Sunspots in Nashville

Last weekend, Nashville ran out of gas. This was not because of significant shortages, but because of a belief that there were significant shortages. So, people rushed to get gas. And we ran out.

This is a demonstration of sunspot equilibria, one of the items on my still- incomplete list of the five useful things I learned in macroeconomics. What if people believed that sunspots cause the populace to turn into violent beasts who, behind their smiles, "good morning"s, and "bless your heart"s, secretly plot our demise; they appear to act normal in every way but wait for their chance to attack us. In what Charles Gibson incorrectly labeled the "Bush Doctrine," we may all contemplate preemptive self-defense by attacking first. Then, of course, sunspots did cause the populace to turn violent.

A feature of these self-fulfilling prophecies is that there are multiple equilibria; usually one very good one where we expect calm and act calmly, and another very bad one where we expect the worst and, by our reaction to it, cause it.

One simple role of government is to help coordinate the populace on the better outcome. Neither our local Nashville government, nor our presidential candidates, seem to grasp that.

The media's shrill sanctimony

Compare:

New York Times on single-father Biden being sworn in as Senator days after losing his wife:
"After taking office, he refused to move to Washington and commuted daily from Wilmington to help bring up his sons ... The Washington-to-Wilmington train run has since become a leitmotif of Mr. Biden's devotion to family.
[June 10, 1987]

New York Times on husbanded Sarah Palin running for Vice President:
"Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try."
[September 1, 2008]

CNN on a civilian contractor choosing to go to Iraq:
"Too old at 34 to start over as a soldier, becoming a contractor is a way for Masonry to fulfill his sense of duty... Masonry is a father of three, his youngest with Down's Syndrome."
[April 26, 2004]

CNN on Sarah Palin's choice to run:
"Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"
[August 29, 2008]

CBS News on the credibility of the National Enquirer's John Edwards story:
"Even as some national news organizations tried halfheartedly to confirm the tawdry tale ... Only Edwards's belated confession Friday to ABC's Bob Woodruff allowed news organizations to jump"
[August 11, 2008] (10 months after Enquirer story)

CBS News on the credibility of the National Enquirer's Sarah Palin story:
"Running a story about McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, allegedly having an affair with her husband’s business partner ... the story is based entirely on unnamed sources."
[September 3, 2008] (10 hours after Enquirer story)

I'm not one to post on national politics (with the notable exception of my quadrennial presidential debate bingo cards), but I was very much looking forward to a proper vetting of the new candidate. Instead, we are treated to hours of self-referential tautologies ("some in the media are saying..."), statements that become true as soon as these six words are spoken.

Gloria Steinem in making the case for Hillary Clinton asked her readers rhetorically if a woman with Obama's resume would ever be taken seriously as a candidate, arguing that "there is still no `right' way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what." I actually didn't know what, until Ms. Steinem let me know describing Palin's speech as "down-home" and "divisive."

The most obvious example of this sanctimonious scandle-mongering is Politico's electron-wasting columnist Roger Simon. His most recent sarcastic screed demands to know why the media is precluded from questioning Palin's qualifications and beliefs. Three days prior, Mr. Simon demonstrated his noble journalistic inquisition in a piece titled "Sex dominates GOP's opening day," opining: "If the campaign could just manage to arrange Bristol’s marriage on stage at the convention, it might generate some much-needed positive buzz and a good photo op."

Mr Simon, perhaps the main obstacle to your journalistic pursuits is ... you.

Life, liberty, and that other thing

A local recording studio is being confiscated by the city of Nashville to put it to a "higher valued use." Apparently, the music emanating from Music Row in Music City sounds sweeter from a high-tax-rate high-rise than from an historic, independent label. Joy Ford was unwilling to sell her business of thirty years to the Lionstone Development Group, the Houston-based buyer of "underdeveloped real estate assets." In response, City officials slipped under the covers with the developer to transfer the property from one private interest (its owner) to another—a Robin Hood in reverse.

I blame Karl Dean. I blame Phil Ryan. And yes, I blame (despite this being grounds for revocation of my UVA diploma) Thomas Jefferson. He should have foreseen the impact of his aspirational turning of the phrase. Sandra Day O'Connor did, but she was outvoted.

Let's review...

Continue Reading

A bit of history

John Locke's tripartite statement of natural rights, life, liberty, and estate made its way into the first resolution of the Declaration of Colonial Rights, encoding the principles of a new nation. Thomas Jefferson, also borrowing heavily from John Locke, saw the phrase as insufficiently wishy-washy, penning "pursuit of happiness" in the place of property as the third pillar of natural rights. This was partly rectified by the fifth amendment which allows property to be ceased only for "public use."

"Public use" becomes "whatever we want"

Since railroads prefer to run more or less straight, the taking of private property was originally construed as necessary for the establishment of public utilities. Soon, towns stumbled on a remarkable idea: if we "condemn" a building and hand it over to a developer who will build a more expensive building, doesn't that raise our tax base? Isn't a higher tax base in the public interest? Answer "yes" to both questions and you have found a way around the Fifth Amendment. Public use is whatever public officials want it to be.

The Supremes

This self-serving interpretation in the face of constitutional protections is ripe for a vehement smack-down by the Supreme Court Defenders of Liberty. Alas, no. In the 2005 Kelo decision, the five-person majority expanded government's "takings" power even when (i) no blight is present, (ii) the transfer is from one private party to another, and (iii) the land use will not be open to the public. The government need only identify monetary or even "aesthetic" benefits.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

Intended, certainly not. But TJ's transmutation of Locke's key word suggests that they didn't foresee it, either.

Justice Stevens, writing for the constitutionally-challenged majority (pun intended), explains that we need not worry as "legislative judgments" would carefully construe public use. Teach a man to fish...fine, but if you legalize tossing grenades into a fish-stocked pond, don't expect a hungry man to exercise "judgment." Perhaps Mr. Stevens should watch a Metro Council meeting.

Back to Music Row

And so Nashville's Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) (ironic motto: "We value integrity") has decided that Music Row needs more high rises, current property owners be (con)dæmned! The MDHA's authority to act as it pleases stems from a ten-year old City Council ordinance that found Music Row circa 1995 "detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community."

Several local bloggers have been following the story (since local purported journalist/advocate can't get off the dime):

• Kay Brooks goes on location and finds that Joy Ford's business is the only thing not blighted, with surrounding properties (already owned by the developer) looking a bit neglected.
• BlueCollarMuse provides adequate background in her two part series, and is not afraid to name names.
• We hear tones ranging from concern to outrage at eminent domain abuses from a local home inspector, real estate investor, professor of entrepreneurship, talk show host, and more. The action is opposed by at least one Metro Council member, State Representative, and local perennial candidate.

But none of those people run the MDHA, whose Director and Board of Commissioners play with a city-sized cookie jar of private-house treats.

Two years ago, MDHA Director Phil Ryan lamented that "public housing is not a priority" at the federal level. Nashville laments that private property is not a priority for Mr. Ryan.

Kentucky lawmaker misses forest, trees, dirt, leaves, ...

I get to take a break from mocking my own elected officials to recognize the truly dumbarse lawmakers in a neighboring state. After apparently resolving the less important problems facing Kentucky, Representative Tim Couch (mug on right) turned his attention to more substantial issues:

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal. ... If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site.

What major constitutional doctrine does our sanguine legislator forward as more important than freedom of speech?

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying.

Ah yes, the 593rd Amendment: Freedom from (anonymous) bullying. Beyond the constitutional, jurisdiction, enforcement, and due process issues this raises, did the good lawmaker even think about the benefits of anonymity which just might offset a little bit of the verbal abuse that plagues our thin-skinned technocrat? Perhaps the twelve step programs, including Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous could change their names. I presume the many online forums for childhood abuse, rape, and spousal abuse survivors would benefit from banishing bullying in their midst. What of online medical forums, corporate whistle-blower and crime reporting sites?

Really, I don't blame Tim. He obviously had that rare combination of political ambition to help his fellow Kentuckians and ability to spell his name sufficiently close to what appears on legal documents to satisfy the (seemingly low) standards to get on the ballot. My blame is reserved for everyone who voted for him without checking if he was at least sentient.

Can't legislators get back to the important issues, like proposing legislation that declares Cornhole the official game of Kentucky? Really! Go check! Maybe my high school's bully was right when he declared that the ones who get bullied are just asking for it.

Everyone is a winner!

