I, Sustainability

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This video is the polar opposite of “I, Pencil” — Leonard Read’s essay about the market economy told from the point of view of a pencil. Whereas “I, Pencil” celebrates the achievements that capitalism makes possible, the documentary, called “The Story of Stuff,” deplores what it sees as widespread waste and decadence.

The anti-consumer opinions expressed in “The Story of Stuff” are inconsistent with the goal of empowering people and protecting the planet. For instance, it criticizes people who buy new models of computer monitors. But the sleeker designs are not only more fashionable, they’re also better for the environment because they use energy more efficiently, and use less plastic and other resources. Imagine if no new computer models came out, and everyone had to work on the room-sized machines of several decades ago. That really would be disastrous for the planet.

Another point that doesn’t stand up to inspection is the claim that gadgets are cheap — the example given is a $5 radio — because the full cost is being foisted on someone else. It’s implied that $5 is an arbitrarily low price that the manufacturer stuck on the item to get it to sell. But, if that’s the case, why don’t manufacturers charge $5 for a television or a microwave? And why do we see comparable prices for similar items across different models and retail outlets? It’s also not clear who paid for the difference if the price is arbitrarily low. The narrator claims that employees paid it by covering the cost of their own health insurance — although health insurance isn’t one of the inputs that goes into making a radio.

The narrator can’t believe that $5 is the actual cost of a radio because she doesn’t understand economies of scale. To make just one radio for her and ship it by itself in one of those ocean liners would of course cost much more than $5. If she got her way and all goods had to be produced in small amounts locally, a radio would be much more expensive. Mass production and trade (not exploitation!) brings the cost down.

She would also do well to ponder the lesson of “I, Pencil.” Markets have brought together widely spread-apart resources to serve human needs. Without markets, we wouldn’t have pencils, let alone video cameras to record documentaries. It’s easy to say you don’t want markets to get you more stuff, once you already enjoy all the technology you use to spread your message. It’s great if you already have what you need, but markets should be allowed to continue to bring other people the things that they need and don’t have yet.

If the Free Market Is Not Right, Dave Sinclair Will Make It Right!

Posted on by David Stokes

St. Louis car dealing icon Dave Sinclair is a terrific businessman, but his economics leave a lot to be desired. He appeared on the McGraw Show this morning — to which I, of course, was listening — to talk about the auto industry. His economics are pure protectionism, plain and simple. He has a lot of good insight into a business that he obviously knows very well, but then he goes and says things like, “Americans do not have a right to always get the cheapest item available.” (That quote is paraphrased from memory, but the exact quote was very close to that.) He went on to say that he does not buy Nike shoes made by workers in poor countries earning very low wages.

Sinclair has every right to do whatever he wants with his money, but it it absurd for him to declare that “Americans” don’t have the “right” to cheap goods. Americans have the “right” to buy whatever legal products a firm can import into this country, and in order to find customers, firms will attempt to bring those products in as inexpensively as possible. That is called freedom. This ability to have numerous options of varying prices available to everyone is one of the reasons for our high standard of living. Sinclair might say that the general U.S. standard of living should be compromised for everybody in order to benefit some — in this case, union auto workers and American car dealers like himself (although I honestly believe he is not saying this for selfish reasons [not that there is anything wrong with being “selfish” in economic terms]). Imposing punitive taxes on imports of any kind limits the options available to American citizens, diminishes our freedoms, and hurts the economy by subsidizing inefficiencies. (The word “inefficiencies” here is meant in general; it’s not aimed at American cars.)

I just bought an American car four months ago, so even if you disagree with me you can hardly get mad at me. We bought our Durango because it was exactly what we were looking for, not because it was an American car, and my wife and I love it. We also own foreign cars. Our freedoms and our economy gain when citizens are allowed to make whatever choices they want with their money. Protectionism helped put the “Great” in the Great Depression, and if we go in that direction again it will only deepen the great recession we are in now.

Summer Camps Cut From Budget

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

One tiny step back for state spending, one leap forward for common sense in Missouri’s budget. The Missouri Scholars Academy will have to find private sponsors or charge tuition starting next year.

Supporters of the Academy are quick to point out benefits that are supposed to accrue to the state at some point in the future, such as: Smart students enjoy the Academy. Then they have a warm, fuzzy feeling about Missouri. Then they’re more likely to go to college in Missouri. Then they’re more likely to stay here and work and pay taxes. …

The fact of the matter is, only a few hundred students attend the Academy each year. Assuming that each one of them will stay in Missouri because of the Academy, it still isn’t worth taxing other Missourians for their summer camp.

The City Mouse and the Country Mouse

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Once upon a time, a city mouse went to visit his cousin who lived in northwest Missouri. He saw that the high-speed Internet access available to his cousin was of poor quality compared to high-speed access in the city. So he brought his cousin the country mouse back to the city with him, where they were able to go online in the blink of an eye. “Yes,” said the country mouse. “Internet access is faster here in the city. But I can get the state to pay for high-speed access out in the country.”

Moral of the story: To each his own entitlement.

Common Sense Flourishes in the Missouri Senate

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Whatever the benefits of physical exercise, the state doesn’t need to mandate 30 minutes of it per day for public elementary schools, as the Senate sensibly decided today. If that policy would actually have improved student achievement — as the bill’s sponsor suggested — districts will figure it out on their own.

To see how bad the nanny state can get, read the full text of the bill. It goes into the nitty-gritty details of how high a student’s heart rate has to go during exercise, and which specific vitamins have to be in school lunches.

Anti-Locavore Oldie but Goodie

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This Time article is from the inimitable Joel Stein. He describes how he takes on the locavore movement and prepares a complete distavore meal — distavore being the opposite of locavore. That is, he goes out of his way to use ingredients from distant lands and far-flung regions of the world. Then he explains why he thinks reactionary locavores are wrong:

The local-food movement is deeply Luddite, part of the green lobby that measures improvement by self-denial more than by actual impact—considering shipping food in containers is often more energy-efficient than a local farmer trucking small amounts that are then purchased on a separate weekend farmers’-market trip you take in your SUV.

I don’t think most locavores genuinely care about the energy use of different transportation methods. They’re more often motivated more by a distaste for trade and business. (To see for yourself, ask a locavore what he thinks of Monsanto!) As for impact, locavores strive to make an impact on attitudes and budgets through a lot of incremental changes: growing seeds in cups on the windowsill, for example, or requiring school districts to purchase a percentage of their cafeteria food from nearby farmers.

Locavores’ practices probably won’t affect climate change or pollution very much. The reason to keep an eye on them is that they could have a significant impact on agricultural and trade policies. If they succeed, the rest of us will subsidize their lifestyle while they laugh all the way to the bank — or to the farmers’ market.

Holding the Line on the Welfare State

Posted on by David Stokes

The Missouri House of Representatives has shown some real political courage on the complicated issue of expanding the state’s Medicaid rolls. I say “complicated” because the proposal voted down by the House would have been paid for almost entirely by federal funds, so the legislators decided against spending “free money” — as if something like that exists. Combest has the links to all the stories.

If more elected officials started to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a free lunch, our fiscal houses would be in better shape. Missouri’s state budget is better off than those of many other states for a number of reasons, but one of them is when state officials made the difficult choice to tighten eligibility for Medicaid a few years ago. “But you’re balancing the budget on the backs of the poor,” some will no doubt say. “Preserving money for the truly needy” would be the best response, as would arguing, correctly, that when taxes are kept low, the economy will produce fewer needy people in the first place.

My own experience in government, although limited in the field of health care, tells me that local government funding for health clinics is among the most effective public money spent to help the needy in our community. It’s much better spent than just adding more and more people, who may or may not be truly needy, to the state dole.

Recapping the Hoxby Lecture

Posted on by Dave Roland

On Tuesday night, the Show-Me Institute and Saint Louis University were thrilled to host Dr. Caroline Hoxby for a lecture detailing recent research about the promise of charter schools. In a nutshell, Hoxby reviewed the data collected in recent years from charter schools in New York and Chicago — and the news is very good! Charter schools as a whole are proving to be an effective means of improving student achievement, regularly accomplishing greater gains than other types of school reform.

Hoxby explained that one of the things setting her research apart from other studies is that her design allows for comparison of groups of students that are statistically indistinguishable. This is possible because charter schools in New York and Chicago assign placement by random lottery when they have more applicants than they do seats (which happens frequently). Student trying to get into charter schools are very similar in terms of race, socioeconomic status, parental education and motivation, and previous academic performance. Thus, the only ready difference between the students is whether they won the lottery for charter school placement, or whether they were forced to remain in the traditional school system.

Hoxby’s research has revealed that the charter students in these two cities reliably demonstrate better academic progress than those who remain in traditional public schools. Because many of these students were already academically far behind at the time they entered charter schools, their test scores may continue to lag behind those of the average public school student during the short term. But research shows that, over time, charter school students can be expected to close the achievement gap and eventually outperform their peers who stay in traditional public schools.

The Show-Me Institute videotaped Tuesday’s lecture, and as soon as we are able we will post the video on our website so that everyone can enjoy Dr. Hoxby’s presentation. Stay tuned!

Midwives

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The International Day of the Midwife happened this week, so I thought I’d check up on the midwives. There isn’t much midwifery news in Missouri these days, now that the law here is so good.

There is some news in New York, however. Midwives there need a formal collaboration with a physician in order to practice, and they’re campaigning to get that barrier to entry removed. It’s one of the many restrictions on midwifery that Missouri law happily eschews.

For more information, see the New York midwives’ website.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging