Leaders or Drivers?

Column for week of May 12, 2014                              

     Often I hear the lament that we don't have leaders today. 
What is a leader?  What distinguishes a leader from the herd?

     Those who follow a leader do so because they want to. 
They believe they will benefit from following and supporting the
leader.

     When a rancher wants to move a herd of cattle he doesn't
hire leaders, he hires drivers.  The drivers will coerce the cattle
to go where the cattle may not want to go.  The cattle go where
the drivers want to avoid the unpleasantness threatened by the
drivers.

     Sometimes drivers resort to another tactic.  They might
string a trail of food to where they want the herd.  The cattle
may go for the short term benefit of following the food, even
though they end up in pens at the slaughter house.

     We don't have leaders in government for one simple
reason.  Government doesn't lead, it drives.  Government tries to
herd people to where it wants them.  An honest leader must
consider what the would be followers want and make a credible
offer to get them where they want to go.  Leadership is possible
only where the would be followers are free to reject the goals of
the wannabe leader.

     Those in government today have accumulated so much
power  they feel no need to lead.  The first response is to drive. 
"There ought to be a law" is the cry of the driver.  Translated it
means "I don't care where you want to go, I'll hurt you if you
don't go where I want you."

     The drivers also often string a trail of crumbs to the
holding pens.  Many voters with their noses to the ground
lapping up the crumbs don't see, or even seem to care, where
they will end up.  All they want is more crumbs.

     Big, all powerful government will never produce real
leaders, only drivers.  Leadership is possible only when people
are free to refuse to follow.  Those who resort to the government
tactic of  "Do it my way, or I will hurt you," will never be
leaders.  They tell people what they should want and attempt to
drive them to it.

     They may at times claim to be concerned about what
people want.  As soon as the pretend leaders grasp the power to
drive, they drop all pretense of leadership and crack the whip.

     If this country is to survive, we must quit looking to "Do
it my way, or I will hurt you" government for our salvation. 
Instead we must look to the private sector and voluntary
cooperation.  Leaders earn their stripes and stars.  They don't
take them by force.

     Individuals will work hard for a leader who holds out
hope of leading them to their goals.  They only stagger along
when driven.  Of course, when followers discover a leader is
deceiving them, they will abandon him.

     This freedom of choice gives rise to spontaneous order
where everyone seeks to serve others in order to get others to
serve them.  The successful leaders are the ones who lead people
to where they want to go.  The leader doesn't set the goals, he
only, executes a plan to achieve the goals.

     A leader may persuade individuals to change their goals.
The choice to change is freely made by the followers because
they believe the new goals serve them better, and will be more
satisfying than the old ones.

     The force of government drivers can only bring division,
strife and poverty.  What happened in the former Soviet Union is
the ultimate end that all government drivers will achieve.

     Only in the seemingly chaotic spontaneous order
produced in an environment of freedom and choice can we
achieve and maintain peace and prosperity.  Looking for
government and its drives to force us to peace and prosperity is
as hopeless and looking for orchids in a snowdrift.  We must
have leaders, not drivers.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Good Politics, Bad Government

Column for week of May 5, 2014

     The battle over increasing the minimum wage isn't going
away.  It is unlikely to even cool down before the November
election.

     When politicians consider which issues to support, their
first thought usually is, What will snare the most votes?  Poles
show overwhelming voter support for increasing the minimum
wage.  It would take principles and moral courage to oppose
increasing the minimum wage.  Both are in short supply in the
realm of politics.

     There is a down side to supporting the minimum wage
increase.   What if voters figure out that a higher minimum wage
hurts the poorest and least skilled workers?  What if voters
discover that increasing the minimum wage increases
unemployment and reduces average income?

     Studies of voters' attitudes suggest that voters who are
aware of the downside of minimum wage increases don't support
the increases.  Those politicians who bet their careers on
campaigning to increase the minimum wage are counting on
voters not seeing the down side to the increase.

     This isn't a high risk gamble.  Since the beginning of
elections, politicians have been betting on fooling the voters --
and winning most of those bets.  They can fool some of the
voters all of the time and all of the voters some of the time. 
Usually that is enough to win an election.

     Even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't buy
the idea that a minimum wage increase is free manna from D.C. 
The CBO estimates that increasing the minimum wage from
$7.50 per hour to $10.10 an hour will cost 500,000 to 1,000,000
jobs.  This shouldn't surprise anyone.  Raise the price of nails or
bread and sales will decrease.  The same principle applies when
increasing the price of labor.

