Regulations come in three categories. First, you have common-sense regulations to protect public health and safety — the kind everyone agrees we need. Then, you have pointless regulations about the fat content of restaurant food, or who can call themselves an interior decorator. And, finally, there are those well-intentioned regulations that try to do the impossible. Like making skydiving safe. The current skydiving regulations have been deemed insufficient, perhaps because they don’t outlaw gravity.
Freakonomics to the Left, Freakonomics to the Right
Nicely correlating with our presentation of an upcoming appearance by Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, is an interesting post on his blog of the same name. (Note: Registration is full and closed for Tuesday’s talk, so don’t even think about it.) The “Freakonomics” post discusses a recent survey of economists by Scott Adams on how they feel about the upcoming presidential election. (Note #2: What is the proper way to differently style and cite a book and a blog of the same name? I honestly have no idea.) The survey itself is very interesting and worthwhile to peruse, but my intention here is to point out one small but important error in the demographics part.
The survey and the related discussion both point out the easy fact that economists who list themselves as registered Republican or registered Democrat obviously favor the candidate of their party affiliation. But the discussion then goes to note that economists who are registered independent also favor Obama, by a fairly substantial margin. The problem with the party affiliation question is that it does not account for states that do not require, or even allow, voters to register by party. I often hear people in Missouri say while talking politics that they are “registered this-or-that’s.” I always want to say, and sometimes do say, “No, you’re not, we don’t register by party here.” A more accurate way to phrase the question is, “Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, Indepedent, third-party supporter, or non-voter?”
How the hell can this affect the results? Well … if someone, for a poll or survey, asks me whether I am a registered member of a party, it is perfectly legitimate for me to say no. If they instead ask me whether I consider myself a member of a certain party, I would say yes, and any other answer would be lying. We can be sure that some of the responders to this question are from states like Missouri that do not register by party. As such, people from those states with strong political leanings may have very reasonably chosen “registered independent” as the best of the available options, even though they are not truly independents. With a polling universe heavy on people from acadamia, it is likely that many of those not-really-independents favored the obvious candidate.
The results of the poll are not my point. And the overall survey is very interesting. But doing the demographics in a way that assumes all people register by party, or else officially register as an independent, is erroneous.
Bunge Executive Jumps Into the Ethanol Debate
We have a new winner in the easiest-to-write blog post title contest. I deserve no praise, and am certainly no genius, for combining the corporation “Bunge” with the verb “jump.” Nonetheless, I simply must point out a great post by David Nicklaus over at Mound City Money concerning recent comments made by Bunge CEO Carl Hausmann about Missouri’s ethanol mandate. Check out the entry, and the comments, as well as the Show-Me Institute’s own contribution to the debate on ethanol. The highlight of Mr. Hausmann’s talk is clearly:
“I believe very much in free markets. … I hate government mandates, including biofuels.”
Beautiful.
Charting a Path to Success
By way of Edspresso, I found an article about Chicago’s Noble charter schools:
Olsen and his staff have actually convinced kids that long school days, lots of homework and a grueling work ethic is good for them.
The curriculum requires twice as much math and twice as much reading and writing than what a regular high school requires. And when people here say, “Failure isn’t an option,” they mean it.
Read the whole thing to find out what a successful network of charters looks like.
Noble schools have done a great job of keeping kids in school and preparing them for college. They employ the time-tested methods of long school days, weekend tutoring, and high expectations that are perfectly legal options for all public schools, but for some reason are implemented only by schools like charters, that face competition.
I find it hard to temper my enthusiasm about charters like Noble. But I should note that Noble’s success story doesn’t mean all charters are great, just like a few low-achieving schools in Missouri don’t indicate the failure of charters generally. Some charters are spectacular; some are not. The more charters a state allows to open, the sooner we’ll find the best ones.
Counting Down to “Beyond Freakonomics”
Tuesday, Sept. 23, is slowly yet surely approaching, and the closer it gets, the more excited I become to hear Steven D. Levitt speak. Not only is his lecture being presented by my employer, the Show-Me Institute, but he will be speaking at my school, the John Cook School of Business at St. Louis University. I will literally have to walk only 50 yards from my apartment to hear one of my favorite contemporary authors speak in my own back yard. It doesn’t get much better than that.
Steven D. Levitt is a rock star among economists, a title that would have been an oxymoron a few years ago. The book he co-authored, Freakonomics, has taken economics out from the dark, dusty classroom and into the pop-culture spotlight. To call his work “nontraditional” or “unconventional” would be an understatement. Quite abruptly, Freakonomics has become one of the foundations of an economic education. Repeatedly, I have had professors assign different sections of the book as in-class readings. I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone, whether or not they have a background or interest in economics. Then again, I’m posting on a free-market economic think tank blog, so I’m sure those reading this are familiar with Freakonomics.
Since beginning my study of economics at SLU a few years ago, people have suggested I read Freakonomics, but I didn’t take the time to do so till this past summer. Frankly, I wish I had gotten around to reading it sooner. The book analyzes topics I would never have dreamed to associate with economics, such as sumo wrestling results and inner-city gang financing. Levitt successfully shows that there is a transparent economic layer to nearly anything you can imagine. Levitt’s speech on the 23rd promises to be both entertaining and thought-provoking. I could try to predict the topics he will cover, but I believe such an efforts would be in vein. Nothing at this point would surprise me. I would be in a state of euphoria if I heard any official news about the Internet rumors concerning a possible sequel, Superfreakonomics.
If you have not yet read Freakonomics, I highly advise it. Don’t forget to check out the details of the speech, and to register. Be advised that seats are going fast.
The talk will be held Tuesday, September 23rd, an the Anheuser-Busch Auditorium in the lower level of the John Cook School of Business at St. Louis University. I hope to see you there.
The Future of Missouri Health Care
New Census Bureau statistics show that, from 2005 to 2007, the number of Missouri children without health insurance increased by 44 percent. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Anecdotal evidence suggests [that the percentage] has continued to grow this year as the economy softened and unemployment hit a 16-year high.” This is not too surprising.
As the Missouri Governor’s race heats up, the future of our health care is taking center stage. Both candidates have outlined their own health care plans:
No matter what happens come election time, both candidates have some major shoes to fill and issues to fix. Nonetheless, they would do well not to stray too far from the innovative free-market health care refrom that put Missouri on the policy map last year.
Blog Post About the Blog
This post is going to be strictly about our blog itself, sort of like an adult movie plot that revolves around people trying to make an adult movie. (People with lesser morals than I tell me that this is a common plot device in such films.) Our blog was a little light on new posts during the past week or so, for two reasons. First, many of us were in Arizona for a conference last week, and second, I have been having significant computer troubles that finally appear to be fixed. We are back up to full strength this week, and for the foreseeable future.
As Eric has already noted, and which was followed up by a comment on his post, our blog was credited at the conference we were attending as an example of a very good state-based policy blog. I take great pride in that — everyone here does.
Our readers may not realize how hard it can be to write about policy without politics, and ideology without partisanship. Do you know how hard it is not to write about elections during election season? We hope we are succeeding, though. We are committed to doing this for two reasons: First, it’s the law, because we are a tax-exempt organization at the federal, state, and local levels, with the resulting limitations that status imposes. Second — and you may not believe this, but this reason is actually more important — we want to be thought of as serious writers by people on all sides of the political spectrum. It takes only one example — one simple post — where you put partisan beliefs or goals before logical, consistent, researched argument, and a whole group of people are going to write you off forever, and deservedly so.
Don’t think for a second that I don’t have partisan beliefs. I do. But while on the job at the Show-Me Institute, and while posting on this blog, every writer here is going to subordinate those beliefs to the larger effort of arguing for market solutions to Missouri problems. That is how we are going to be relevant and effective in Missouri over the long-term. Plus, I don’t want to get fined or fired — that, too …
So please keep reading, and please post more, and let us know what we can be doing better.
National Education Blog
For a couple of weeks now, I’ve been following “Schoolhouse Rock,” an education blog at Slate.com. Paul Tough, the blog’s writer, seems to be working hard to bring a balanced discussion of education reform efforts, and I think his work would be a useful information outlet to help anyone who is interested in fixing the failing schools in our own state keep up with what is being said about reform efforts nationwide.
Shout Out From Nasturtium Squids
Err… Tertium Quids, that is, a policy group based in Virginia. Today, at the State Policy Network‘s annual meeting in Scottsdale, Ariz., I finally met Norm Leahy, vice president of public affairs for Tertium Quids (which I’m told means “third way” in Latin). Norm and I are both refugees from several years at U.S. Term Limits, although he left before I started my 5.5-year tenure there. Although we have lots of friends and acquaintances in common, we’ve never met before today.
As it turns out, Norm is a big fan of Show-Me Daily, and has linked to us from the Tertium Quids blog for quite a while. At any rate, in today’s SPN conference session about blogging, at which Norm was a panelist, he singled out Show-Me Daily as one of the best think tank blogs he’s seen. That’s no faint praise, because there are a lot of groups out there doing excellent work.
It’s been awhile since I spent much time in Virginia, although I did live there for a couple of years during my DC Beltway days. It’s good to know folks like Norm Leahy are holding down the fort.