A two-person political race should be as close to a zero-sum game as we can imagine in practice. Apparently, this is not the case for the Democratic side of Super Tuesday.

Depending on whether you count the national popular vote, number of states won, yesterday's pledged delegates, cumulative pledged delegates, or include current inclinations of "super-delegates" (the stodgy, voter-demeaning, party apparatchiks), everyone can win:

Obama Claims 9-Delegate Win
[The Nation]

Clinton Edges Obama
[Arizona Daily Star]

Obama claims lead in delegate count
[Boston Herald]

Clinton leads delegate count
[Associated Press]

Obama, Clinton neck and neck
[Chicago Sun Times]

Clinton Takes Lead
[Pensacola News Journal]

Superdelegates To Clinton's Rescue?
[CBS News]

Where can one turn for answers? Who can explain how Obama both won and lost Nevada? Certainly the Democratic National Committee will provide the requisite analysis and definitive results!

No such luck. They are too busy watching another race:

Not even a mention of the democratic race? Really?

"Don't believe that winning is really everything. It's more important to stand for something. If you don't stand for something, what do you win?”

   -- Lane Kirkland

Lane Kirkland, sixteen-year head of the AFL-CIO, was sometimes critical of the Democratic party. I wonder what he would think now.

State senator enjoys wines, as I do

Some time ago, I emailed my state representatives asking for their positions on interstate wine sales. I received a letter from State Senator Douglas Henry in response. I wasn't expecting much, since the Senator receives substantial contributions from the liquor wholesalers cabal. As anticipated, with his donations, the Senator also apparently received the industry's standard talking points, which are easily dismissed.

That, however, was not the disturbing part of the letter.

Continue Reading

The last line of the letter reads:

The presumption, of course, is that no one would advocate legislation unless he or she has a direct, personal stake in it. My letter to the senator identified me only as an economist and a voter. I also have opinions about the death penalty, our inaction in Sudan, and policy governing media mergers, but expect none of them to impact me directly.

I am curious how the last sentence of Senator Henry's position letter on gay marriage would read.

Bootleggers, Baptists, and political connections

Over 20 years ago, economist and FTC director Bruce Yandle wrote an influential column on the origins of social regulation. The theory of "Bootleggers and Baptists" contends that legislative regulation of "sin" (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) requires both a vocal "moral" voice (the Baptists) and a quiet though politically powerful lobby that profits from the regulation:

"Baptists" point to the moral high ground and give vital and vocal endorsement of laudable public benefits promised by a desired regulation. Baptists flourish when their moral message forms a visible foundation for political action. "Bootleggers" are much less visible but no less vital. Bootleggers, who expect to profit from the very regulatory restrictions desired by Baptists, grease the political machinery with some of their expected proceeds. They are simply in it for the money.

Here in Tennessee we have some of the most draconian laws protecting the liquor wholesalers. We also have no shortage of legislators who speak in moral absolutes. Of course, the "Baptist" is the protagonist in this story, since he purports to represent moral ideology and social welfare, rather than cynical greed.

Or does he?

Of the 32 members currently serving in the Tennessee State Senate, seven find their religious affiliation with Baptism sufficiently important to list on their short State Senate biography. While Baptist conventions continue their internal debate on the merits of total abstinence from alcohol, there is apparently no debate on whether one ought to practice, legislatively, what one preaches.

A quick perusal of campaign finance records indicates that all seven members have received political donations from the beer and spirits lobby since 2000. Particularly:

• Jerry Cooper (D-14) received $8,000 in the last two election cycles.
• Steve Southerland (R-1) received $4250 in 2006
• Lowe Finney (D-27) received $4000 in 2006
• Jamie Woodson (R-6) received $4000 in her last election
• Tommy Kilby (D-12) received $1000
• Dewayne Bunch (R-9) in 2004
• Mike Williams(I-4) in 2000

The "Baptist" in Yandle's theory is not meant to be literal, but merely a proxy for the voice of morality. However, other self-professed voices of moderation would likely yield similar results.

Anyone want to guess how many of these names also profited from tobacco lobbyists' efforts?

One "quagmire" to bingo

Here are the cards for Presidential Bingo for tonight's debate.

If you have Card 1, note that a winning diagonal of "flip flop," "cut and run," "France," and "nuance" could very well occur in a single sentence.