     Even 500,000 workers with zero earnings, instead of
$7.50 an hour, adds up to $3,750,000 per hour.  If those jobs
were all full time at 2,000 hours per year the total lost wages
would be $7.5 billion.  That almost qualifies for being real
money.

     Let's toss in something that even the dumbest and
shadiest of politicians might understand.  It means $7.5 billion
that won't be subject to income tax, sales tax, Social Security
tax, or any other tax.  I won't even try to guess how much it will
increase unemployment claims and welfare payments.

     Besides, the unemployed won't be gaining work
experience that would increase their productivity and pave their
way to higher paying jobs in the future.  Who knows how much
mischief those idle hands will find to occupy their time?

     Government can't legislate higher incomes.  Only
increased productivity can increase the average income.  The
most government can do is take from one pocket and put into
another.  While doing the "take and put" government gets its cut. 
And, usually a few dollars float away in the breeze.

     Government may increase the average wage while
decreasing the average income.  Consider a simple example.  
An employer has two employees earning $8.00 per hour.  He
planned to hire another at $8.00 an hour.  With the increase in
the minimum wage the employer provides only the two jobs for
his original employees at $10.10 per hour.

     Instead of having three employees with total pay of
$24.00 per hour, he has two with total pay of $20.20 per hour. 
Average pay for the two employees has increased from $8.00 per
hour to $10.10 per hour.  Include the unemployed worker and
average income drops to $6.73 per hour.

     Increasing the minimum wage may be good politics that
wins elections.  It is bad economics and bad government.  For
politicians the best of both worlds is to loudly support a
minimum wage increase and lose.  The voters will love the
politician for trying.  The politician won't have to face the
detrimental impact of actually increasing the minimum wage.

     So long as good politics makes bad government, we can
expect an over abundance of bad government.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Is "Smart Ignoramus" an Oxymoron?

Column for week of April 28, 2014

     Words are commonly misused and misunderstood.  A few
years ago a television show asked the question "Are you smarter
than a fifth grader?"  Perhaps the person who asked the question
was ignorant as pond scum.  Or, perhaps he intended to deceive.

     With the possible exception of fifth grade teachers, fifth
graders know more about what is taught in fifth grade than
anyone else.  Also, they know more about fifth grade subjects
than they will ever again know.

     This doesn't mean that as fifth graders age they grow
dumber.  Everyone soon forgets most of what they learn in
school.  Mainly we remember only the things we continue to use. 
Forcing students to dwell on facts and processes until they
learn them is of little lasting benefit.  If they have no interest in
the subject matter and don't use it, they will soon forget most of
it.

     The mere fact people forget doesn't mean they are dumb.  
Asking whether you are smarter than a fifth grader confuses
knowledge with intelligence.  If knowledge is intelligence,
computers are the smartest things on earth.  In reality computers
are dumber than pond scum.  People do all of the thinking for
the computer.  Computers reflect the intelligence, or lack of
intelligence, of the programmers.

     Intelligence is the ability to reason, analyze knowledge,
and solve problems.  Being able to memorize solutions and
parrot them back isn't intelligence, though it may fool some
people.

     Ignorance is the absence of knowledge.  It is curable. 
The ability to think and reason can be developed as can athletic
skills.  In both cases lack of inherent skills puts severe limits on
development.

     We are all mostly ignorant.  No one knows more than a
small fraction of all of the world's knowledge.  This isn't a
serious problem.  The problem arises when individuals are
ignorant about the things they believe they know and claim to
understand.  Such ignorance doesn't mean they are dumb. 
"Smart ignoramus' isn't an oxymoron.  It isn't even an
uncommon condition.

     Smart ignoramuses are dangerous.  A brilliant mind
starting from false premises can reason its way to devastatingly
bad conclusions.

     Why do smart people remain ignorant regarding matters
about which they claim to be experts?  There are number of
possibilities.  Carelessness and arrogance lead the list.

     Some people are so confident of their ideas and
conclusions that they resent anyone even suggesting that they
should reexamine their basic premises.  Sigmund Freud is a
classic example of this.  He turned on associates and friends who
dared to question his basic beliefs.

     An arrogant ignoramus who refuses to learn when he is
wrong faces a harsh reckoning with reality, if he ever bumps up
against reality.  Such people do their best to insulate themselves
from reality.

