus the general market value. I have bad news for you, you might be the outlier. Which leads to the second response.

2. I’m sorry, but too bad. The world is filled with things you and I don’t like or find optimal. One compromise we have to repeatedly make is to understand the limits on our desires especially when our preferences are in conflict with another’s where the other has a right to make the decision. As a corollary, be careful how certain you are that what you’ve fully figured out the ultimate truth in what you think you desire. Preferences change.

The governing principle here is not asking me to like the change. It is not suggesting the change is a net good. I should consider that it might be, and critically despite my frustration I must accept the change. For the next change facing opposition might be my own. Thus, a golden rule founded in property rights is the only reasonable place to live.

Progressives Only

An inclusive neighborhood is a thriving neighborhood. Too often housing policy has been used (sometimes intentionally other times unintentionally) to exclude others. New neighbors mean new opportunities. Diversity requires adding not subtracting or restricting.

An addition to a home to add bedrooms or an additional small unit in the back is an economic invitation for new neighbors. These people are future friends we have never met coming with ideas we have not heard. They will add vibrancy—much good, some bad. The story of change is always with tradeoffs. But we know tolerance is a virtue.

A neighbor adding an ADU for purposes of renting to college students cannot be totally surprising. Housing is scarce; so the economic case is obvious. We should realize this economic case reaches beyond the neighbor’s own financial balance sheet. Sure, he will likely make money from this addition. But the community itself will also benefit.

New, additional people have needs, but they bring resources to fulfill them. The addition raises the property tax on his lot, which is just a minor positive. More importantly the new residents will add to demand at local shops and restaurants. They will also add eyes on the street marginally lowering crime risk.

There are other benefits too. Suppose existing neighbors have a sudden emergency. The presence of young adults offers help that many older, current residents cannot provide. Case in point: the very hot, dry day two years ago with winds blowing 40 mph when a fire broke out on a neighbor’s back porch. The young college men who lived next door rushed to help keeping the fire at bay until the very taxed (that day was a very bad day for fires) firefighters could arrive.

Still, there is angst regarding the addition.

Might he be changing the composition of the neighborhood? Certainly. So too does every other little and large choice and change made by all of us living nearby. Beware this nebulous concept that can be too easily invoked as if it were itself a law of the Universe.

The noise they might add could be undesired. If it is too loud, we have nuisance law for that. But it likely also will be joyful. Those who will arrive will be starting their journey to adulthood. Who better to enjoy their voyage than those who can reminisce of our own past? Who better to offer guidance upon occasion when they need help along the way?

For too long and in too many places have bigotry and prejudice allowed exclusion. We’ve made great strides in defeating these evils where explicitly designed. The battle is not over, however. These impulses lurk in the shadows of policies we accept that, though unintentional, result in the same outcome.

That a homeowner among us is willing to take financial risk to help fight for a more accommodating community is praiseworthy. Abundance requires growth. Sharing and spreading abundance requires embracement. Thus, a golden rule founded in inclusion is the only reasonable place to live.

Consider this partial list of words categorized (I argue) by ultimate, inherent moral status (not mood affiliation):

Good:

• Ethical

• Moral

• Faithful

• Rational

• Capitalist

Neutral:

• Black, white, man, woman, American, European, African, etc.

• Atheist, Catholic, Islamist, Jew, agnostic, etc.

• Carpenter, accountant, engineer, politician (at least generally), homemaker, etc.

• Cynic (As I’ve argued before, yes, this one easily slips into the bad category, but on the surface it is neutral.)

Bad (aka, “boo”) words:

• Racist

• Evil

• Communist

• Socialist

My categorization reveals my values, and this serves as examples where I would argue these values are based upon essential values that cannot be argued against. There are two claims here (one strong and one weak):

1. The strong claim is that such a delineation can be made at all; hence, there are objective values.

2. The weak claim is that I have insight into it; hence, that my list might be on the right track.

The argument for #1 is based upon ethical intuitionism. The argument for #2 would be that my intuition is good. I call the first strong and the second weak because I am much more certain of the first than the second.

Read more

Saturday Morning Cartoons

Your eyes blink open with confusion.

Why are you waking yourself?
Why is there bright sunlight about?

Your fearful heartbeat slows 
   as a smile builds upon realizing
      it is Saturday.

You scramble out of bed 
   with urgency unfelt other mornings.
The others are theirs.
   You own today.

Now the heart beats faster 
   with two pulses: 
      anticipation of what will be 
         and dread for what you may have missed.

Now in the den 
   you flick on the TV to answer your questions.
The clock means nothing 
   since you don't know the schedule by time
      but the order you know by heart.

You catch relief to see 
   that Wylie and Elmer are still pursuing their prey.

"In the News" is your chance 
   to snag a sugar-filled bowl 
      leaving the milk carton out--no time to waste.

Back on the watch you set mesmerized, 
   enchanted.
Your only break from the trance 
   is to quickly get a refill 
      you won't finish 
         or to crawl over and flip the channel 
            for emergent preference 
               awaiting your attention.

Outside the sun warms your coming afternoon.
For now it must wait.
Not before the too-soon transition 
   to the music & dance that will transfix you 
      in the teenage years to come 
   or the sports broadcasting that will someday 
      beckon your adult mind 
will you sigh your signoff 
   and rise to face the day.

Consider the arithmetic. Suppose an hour of labor is worth about $64, roughly the average gross domestic product per hour worked in the countries in which Amazon operates. If Mr. Bezos’ fortune corresponded to the total value that Amazon created, his $275 billion would represent about 4.3 billion hours of saved time. Divided among Amazon’s more than 300 million active customers, the saving comes to about 14 hours per customer over Amazon’s life. That’s nothing. Many customers save that in a month.

But entrepreneurs don’t capture all the value they create. The Nobel Prize-winning economist William Nordhaus estimated that innovators keep only a small share of the social value—roughly 2%—produced by their innovations. Under that assumption, Mr. Bezos’ $275 billion fortune implies that Amazon created about $13.8 trillion in total value for society.

Alas, wealth envy is yet again all the rage. John Cochrane isn’t buying it:

The recent Piketty-Saez-Stiglitz revival of wealth taxes, ostensibly to improve the lot of the poor, makes many mistakes. I’ll focus on one: the difference between wealth and consumption. The poor wish consumption. Turning capital into consumption must destroy the capital that produces consumption. Taxing wealth in the name of inequality will make the world, including the poor, much poorer.

The fact that wealth taxes won’t work out as desired is counterintuitive to many. Speaking of counterintuitive, check out David Friedman on how preventing divorce might raise marriage rates in his larger post on “How to Raise Birth Rates” (this one took me a second):

Marriage is a serious, often life changing, step; some people might be unwilling to take it if the other party was free to back out later; willingness to marry is a stronger signal of intent to stay married if divorce is not an option, one reason eliminating or restricting divorce might result in more people getting married. If that seems wrong to you, consider the effect on the mortgage market of a legal change that made it easy for borrowers to default.

A through line in these is that it takes two to tango. There is always a counterparty. In trade it is win-win (consumers and producers) where the consumers almost always make orders of magnitude more than the producers. In taxing wealth generation it is lose-lose-lose (wealthy, society, and the state taxing the wealthy)—killing the golden goose. In marriage it is obviously the two getting married where an easy out for either means reluctance to commit (especially for the one more committed in the first place).

Substacks mentioned:

The Grumpy Economist

Wealth tax equilibrium accounting

The recent Piketty-Saez-Stiglitz revival of wealth taxes, ostensibly to improve the lot of the poor, makes many mistakes. I’ll focus on one: the difference between wealth and consumption. The poor wish consumption. Turning capital into consumption must destroy the capital that produces consumption. Taxing wealth in the name of inequality will make the…

Read more

2 months ago · 168 likes · 62 comments · John H. Cochrane

David Friedman’s Substack

How to Raise Birth Rates

I had a post on the subject a few months ago; a recent online discussion started me thinking about it again and I have some new ideas. One was due to a poster whose list of ways government could reduce the birth rate included banning divorce. I suspected he had it backwards. The obvious reason to think that is that modern societies have both easy divorc…

Read more

2 months ago · 25 likes · 74 comments · David Friedman

I. China vis-à-vis Ireland

There are now more foreigners in Ireland than in China in absolute terms, despite having a population that is 260 times smaller.

II. & III. Brazil

Brazil has more unused arable land than any country on earth.

And,

A single farm in Mato Grosso can be more than twice the size of the state of Rhode Island. A literal fact.

Wow, wow, and wow!

I. Matt Zwolinski writes,

California has the most underfunded public pension system in the country. CalSTRS, the fund that pays the retirements of the state’s teachers, carries an unfunded liability of more than $100 billion—larger than California’s entire annual K–12 education budget. CalPERS, the parallel system for non-teaching public employees, brings the combined liability to roughly $136 billion. Between 2013 and 2021, the share of a California teacher’s salary that school districts had to send to CalSTRS more than doubled, from 8.3 percent to 19.1 percent, and roughly forty percent of recent increases in school budgets have been absorbed by pension costs rather than reaching classrooms. Three California cities—Vallejo, Stockton, and San Bernardino—have declared bankruptcy in the last two decades, with police and firefighter pension obligations as one of the largest drivers in each case. Cities that have not gone bankrupt have responded by cutting parks, libraries, road maintenance, arts programs, and, in some cases, the very police staffing levels their pension obligations were originally meant to support.

The superior force here is the market (reality) against a union (desires). The union is powerful in its ability to set ambitious goals that have the force of law to be met, but it is powerless against a reality that will not allow those desires to be met in actuality.

The piece is a cautionary tale for taxpayers.

II. The Wall Street Journal reports,

On Polymarket, the Journal found, 67% of profits go to just 0.1% of accounts. That means less than 2,000 accounts netted a total of nearly half a billion dollars. The Journal analyzed 1.6 million Polymarket accounts that have traded since November 2022. There are at least 2.3 million total accounts on the site.

The superior force here is better informed people on the other side of trades. It is not all insider information, but that is an important component. Emotion-driven bets are easy prey for the sharps.

The piece is a cautionary tale for bettors specifically and investors generally.

III. Marc Porter Magee on X.com posts (HT: Tyler Cowen),

University of Vermont projects 15% drop in freshman class.

The superior force here is demographics. This is mixed news. For UVM and universities at large, it is bad news. We are deeply into the Great Shrinking of college. For society, it is not so bad. More international students would alleviate the decline and be good for all. Yet, we've been through a period of too much college and for too many people. The reduction was inevitable, and it has good downstream effects. However, the fact that our population is declining due to falling birth rates is bad, bad, bad—a canary in the coalmine.

The piece is a cautionary tale for higher education specifically and both Social Security and the economy generally (population decline).

To provide answers, the Cato Institute has built the Jones Act Waiver Tracker, an interactive, first-of-its-kind dashboard that draws directly on the voyage reports that waiver users must file with the Maritime Administration (MARAD).

. . .

What the Data Already Show

As of July 10, 2026 — 115 days into the waiver — the tracker shows:

• 162 voyages completed

• 135 unique vessels involved

• 38 voyages transiting the Panama Canal

• 16 distinct cargo categories moved

• Nearly 40 million barrels shipped (39,955,137)

Scott Lincicome joins in the celebration of results:

When looking for reasons the many bad policies of the Trump administration is not having more apparent negative impact on the economy, it is important to remember that there have been numerous positive policies. Besides general deregulation, the administration has done one thing very specifically: suspended the Jones Act. Not just that, but this has been the longest waiver of that dreadfully bad law since 1950. The waiver started March 17 and is set to expire August 16. Dare I hope that gets extended? Perhaps. Dare I hope we move to fully extinguish this nonsense altogether at some point? Well, a boy can dream . . .

And no, Trump does not get full credit here since his reckless decision to make war on Iran caused the acute need for the waiver.

Trump happens to be on the correct side of many issues. This statement is not the half-assed, mealy-mouthed concession Trump supporters would like to label it. I would and have said the same of other bad administrations (that is to say all of them). Unfortunately, I would argue that we seem to be ratcheting down in each successive election among candidates from both parties in terms of the good principles/instincts to bad principles/instincts ratio. So this charge of happening to be right is getting stronger.

Trump’s position on CBDCs is another example. I fully expect a 180 on this from him and others) once he realizes the immense control over his enemies this power would entail. Only strong, powerful political opposition from key special-interests constituencies can hold politicians back from this threat. Where once adherence to good principles held sway, now only self interest (getting/keeping political support) can be counted on. Milton Friedman’s famous adage is more important today than ever.

Another note on Trump in light of his prime-time address to the nation this week on election corruption. That propaganda moment is a great reminder that no matter how many small wins Trump and his ilk deliver, and there are many, it is not worth the existential risk he and they pose to the republic. It is why I said in the hypothetical where your vote actually would determine the election in 2024, I advocated for Kamala Harris over Trump despite Trump scoring better in my degrees-of-losing matrix.

The “bombshell revelations” in the speech Thursday night were complete duds to any rational observer. Only the people suffering reverse TDS can possibly see it as anything else. This administration has lost all credibility on this among many issues. In fact there is no reason to take anything they say or promote at face value. Reagan’s borrowed phrase, Trust but Verify, must be amended for the Trump administration to now be Do Not Trust Until Verified.

Beyond this lack of credibility comes the utter corruption. As Matt Welch illustrates, this is the most corrupt presidency in history.

Americans have cycled in and out of corrupt eras: the blatant patronage of Tammany Hall, the lobbying Christmas trees of President William McKinley’s tariffs, the ‘60s–’70s outrages from the security/surveillance state. These rotted systems never self-corrected with a collective national shrug.

Donald Trump and his family are executing corruption at a scale never previously contemplated in the American experiment. If we are to ever graduate from this era of brazen graft, the first step is to notice.

If one would be advised to be a single-issue voter, corruption and character would be the place to land. It trumps everything else. It is in short supply in national politics these days. We should seek it out above all else.

P.S. This also caught my eye:

Overall, it was a fantastic trip. Another great family vacation.

The itinerary was 4 nights in Venice Beach, one night in Sequoia National Park, three nights in Yosemite National Park, one night in Monterey, one night in Cambria, and one night in Ventura Beach. It was a big loop driving over 1,200 miles allowing us to take in the vast and varied scenery.

Don’t let the politics and prices detour you. The people and the weather, both pleasant, are what you will remember. There is much ruin in a place naturally endowed and culturally rich.

My two younger kids and even my wife wore out our oldest (adult) child with the comparison “less beautiful than Alaska . . .” since she was not on our vacation last year. Outside of the best vantages in Yosemite in particular and the Pacific Coast Highway in general, I would have to agree. But as a city mouse as well as someone with enough perspective to consider what life must be like year-round, it is hard for me to get past that Alaska is a place to visit while California is (aspirationally) a place to live.

Largely this trip is a recreation of a family vacation I took as a child in 1988 at the age of 13. I’ll try to add some comparisons in as I go along with these notes from the journey.

Los Angeles:

• This was just a northern L.A. trip with our base of operations being Venice Beach.

• Venice Beach and surrounding area are surprisingly tight even though I knew it to be. Here you get a feel for the (mostly false) reasons Los Angeles is claimed to have density. It is compact, but not particularly dense. And this only applies to the official municipal boundaries. This commentary on population and housing will be a recurring theme in this post.

• Our Airbnb condo 1.5 blocks off the beach was quaint, somewhat chic, and perfect for what we wanted. It gave the feel of immediate immersion into the vibe of the L.A. beach scene—both its style and location.

• Places like Venice Beach have a lot to offer but ask a lot in return. In addition to the tremendous expense for housing and other cost of living in general, the everyday frictions are pretty biting. Sure there’s lots of cultural amenities within a 50 mile radius, but in terms of difficulty that’s equivalent to several hundred miles away in a place like Texas or Oklahoma. The weather is great, But the weather is doing a lot of work in this equation. And being outside is not as available as it needs to be—there is a lack of space to move and sit freely. The problem is not just other people and the nanny state. It is simply physical space. The limitations don’t just seem artificial. The structure of the city (where it stops and starts again) create this clustering leaving vast expanses uninhabitable.

• Venice Boardwalk is a counter-cultural circus, but it is captured by capitalism. Everyone is simply selling something. Still authentic, just ironic as well. Lots of art for sure. Lots of angst too. They are successfully keeping Venice weird. Muscle Beach and the skate park are something between kitsch and historic. It is a spontaneously organized assembly of method actors no less role playing than those nearby at Disneyland whose performances are tightly scripted.

• Venice Canals are a must see, and one must see them by walking at a stroll to take it all in. The uniqueness of each residence and small garden is a big part of the charm.

• The Getty is a beautiful museum very well run and staffed. The art is perhaps sparse in comparison to the complex that holds it. I say perhaps, though, because much of it is closed for renovations. Still, the parts open are quite rewarding. It is very comfortable and accommodating. It most resembles Crystal Bridges in style and atmosphere. In comparison it has less art and more amenities (to my memory). The design invites a slow, deliberate pace especially the gardens—definitely a feature. Looking out at its great views of L.A., I was wanting for an AI tool to help me know what I was looking at (from far away buildings to nearby celebrity homes in Brentwood). This is where Google Glass or Meta Glasses would be useful. Moving inside I could use these to enhance the art experience—the best version would be interactive, connected to those with me, and responsive to the depth I would want piece by piece.

• The window shopping along Abbot Kinney Blvd is also worth the trip. Note not just the wealth on display in the modest, bohemian shops but also the apparent tolerance embrace of street vendors. Refresh yourself and relieve your wallet of weight at Erewhon grocer.

• The number of Ferraris in Beverly Hills and surrounding areas was astounding. Obviously seeing cars like this is to be expected, but the sheer number was amazing.

• Overall, L.A. is a fabulous place with lots to offer those slightly brave enough to navigate it. Maybe more than the average big metropolis, it requires movement within it and patience with the geography to fully grasp what makes it unique and attractive.

• Driving in L.A.:

  • L.A. is the quintessential American car city. Hence, see it by car. Our day driving ~80 miles from Venice to downtown to Beverly Hills through lower Hollywood to Griffith Park via upper Hollywood to Mullholland Drive (targeting nightfall for the last part) gave us the true feel for the landscape. And it put it all into perspective against itself. To know a city is to understand where everything is in relation to everything else.

  • Versus Dallas traffic, L.A. is not that bad in comparison. Texas drivers are more aggressive and the average Texas speed is higher both on freeways and on city streets. Maybe a higher proportion of tourists account for this as unfamiliarity-breeds-caution-and-hesitation behavior.

  • California drivers simply obey the speed limit much more than I’m used to—still often faster than the posted number, but the crowd was only within ~5 mph. Straightaways where the limit was 65 would be a de facto 75 in Oklahoma and 80+ Texas.

  • I remember from my 1988 trip a bit more confusion on the part of my father than I was encountering. This is likely because he was only aided by a street map whereas I had Google Maps on the dashboard, fellow passengers as well using Apple and Google Maps, and my son who knows L.A. better than all that from GTA—not a joke.

  • Waymo’s everywhere in Venice and they handle the chaotic traffic amazingly. Along those lines . . .

  • I took my first Waymo ride with the kids in tow. It was at once amazing and at the same time mundane. How’s that for updating on the tech-hedonic escalator? The 20-minute ride through some of the most dense and chaotic traffic you will see anywhere gave me strong confidence in a near future of self-driving cars. It arguably cut a driver off in a way any experienced driver would. We also witnessed several other Waymo’s “sticking it out there” to fit in and actually drive with the flow. If they didn’t look like a Mars rover with all their sensors, people would never know they were autonomous. They just drive like the best drivers on the road. It was also nice to look like a celebrity with all the people (probably fellow tourists) gawking at us. There was one scary moment. At a traffic light we pulled up behind an Uber that had black-yellow caution tape on its bumper. The Waymo initially interpreted this as a construction vehicle it needed to route around, and it pushed the front wheels sharply to the left in preparation. The dashboard screen shows what the Waymo is thinking including the proposed path. In this case it was proposing to find a gap in oncoming traffic to steer around. Fortunately it quickly figured out the situation without incident.

Sequoia National Park:

• The Giants have to be experienced to be understood and appreciated. There is just no way to capture it in pictures or words. My memory of their enormity still didn’t do them justice.

• Wuksachi Lodge: Deep in the heart of the park, this worked perfect for a night’s stay. I wouldn’t have wanted to be much longer, though. It is well run and comfortable with good food in the restaurant. Perhaps surprising, this government-owned-and-operated facility shows that limitation only in the fact that it looks like stepping back time about 30 years—as if in that time, not 30 years of depreciation.

• The curvy roads and steep inclines with truly unforgiving edges (certain death) are the only places drivers in CA were notably poorly behaved. Most of these were probably tourists. This was all the more so in Yosemite. Pulling around blind corners at high speed (where 35 mph is ridiculously too fast), these Darwin Award candidates clearly weren’t doing the cost-benefit analysis correctly. Case in point was the car that slammed into the rock embankment to avoid a minivan (we came up on this right after it had happened so I don’t know the details). Had it been on the other side of the road, the embankment would have instead been a plunge several hundred feet.

Yosemite National Park:

• I highly recommend the rental houses in Yosemite West. Ours was perfect, Alpenglow #3 rented on Airbnb. Staying in this private place where the only road in is through the park means you’re already in the park when you’re here. This makes it very convenient as well as bypasses long lines that form at the park gates.

• Aside from the obvious in the Yosemite Valley, Glacier Point is a must see, and Hetch Hetchy Valley and the accompanying reservoir is worth the trip.

• Despite claims of renewal, the lack of seeing wildlife in both parks was surprising. Aside from squirrels, marmots, and chipmunks along with very few birds, nothing was seen close or afar. True, most of our time was spent throughout the daylight hours. Still, we had morning and evening time that was also absent of animal sightings.

• The valley is awe inspiring. To take it in fully requires seeing it from multiple vantage points—high and low, close and far. This is the best national park the U.S. has to offer.

• I remembered the climb to the base of Yosemite Falls to be more elongated and less treacherous than it was. To be sure it is not a difficult hike, but just like a dull knife can be more dangerous than a sharp one, it continually invited climbers into a lull. Slipping on these rocks wouldn’t likely kill you, but a bone break or some other injury that ends your national park experience is quite available. And jumping the gap between boulders with ten-foot rapids below looks fine until something isn’t.

National Park Experience:

• This wouldn’t be a blog post from me without commentary on how the government is doing running these tourist attractions. Let’s lay aside the religious dogma that requires sanctimonious acceptance of the government owning and running the show to do some high-level thinking.

• I’d say the overall job is pretty well done while leaving a lot to be desired. Bastiat’s seen and unseen is key here. One gets a glimpse when comparing where I stayed at Yosemite West, a private development behind (only road in) the park’s entrance. But this is only partial. And one need not look there. Just a comparison between Sequoia and Yosemite hints at differences as Yosemite has better facilities reflecting it being the bigger draw with more charisma. Demand drives funding but this stops short of what a private provider would supply.

• For one difference realize that a private provider couldn’t get by with the lack of safety (roads, trails, and, importantly, overlooks) that the government can. The lack of signage much less physical barriers was alarming as I watched kids jump out of cars to catch the views. Ironically it is like Lenore Skenazy runs the national parks, although that is probably unfair to what she would actually do. Assumption of risk (e.g., for hikers) is one thing. Walkways with easy death for a kid who wonders is another.

• Entrances and accommodations are substandard. Parking lots including directions are like an inside joke being played by staff on patrons. I found too many “do better” opportunities that were low-hanging fruit for anyone who actually cared to care.

• Rangers are generally very helpful and well informed. For every gripey jerk there were ten admirable people on duty. The failure is in leadership and vision. It’s as if the lack of a profit motive is degenerative to the mission... hmmm. So it isn’t with the workers that I find blame.

• That former point extends to how poorly maintained facilities and badly run organizations lead to environmental problems. People step through gaps in fences that look like suggestions to touch, trample, and damage the treasures. These are the proverbial death by a thousand cuts. And this is before we even consider how a private organization would never allow the mismanagement and risk that leads to devastating fires destroying trees that grow over centuries in mere moments. Driving for miles through forest graveyards was eerie and disheartening.

• Could funding be better? Sure, and it is such a small portion of the budget that even a libertarian minimalist-state hawk like myself wouldn’t bat an eye. But money isn’t the problem. Incentives are.

Pacific Coast Highway:

• Monterey and Carmel were warmer than I remembered—no, not global warming or even better luck on weather. I think this is just that I have a better tolerance for temperature deviations as an adult.

• 17-Mile Drive: A great starting point for travel down the famed highway 1. Taking it slow to take most of it in is the only way. So many beautiful sights from the natural sea to the fabulous homes (big and small).

• Once further down the road, make Nepenthe a destination for a late lunch.

• The driving part of this day (Monterey to Cambria) and the next (Cambria to Ventura) visually matches the famed Road to Hana in Maui. The vista stops are better in Maui. The conveniences are better on the PCH.

• The landscape is beautiful, but underserved. Imagine Carmel-by-the-Sea extended for 300 miles south. Or perhaps Lower Santa Barbara/Ventura/Malibu extended north 300 miles and up the hills. It’s actually easy if you try . . .

  

  See signs of a failed state section below for more.

• We hit 1,000 California miles just before San Simeon headed south. This stat both was and was not surprising. It seemed like we had gone a long way, but it went easily and joyfully. So it didn’t seem like a slog. Only about 10% of those miles were on straight roads and somewhat level ground. Not sure if that made it go by faster, but it definitely kept it from being boring. Still, you lose something in long drives where you cannot set the cruise control, relax, and allow your mind to wonder like, say, on I-40 from Oklahoma City to New Mexico.

• Hearst Castle: Lots of glamour but much of it glossing over if not completely ignoring who William Randolph Hearst was—a bit of revisionist history. No mention of Yellow Journalism nor his anti-Asian beliefs and propagandizing. The tour didn’t mention any controversy regarding the personal zoo including the on-going issues with the wild Zebras that escaped captivity decades ago. Back to the castle, I have a very different perspective today than I did then. At the time a trip to Hearst Castle inspired my imagination driving me to dream for years of having my own magnificent estate. Today there is no similar aspiration or desire really. Perhaps some of that is just the reality that these things are out of reach. But I think it is mainly a change in my values—an improvement with age and wisdom.

• Cambria was a great stop. The quaint motels along Highway 1 are inviting. This could/should have been a multiday destination.

The signs of a failed state:

• The lack of housing development on the hills is stunning, again, despite being something I very well knew to be the case. The vast open areas along the coast is a failure. Inland it isn’t much better especially considering the land used for subsidized farming, but the underused coastline is the clearest mistake. One can rationalize it saying it preserves the natural scenery, but that is just a weak cope. It is worse than arbitrary. Not only is it sticking one’s finger along the course of history and saying “it stops here”, it is a deep punishment for all those who would enjoy the alternative. The fact that it requires coercion to prevent the alternative tells us what the highest and best use really is.

• Vagrancy, homelessness, and panhandling in L.A. was about as expected and not too different from home in Norman or OKC. If anything it was less than what I see at home. And outside L.A. it was basically nonexistent to my eyes. Consider this evidence against the failed state hypothesis. Or perhaps the clean-up (sweeping under the rug) for the sake of the World Cup is to be credited—certainly not a sign of long-term solution if that is the case.

• Oil derricks outside of Bakersfield were a trip to the past. Living my entire life in oil country, I haven’t seen this ancient version of the technology in decades. Maybe I was missing something, but given that they were pumping, I didn’t think I was. And of course not . . . as Gemini explains, California regulations make the type of drilling seen in the modern world uneconomical when not prohibited explicitly. They need the Landman, haha.

• Anecdotally real estate prices have fallen for the very expensive places in Carmel, et al. Checking Zillow for sale price history showed this again and again. If indicative of a trend, this tells one a lot about the state of the economy for the wealthy in CA. Maybe a billionaire tax and the attitude behind it isn’t such a great idea.

• CA could easily double in population without breaking anything. If allowed to build, they would come. The weather is a big factor supporting this contention as is the unrivaled natural beauty that is less economically rivalrous than California policymakers seem to assume. The state possesses large swaths of vast emptiness. And cities are not nearly as vertical as they could be. That its population is declining tells you something is very wrong with its governance. Natural areas and wilderness need not be sacrificed. Agriculture would be displaced some, but homes in the desert make more sense than crops.

Miscellaneous:

• People in CA proved pleasant in nearly all encounters. Perhaps good weather makes this coastal population more midwestern in demeanor.

• California does not seem young—neither people nor attitude. This is very much in contrast to the California of my youth and the historical image. Sure, there are young, attractive people, but their proportions seem small. And they are outnumbered by boomers. Again, this is in numbers as well as the image projected.

• The Airbnb, et al. versus hotel tradeoff: Even after you shop thoroughly and selectively to find the highest quality rental, you are always on one side of a quality-quantity tradeoff. Specifically, you are choosing a bigger or amenity-filled space or something along these lines versus the quality and dependability of a hotel chain. To be sure many hotel chains have low-quality features. But apples-to-apples your hotel choice will have better quality than the rental. Rentals are always just a little bit broken—incomplete kitchen equipment, a bad lamp, a door that doesn’t close properly, an air mattress that slowly deflates, etc. There is something to be said for (comfortable) space and a sense of independence. But so too is there something to be said for housekeeping, dependable amenities (or a staff on call to correct), and services inside the accommodation. Choose wisely based on the expectations you desire to meet.

• Rental car: Jeep Grand Waggoner. Spacious and very comfortable. Easy to drive even in tight conditions despite the size. Dash electronics not perfect but fairly intuitive—not as good as a Honda, much better than others. Hazard warning beeps seemed random and hard to discern what was being conveyed. Lack of lane keep assist is a bug. Good in the mountains as well as the city.1 Overall, I recommend.

Some pictures:

Acting At Any Age

At five I was a five year old. If I acted, I acted like someone younger, a baby, or older as I perceived them to be. 

For the younger, there was no act. For the older, it was miming an act. They had no real sense of what their age should be in action. 

They were acting as if they were who they had seen come before them. If mimicking contemporaries, then just the same one step removed.

For those at 30 or 40 or 60 or beyond was their first day on the job in such a role. Self awareness their greatest impediment.

Them a slave to their audience, who as well knew not the role nor lines nor plot. All of it imitation of contrived expectations.

Once we start acting our age, we no longer can ever just be -- endlessly attempting to shape ourselves to a staring role no one cast.

Timber

The tree that fell wasn't really the problem.
No one liked that tree much.
Well, some birds maybe. And a squirrel or two. 
Even a woodpecker 
from time to time in time
found it interesting.

Perhaps that was a sign of its destiny,
to be pecked at and used.

The snap was loud, quite disturbing its alarm,
like the crack of lightning.
The fall softly gentle at first then faster.
It shook upon impact
landing roughly bouncing 
against its calm neighbor.

I imagine that tree sharply exclaiming, 
"Hey! What the? Get off me!"
Luckily to no avail as the tree rests 
there precariously
perched like a twisted dao
enormous and deadly.

Had it fallen without brace; oh, the damage.
It would roll and smash hard.
Slamming down upon the patio then house,
only stopped once the price
had been reached to make
insurance claim match physics.

The Creed of Go

Some never travel 
staying close to where they start.
Others move along
yet they too never depart.

Journey without uncertainty
is a voyage forgone.
To go but not be ever lost
leaves the traveler yon.

The true explorer a nomad,
he lets wandering make wonder.
Letting go all the familiar,
sights he seeks, limits asunder.

Destinations are unknown until
retrospective insight.
Setting forth despite trepidation 
into a foreign night.

There are also some good ones. The second group fails not on pure fallacy. Rather, these work on their face at least, and in some cases they rise to a level deserving strong response.

One response in either case is that an argument might be assuming too much. That is the case for capital-C “Culture” as a catchall explanation for differences and as a premise fundamental to the argument being made.

Alex Nowrasteh makes the case that culture is a crutch. His subtitle says it all, “How lazy social scientists and commentators use the c-word to avoid doing their jobs.”

Culture is human behavior that is socially learned and transmitted rather than genetically inherited or individually discovered. In Substack and online debates, culture means whatever the person invoking it needs it to mean. Values. Beliefs. Norms. Attitudes. Customs. Work ethic. Family structure. Trust. Time preference. Cuisine. Music. When someone says “culture explains X,” they’re gesturing at a black box the size of human civilization and calling the gesture a theory.

Keep that definition of culture in mind as I explain how unsatisfying using the word “culture” is as an explanation. You notice a spike in unemployment. Curious what could be causing it, you ask your economist friend why unemployment is rising. He says it’s because of “the economy” and then sits back as if he’s explained something when he has done nothing of the sort. That’s how everybody sounds to me when they say that culture explains a behavior or outcome.

. . .

If you’re going to claim that culture has an effect, you should be able to do four things. First, pinpoint exactly what cultural characteristic you mean. Don’t be vague, be specific by describing the type of behavior. Second, prove that cultural behavior actually exists as a measurable trait. Don’t rely on stereotypes, do the hard work. Third, demonstrate that the cultural behavior differs meaningfully across the groups being compared. Wow, that culture likes food a lot. Which culture doesn’t? Fourth, rule out that the real cultural trait isn’t caused by an exogenous economic force like high real estate prices, rising wages, or different institutions that incentivize behavior. Almost nobody who invokes culture does any of these four things. Culture is endogenous to everything. That’s why you have to do the work to isolate it. That’s also why almost nobody bothers.

Here is the heart of the problem:

Culture is endogenous to everything. Claiming culture causes an outcome without first ruling out that the outcome’s causes also produced the culture is circular reasoning. Every cultural explanation must first survive a price, incentive, and institutional audit. Few of them do, but those that do are extraordinary findings, which is perhaps another explanation why so many claim it. Nobody would let economists get away with explaining a recession of high unemployment with the explanation, “It’s the economy.” We shouldn’t let others get away with the equally lazy non-explanation of “it’s the culture.”

As he says in his conclusion:

The culture-as-explanation discourse is largely anti-intellectual. These are faux explanations for social behavior and outcomes that have real explanations. Think harder. Read the literature on a topic yourself or ask AI to search for you. Other researchers have probably already written about the issue you claim is just caused by culture. Before you write the word “culture” in a causal sentence, search for the price. Search for the institution. Investigate the incentives. Search for the constraints. If you exhaust those and culture is still standing, then maybe you’ve found something. But you probably just didn’t look hard enough.

Throwing up your hands claiming “it’s cultural differences” is another way of saying “I don’t know!” Watch out for this dodge and beware falling for its slight of hand.

Next, Bryan Caplan offers two other responses to weak and strong arguments. Both come in the form of live debates.

The first is from the SoHo Forum where Caplan debated Simon Hankinson on the resolution: “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should complete its mandate to deport all illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.”

From his opening statement:

While I’ve done many debates on immigration, this is the first time that you can figure out the correct side without knowing anything about immigration. The resolution states: “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should complete its mandate to deport all illegal aliens currently residing in the United States” — and all means all. Which is a crazy view about the enforcement of even the best law imaginable. If we were debating “The NYPD should complete its mandate to imprison all murderers currently residing in New York City,” every person here should still vote nay.

How can I say such a thing? This is the basic economics of crime. Solving and prosecuting all murders would be astronomically expensive. Some murders virtually solve themselves, others require the proverbial 48 hours, others require years of police work, and others might remain unsolved even if the entire NYPD indefinitely focused 100% of its attention on the crime. About 70% of murders committed in NYC currently end in a conviction, but the NYPD couldn’t get to 100% even if they had 100% of the city’s GDP to deploy.

Astronomical expense aside, however, stricter enforcement means more false positives. The easiest way to punish every murderer is to lower the burden of proof. But the lower the burden, the more innocent people you end up punishing.

. . .

Deporting all illegal aliens currently residing in the United States has exactly the same insuperable problems. The cost would be astronomically high, probably exceeding total GDP because the goal is impossible to achieve. And even if it could be achieved, there would be massive collateral damage along the way. You can also think about it like this: To deport every illegal alien, you would have to deport everyone with a 50%, a 10%, or even a 1% chance of being an illegal alien. Otherwise, you will miss some.

Once you accept these two obvious-once-you-think-about-them facts, you really are obliged to vote nay. You’re obliged to vote for me even if you think that an illegal immigrant is as bad as a murderer! But since I have ten minutes left, I’m going to add a bunch of extra arguments to reinforce the conclusion. And along the way, I’m going to tell you exactly what I really think.

. . .

[A] law that forbids a person from living in the United States and having a job is, at minimum, mildly stupid. Why should anyone on Earth need permission from the U.S. government to wash dishes, clean toilets, or take care of kids? Work is good. Production is good. No one should need the permission of any government to work, to produce. If you think it’s OK to break a law against driving 56 mph in the desert, you should think that it’s OK to break a law against mowing grass for money.

On further reflection, though, laws against foreigners living and working here without government permission are worse than mildly stupid. Even unreasonably strict speed limits are only a minor inconvenience. Immigration laws, in contrast, are a terrible burden on everyone without the good fortune to be born a citizen of the First World. Standard estimates say that moving from the Third World to the First World multiplies migrants’ incomes by a factor of 5x, 10x, or 15x. The flip side is that successfully enforcing immigration laws divides migrants’ incomes by a factor of 5x, 10x, or 15x. That is a terrible thing to do to another human being just for doing a normal job without proper paperwork. Imagine if the U.S. government passed a law that divided your income by a factor of 10. It would be a massive harm, and almost everyone — not just libertarians — would demonize not people who broke this law, but those who enforced it.

. . .

What should be done about illegal immigration? Simple: We should make it legal. A massive apology would also be nice, but I don’t ask for miracles. What about all of the problems caused by mass immigration? They’re minor compared to the massive gains of moving hundreds of millions of workers from countries where their productivity is low to countries where it is high. If you’re still worried, then adopt the massively successful immigration policies of countries like the United Arab Emirates, almost 90% foreign-born, which welcomes immigrants of all skill levels to live and work, but not to receive government benefits or participate in politics.

Caplan was brilliant in this debate despite “losing” (I’m certain the audience was stacked). The fallacy-filled arguments by the opponent demonstrated that the anti-immigration side is filled with emotion and devoid of reason or morality.

I do think the opponent, Hankinson, is a reasonable person who could be constructive in a less-absolutist position that he otherwise agreed to take. To wit: During the debate they agreed they could come up with a sensible compromise policy if selected as co-dictators tasked with solving the problem. Unfortunately, as I’m sure Caplan would agree, this is because any compromise would be preferable to the situation we have now.

Still, the crux of the case against immigration relies on emotion-filled hypotheticals that are highly implausible. The task is mighty as I’ve pointed out before.

The second is from his UATX debate with Garett Jones, a truly strong opponent with strong arguments.

From Caplan’s opening statement in that debate:

Estimated magnitude: If everyone on Earth moves to the United States, average IQ falls from 98 to 87, reducing U.S. GDP per-capita by 49%. But on closer examination, this does not show that the immigration is a net negative! On these assumptions, total Gross World Product still rises by 81%, roughly the same as the Clemens calculation that open borders would double the production of humanity.

What would this mean in practice? Specialization and trade between higher- and lower-IQ people. Higher-IQ people — disproportionately current citizens of the First World — would specialize in high-skilled work, especially management and entrepreneurship. Lower-IQ people — disproportionately current citizens of the Third World — would specialize in low-skilled work, especially basic services. This is the same logic as any well-run business: Google doesn’t hire college grads as janitors — but it has plenty of janitors.

. . .

There’s no time to respond to the countless other complaints about immigration, but here’s my general approach. I dismiss all vivid anecdotes as demagogic distractions. If you hear a story so juicy you’re dying to repeat it to “prove your point,” don’t. In contrast, if you’ve got ugly numbers, I’m happy to hear them. But before we act on these numbers, we should always remember the truly massive economic gains of immigration. Immigrant crime, welfare dependence, and so on are sometimes notable problems, but they’re rounding errors compared to the gains. There’s more to life than GDP? Sure, but GDP and almost everything else good go hand in hand.

Both debates are highly recommended. They offer the best in response to the worst and best arguments made by immigration opponents.

Substacks mentioned:

Laissez-Faire, Laissez-Passer w/ Alex Nowrasteh & David Bier

The Culture Crutch

I bumped into a conservative acquaintance in the green room at Fox News several years ago. He was obsessed with falling fertility. Knowing that I worked on immigration policy, he said that immigrants assimilate too rapidly to America’s “low-fertility culture” and we have to find a way to slow assimilation to boost the birthrate. I disagreed. “They’re no…

Read more

4 months ago · 122 likes · 25 comments · Alex Nowrasteh

Bet On It

Immigration Laws Are Made to Be Broken

Read more

2 months ago · 56 likes · 36 comments · Bryan Caplan