     Individuals in the private sector find it hard to avoid
reality.  When they arrogantly insist on repeating their mistakes,
bankruptcy has a way of ending those mistakes.  The arrogant
ignorant have better lives in universities and government.  They
may prosper while inflicting their ignorance on others.

     Most of the problems we face today in matters such as
the economy, climate change, education, etc. are the product of
voters being dazzled by brilliant ignoramuses who build houses
of cards on false premises they refuse to reexamine.  Many of
these people never examined the premises they blindly follow. 
They accept false premises learned from others.

     Anyone who refuses to examine and defend his basic
premises is a candidate for the "Ignorant Ignoramus" list.  Such
people can be right.  Usually they aren't.

     Don't be blinded by brilliance.  Investigate the premises
underlying the conclusions of the brilliant ones.  Don't follow
them to destruction.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

How Tall the Stupid Tree?

Column for week of April 21, 2014

     I don't ask, How stupid does it get?  I really don't want
to know.  I am confident though that no matter how tall the
stupid tree grows someone will climb to the highest limb.  Then
the tree will grow a taller branch to be scaled.

     I am quite sure there is more than one stupid tree.  We
are surrounded by far more stupid than could grow on one tree. 
Perhaps every village has a stupid tree.  Might that explain the
origin of the term "village idiot?"  If every village has a stupid
tree, How many flourish in Washington, D.C?  There must be an
entire forest of stupid trees there.

     Most of the people climbing the stupid trees are involved
with government.  There is an explanation for that.  When
success requires the voluntary participation of others,  doing
stupid things can put a damper on success.

     Whether you are throwing a party or running a shoe
store, do too much stupid and you are likely to find your corner
of the world rather lonely.  In private ventures which depend on
voluntary cooperation stupidity is self limiting.

     Only with captive customers can stupid prosper and
grow.  Government with its captive "customers" provides the
perfect fertile soil for growing giant stupid trees.  Stupid trees
can thrive in any climate, including Michigan.

     I'm not going to dignify the latest idea from the stupid
tree as the worst ever.  It does stand trunk and limb above many
others.

     Some people in Plymouth got together and built elevated
bleachers for the school's baseball field.  The school tore down
the bleachers before they were ever used.  Perhaps one could
imagine a half sensible reason for tearing down the bleachers. 
The school didn't even bother pretending it had a sensible
reason.

     Someone complained to the federal government that the
bleachers were unfair.  The Feds agreed.  How can bleachers be
unfair?  The problem was that the girls' softball field didn't have
similar bleachers.

     This was double stupid.  Someone must have climbed to
the top of the stupid tree twice.  It makes it difficult to not
believe in reincarnation.  How could anyone get that stupid in
one lifetime?

     The solution was the equivalent of someone with a
broken leg deciding to break everyone else's leg.  I can imagine
that such a solution holds some charm for those who enjoy
basking in equal misery.

     Wasting the bleachers wasn't close to the worst part. 
Vandals destroy other people's property out of jealousy.  Vandals
know they are criminals and are likely to be punished if caught. 
Destroying the bleachers was far worse than ordinary vandalism. 
It was done under color of law by individuals entrusted with
responsibility for educating young people.  Still, it was
vandalism.

     What an example to set for children.  If someone has
something better than you have, DESTROY IT.  If that isn't a
race to the bottom, What is?  If everyone destroys everything
that is better than what they have, What will be left?  Probably
nothing but the stupid trees will remain standing.  I'm sure that
the fruit of the stupid tree is too bitter to eat.

     I'm confident that there is no way to cut down all of the
stupid trees or to prevent people from climbing them.  The
answer is to remove more functions from government and return
them to voluntary cooperation in the private sector. Then those
who insist on dwelling in the highest branches of the stupid trees
won't be able to inflict so much damage.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Why Do We Trade?

Column for week of April 14, 2014

     Trading is at least as old as recorded history, most likely
older.  Even subsistence farmers trade.  In our specialized
industrial society each individual consumes little of what he
produces while producing little of what he consumes.

     Individuals producing for their own consumption is such
a small part of production that economists feel free to ignore
such production when calculating the Gross National Product
(GNP).  People still produce for themselves.  Who among us
would even survive without the goods produced by others?

     Why do we prefer to produce for others rather than for
ourselves?  By specializing and each only doing what he does
best we greatly increase productivity.  There is more for
everyone.

     Imagine that you divided your time among producing all
the things you have.  How many of those things could you
produce for yourself?

     We have three options for getting things produced by
others  --  gifts, theft or trade.  We are likely to come up a bit
short if we sit around waiting for others to give us what we
want.

     Granted, more and more people are choosing this route. 
Mostly they wait for government to take from others and give to
them.  If we continue this trend, soon there will be little left for
government to take and give.  Relying on direct theft by
consumers has no brighter future.  If we are to prosper we must
produce and trade.

     There are two possible kinds of trade -- coerced trade and
free trade.  In free trade we trade because we want to.  It takes
two to trade.  The only reason to freely trade is that both parties
believe they gain by trading.  In coerced trade individuals trade
because they fear that someone will hurt them if they don't trade,
or if they make the wrong trades.

     With all of the government restrictions on trade, fully
free trade is all but extinct.   People who believe they are
engaging in free trade probably aren't.  An individual may freely
choose to make a trade.  Still, he is only choosing from the
options government allows.  Would he choose the same trade if
government hadn't eliminated many of the possible options?

     Some claim there is good trade and bad trade.  Bad trade
supposedly hurts others.  All trades affect others.  If we ban
trades merely because they affect others, we must ban all trades. 
The consequences of eliminating trade would be that the few
survivors would all be reduced to being self sufficient
hunter-gatherers.

     Most opposition to free trade is from two sources.  One
is wasteful, inefficient producers trying to rip off consumers by
eliminating competition from those who serve consumers better. 
The other source is people who see only the detriments of trade
and miss the benefits.

     When consumers switch to different suppliers, the old
suppliers lose jobs.  The near endless list of job losers includes
weavers, buggy makers, telephone operators, and most farmers. 
Much of what we have today wouldn't exist if workers still
labored inefficiency in those old jobs.

     Some people get upset if the new jobs are in another
country.  Supposedly we are exporting jobs.  The only way we
export jobs is if imports are gifts.  Otherwise, someone must
make something to trade for the imports.

     When we buy cameras from the Japanese, someone in the
USA must make something to pay for the cameras.   If the
Japanese lend the camera money to the US government, or
someone else, we must produce something for the borrower.  All
we have done is trade less productive jobs for more productive
ones.  Free traders won't trade unless trading increases
productivity so that they get more by trading.

     It doesn't matter where the people we trade with live. 
We, and they, benefit from free trade.  The only losers are
exploitive special interests who can gain by denying us the
benefits of free trade.  Those losers are loud and have lobbyists.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Blowing Bubbles

Column for week of April 7, 2014

     Bubbles grow in the economy when government
interferes with freedom in the marketplace.  The housing bubble
is the most famous of the great bubbles.  When it burst it reeked
havoc in the housing market leaving in its wake unstable banks
and millions of mortgage foreclosures.

     The housing bubble grew because government
manipulated interest rates and mortgage lending practices. 
Artificially low interest rates along with government support and
encouragement of high risk, low down payment loans
encouraged buyers to bid housing prices up to unsustainable
levels.  Builders responded by building more houses than people
could afford to buy and keep at the artificially inflated prices.

     Many appeared to prosper from the housing bubble.  It
wasn't until the bubble burst that those profits were exposed as
an illusion.  Some got to keep their profits, only at the expense
of others who suffered great losses.

     Government still interferes with freedom in the
marketplace.  The interference inflates economic bubbles by
diverting investment and spending from the things people want
most to things promoted by government.  Eventually these
bubbles will burst causing the loss of investment and jobs.

     I can't possibly cover all the bubbles in one column.  No
one person is capable of even identifying all the bubbles.  When
government actions create a bubble, that bubble creates
secondary bubbles that spread disruption across the economy.

     The rest of this column will be devoted to consideration
of a couple bubbles involving corn.  One bubble directly affects
corn.  Secondary effects of the other bubble flow into the corn
market.

     The biggest bubble affecting corn production is the
ethanol bubble.  About 40 percent of corn grown in the US is
used to make ethanol that contains barely, if any, more energy
than was used to produce it.  The ethanol industry in the US
wouldn't exist without government forcing and subsidizing
ethanol production.  Most consumers wouldn't, of their own free
will, buy a costly, wasteful, inefficient fuel.

     The ethanol bubble has altered the face of US agriculture. 
Millions of acres of otherwise unneeded corn is grown.  This
reduces the planting of other crops and affects the prices of all
farm products.  High meat prices are part of the ripple effect of
the ethanol bubble.  It also artificially inflates the price of
farmland and distorts production and prices of almost everything
involved in agriculture.

     The bursting of the ethanol bubble, beside rendering
billions of dollars of ethanol investment worthless, will rip the
farm economy apart and send destructive waves through the
entire economy.  Most likely the entire economy will be plunged
into recession as was the case with the housing bubble.

     Long before the ethanol bubble government created the
sugar bubble.  Government restricts sugar imports with tariffs
and quotas.  As a result sugar costs about twice as much in the
US as in the rest of the world.  This has driven most hard candy
makers and their jobs out of the US.

     The sugar producers don't mind the loss of sales as long
as it doubles the prices they can charge.  Those who buy
sweeteners seek alternatives to sugar.  One of the main
alternatives is corn syrup.  Those train loads of corn syrup
traveling across the country are mainly a product of the sugar
bubble created by government restrictions on sugar.

     The sugar bubble created the corn syrup bubble, which
contributed to the corn bubble, which contributes to the farmland
price bubble, and all the other bubbles in and around the farm
economy.  Kids blowing bubbles may be cute.  Government
blowing bubbles in the economy is anything but cute.

     You can be certain that government will do its best to
sustain and further inflate the bubbles.  For anyone who hasn't
noticed, inflating bubbles isn't a great way to keep them from
bursting.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum

Who Is a Scientist?

Column for week of March 31, 2014

     Global warming fanatics often trot out statistics about
how many scientists agree that we are experiencing global
warming caused by man made greenhouse gases.  They also
claim that "the science is settled."  There is no room for further
debate about global warming.  Some go so far as demanding
prison for those who deny the existence of man made global
warming.

     One question this raises is, What is a scientist?  I am
reminded of an old riddle.  If you call a tail a leg, How many
legs does a dog have?   Answer: four.  Calling a tail a leg
doesn't make it a leg.

     Calling someone a scientist doesn't make them a scientist. 
Degrees in science don't make one a scientist either.  A real
scientist is one who uses the scientific method to understand
causes and effects in the universe.

     Isaac Newton was a scientist.  He collected data about
falling objects and their velocity.  He worked out a theory about
how falling objects accelerated.  Then he devised mathematical
formulas that he believed could predict the velocity of falling
objects based on how long they had been falling.

     This is the scientific method.  Collect data and devise
theories and formulas that appear to explain how one event
causes another.  The real test of the theory is, Does it
consistently predict future events?  Newton's theory of gravity
wasn't proven until it accurately predicted the velocity of falling
objects every time.  Even one failure would have proven the
theory to be flawed.

     Scientists who study human impact on world
temperatures face an awesome task.  First they must collect data
about past temperatures around the world.  They must collect
thousands of years of data.  Based on the data now collected we
know that world temperatures have been changing for thousands
of years.  The 120 or so years of data from thermometer
readings around the world can't possibly be enough to develop a
valid theory of how natural forces affect temperatures.

     The next step is to devise a theory that explains how
observed forces change world temperatures.  The test of that
theory will be, Does it accurately predict future world
temperatures?

     For the most part those who claim to know that
greenhouse gases are warming the world have ignored the
scientific method.  No matter what they call themselves, their
conclusions aren't based on the scientific method.

     Temperatures have been increasing since about 1860. 
For hundreds of years before that the world was in the Little Ice
Age.  Before that the medieval warm period peaked around
1100.  No one is in a position to determine the effect greenhouse
gases have on temperature until they are able to distinguish that
effect from natural temperature changes.

     No one is claiming that the significant warming from
1910 or so to the 1940s was caused by greenhouse gases.  Why
did the world cool for 30 or more years after 1940 while carbon
dioxide emissions soared?  Why have world temperatures been
stable to falling for the past 15 years while carbon dioxide
emissions continue to soar?  Why have observed temperatures
been substantially lower than temperatures predicted by
computers programed in accordance with the theory that carbon
dioxide causes substantial warming?

     Real scientists using the scientific method would ask and
answer these and other questions before daring to claim that the
science of global warming is settled.  Perhaps carbon dioxide is
causing some warming.  So far nothing in the temperature data
is inconsistent with the recent warming being a natural recovery
from the Little Ice Age.

     Scientists who study solar activity and its impact on
temperatures believe we are in the beginning of a 40-year cold
period that might plunge world temperatures back to the level of
1800.  This seems a bit extreme.  Let's hope they are at least a
little wrong.  Whatever, it is absurd to claim the science of
global warming is settled.  It is settled only in the minds of
politicians and hucksters.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum