The Dangerous Servant - Latest Comments

Re: Obama’s Reversal on Unpaid Internships an Attempt at Making Voters Dependent on Government

Alejandro Moreno S. — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:25:16 -0000

I have to disagree with you to a certain degree on this. The way I see it, it actually further legitimizes the practice of unpaid internships, by simply participating in the same activity as the private sector does. And even though in this case, what they're actually saying is "don't do as we do, do as we say", people will still look to their actions, because actions speak louder than words. So the bottom line net effect is, the gov't actions in this case add more weight to legitimizing unpaid internships. Thinking that it's some kind of government conspiracy seems quite a stretch and digging a bit too blindly for some kind of ulterior motive, if not completely paranoid.

Re: The Coase Theorem in Action: Exercise Edition

Joseph Mosby — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:52:37 -0000

Elliptical machines for all until the realization hits that there are a finite number of elliptical machines, and that she'll now only get two minutes on the machine at a time.

Re: The Coase Theorem in Action: Exercise Edition

George Scoville — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:26:52 -0000

In fairness, you aren't wearing shoes in this photo, and I am.

Re: The Coase Theorem in Action: Exercise Edition

Emily — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:09:03 -0000

When I see pictures of you and I standing next to one another, I am reminded of how short I really am. Thanks for the shout out in the post! But, in true Democratic fashion, I believe in Elliptical Machines for all! :^)

Re: In Stunning Turn, MoveOn Adopts Free Market Principles

Matthew Hurtt — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:21:35 -0000

Having worked at a bank for roughly two years in college, I can tell you that MoveOn's target demographic doesn't have enough money in their accounts to really matter much.

Re: Has Matthew Yglesias Inadvertently Refuted Himself?

Shirah Foy — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:47:05 -0000

Thanks for this big-picture look. For someone who doesn't have a good grip of who-said-what-and-when, you've made it really easy to follow the story behind Yglesias' argument and its lack of overall support.

Re: Denmark’s Fat Tax and Progressive Dissonance on Taxation

George Scoville — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:15:12 -0000

Thanks for reading, Paul. Yes, many policy instruments are designed to shift the burden of care back toward those who (ostensibly) need it the most. But the effects of taxation on market activity cannot be ignored in one sector of the economy and upheld -- championed even -- in another sector. That's the point I'm making about dissonance.

Re: Denmark’s Fat Tax and Progressive Dissonance on Taxation

Paul Nicholson — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:11:05 -0000

Or... and I'm just throwing this out there... This is less about trying to control behavior and is more akin to a wheel tax. Tax those items that put a strain on the gov't paid system. Gov't maintains roads: those who use roads more, pay more. Gov't pays for healthcare: those who use healthcare more, pay more. Neither this nor a wheel tax does a perfect job of actually making those who use it more pay more, but other than actually making them pay more at the road (toll booth) or doctor (privatizing healthcare costs), this is the next best way to do shift the burden to those who consume most. Both toll booths in the US and privatizing healthcare in Europe are pretty unpopular, so this is what you get.

Re: Pointless, Stupid Laws: Texing while Driving in Tennessee

George Scoville — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:00:33 -0000

Well, I know the difference between "your" and "you're." So there's that. I think I addressed the empirical questions pretty fairly. Thanks for reading!

Re: Pointless, Stupid Laws: Texing while Driving in Tennessee

Eros4 — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:29:05 -0000

Haha wow your ignorant aren't you. Saving ppls lives just isn't worth the cost. You got your priorities mixed up. Your need to txt outweighs ppls lives. I hope your just a minority with this viewpoint. One shouldn't even be talking on the cell never mind txting. Since your so big on empirical research, go look at the facts of cars and cell phone use. The science mandates the need for such laws. On this site u complain so much, about things your all but too ignorant to be discussing. What a waste of time I'll never be back here again. Rubbish

Re: Why Flagging Functionality for “Inappropriate” e-Petitions at WhiteHouse.gov Is “Inappropriate”

Roy Lawson — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:07:27 -0000

I don't really agree on the big brother aspects... but it's kind of ironic what I notice first when landing on your blog. I was just on a site that has online guitar instruction and all of a sudden I see a banner ad for - online guitar instruction. On your blog banner.

I don't consider this a huge infringement - but I see corporations as a bigger threat to my privacy than I do the government.

It's cool for you to mention the flagging issue. I just don't agree with you on this one... from a practical perspective there needs to be a way to alert administrators when someone does something blatantly wrong (like make threats).

Will some people for political reasons flag a petition? I'm sure they will. I was tempted to flag one I didn't agree with but I quickly realized that the solution would be to create my own petition if I was that much in disagreement. I'm sure administrators will quickly screen and then choose to ignore flags that are there for political reasons.

Re: Markets in Everything — Chinese Break-Up Service

bosshoghazzard — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:48:19 -0000

And you go on to say.....

Re: Why Flagging Functionality for “Inappropriate” e-Petitions at WhiteHouse.gov Is “Inappropriate”

digiphile — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:44:15 -0000

I didn't realize you thought of me as an "evangelist," nor how you've ascertained that we're ideological opponents. I'm a writer that covers the open government beat, with a specific focus on the use of technology in governance. My work is based upon finding and spreading the knowledge of innovators, examining that what, when, why, who and hows behind their work. So I hope your readers will take your description with a grain of salt, and I appreciate your compliment regarding the body of my work.

That said, I originally responded because of your implication that the White House "wanted" citizens to flag a petition to repeal the healthcare reform legislation for removal. My point was, then and now, that the existence of the capability to report an issue does not correlate with a platform owner urging users to use the button in service of its policy aim. Political appointees and elected officials might well advocate for such action but that's a separate issue and one that has been part of political life for a long time, regardless of any new digital architecture for participation. Up and until such advocacy by White House officials occurs, your statement and link to that petition is evidence of your opinion but not the available facts.The ability to flag objectionable content for review against the Wh Terms of Participation (or ToS, in most other contexts) is a common feature in modern architectures for digital participation, including those for government. You might examine other ideation platforms or the various citizen issue reporting platforms for further evidence of this fact. Providing citizens with the ability to help moderate a platform by communicating with community leaders by indicating content of interest is not uncommon. While the potential for abuse exists, as with DMCA takedowns, if there are clear rules for acceptable use, any such removal should be judged based upon adherence to these guidelines:https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/pe... a post received 1 flag or 8000 flags, whether a given epetition violates those standards should be the locus of concern, not the mechanism for flagging, which simply alerts those who operate the platform that content is "of interest."

You might consider, too, what would happen if there was no mechanism for reporting offensive content on the White House website, including significant copyright infringement, malware, links to graphic pornography or simple spam, all of which are pervasive in unmoderated comment threads across the Internet.

Should such content go up and stay up, how long do you think it would be before the White House's political opponents would use it as a bludgeon to advocate for the removal of the platform? Without the means to have the community moderate itself, the White House would be obligated to devote significant staff resources to monitoring, as YouTube does.

If you have significant concerns about Internet freedom and the regulation of free speech online by platforms that host civic discourse, you might look further to the policy work at the EFF, Center for Democracy and Technology or the Cato Institute, which I believe you are familiar with, on the subject of "intermediary liability."

Re: Why Flagging Functionality for “Inappropriate” e-Petitions at WhiteHouse.gov Is “Inappropriate”

Intellitics, Inc. — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:33:48 -0000

Given how similar the general process is to comparable online communities or crowdsourcing sites, I think it's quite appropriate to equip participants with the ability to flag content they believe violates the terms of use. It's a common and in many cases quite necessary tool to help enforce the ground rules.The terms of participation are clear how this tool is supposed to be used:"As part of the moderation system for We the People, participants will be able to flag a petition if they believe it violates these Terms. You agree to flag only those petitions you believe violate these Terms. You agree not to flag petitions for any other reasons, including your disagreement with the viewpoint reflected in a petition."

The terms of participation are also quite clear on what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate content. For example, petitions have to be "consistent with the limited purpose of the We the People platform" and must not contain "threats of unlawful violence or harm to any individual or group; obscene, vulgar, or lewd material; defamatory or fraudulent statements; terms commonly understood to constitute profanity or abusive or degrading slurs or epithets; information invading an individual’s privacy; and information that if published would violate criminal law or give rise to civil liability."

It appears that flagged content won't be removed automatically. Instead, this will require action by a moderator.

And finally, participants whose content has been removed will have the opportunity to "seek reconsideration of the removal."

Re: The Problem with Zoning Laws (and Building Codes): Music City Edition

CSQTownPlanner — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:30:20 -0000

Zoning laws are government regulated restrictions on how a
particular piece of land can be used. They come into play on every single
property regardless of size. Through the use of force, they can specify how
people can or cannot use their property.
planning appeals

Re: Embarrassed White House Spin Masters Say They’re Doing Us a Favor

Tim Randle — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:16:36 -0000

One five year term. Or six if you want to keep it lined up w/Senate races. That will give some poor schmuck the opportunity to rip the dirty band aid of life off the presidency.

Re: Why Isn’t Being Poor Today Like It Used to Be?

Brian Garst — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:38:15 -0000

I don't think the answer need be particularly complicated. Even as inflation adjusted wages may be stagnant, inflation doesn't capture the entirety of changes in purchasing power. Not only do specific goods get better over time, but new products emerge capable of filling needs that no product filled in the past. A steak in 1950 is probably no worse than a steak today, but a 1950's computer took up an entire room while today we have more power in calculators or even cell phones, which I might add weren't available then at any price. Inflation may make today's steak more expensive than in the past, but for today's computers, along with many other goods, it is the opposite story. I don't have a measure on hand to capture such phenomenon, but the theory seems straight forward.

I don't see why the same findings wouldn't hold for any other time periods. The poor of 1950 were no doubt much better off than those of 1900, or 1850 before them. It's the story of economic growth.

Re: VIDEO: True Blood’s Eric Northman Waxes Libertarian

Matthew Hurtt — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:20:14 -0000

Same could be said for mutants, a la X-Men-style.

Re: Some Thoughts on Direct Subsidies vs. Tax Credits

Bryan Pick — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 07:35:14 -0000

Thanks for the response, George, and happy Independence Day.

In your graph, isn't the difference between the tax credit and direct payment that strings are attached to the tax credit but not to the direct payment? Why should they be different? Direct payments come with strings attached too: "Grow X bushels of corn and I'll pay you $1000."

So we can return to my example, in which the governments of Country A and Country B are having the same effects on the same people, even though Country A is acting through the tax side of the ledger and Country B is acting through the spending side. If Country B is subsidizing farmers -- and they are -- then so is Country A. Hence, tax subsidies.
Yet many conservatives and libertarians will say that Country A is just getting out of the way while Country B is a heavy-handed central planner.

You wrote:

Bryan also introduced the notion that taxpayers are automatically on the hook for what government has to borrow in order to pay for the two policy options.

The effect on future taxpayers of both the tax credit and the direct payment can be offset -- by the same means, which just reinforces that these two policies are functionally equivalent.

The fact that both countries in my example started with balanced budgets was mostly to keep the numbers simple. In fact, if both countries were in deficit as the USA is likely to be for some time, the problem is the same: future taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $1 billion and current farmers have an extra $1 billion in their pockets, whether the deed is done through a tax credit or a direct payment.
The problem gets slightly more complicated if the governments are running surpluses, but I can go into that if you like.

P.S. I was surprised to read this statement from you: "the direct payment [with no strings attached] represents enormous potential inefficiencies relative to tax credits, which policymakers can tailor for very specific ends." That puts considerably more faith in the central planner than in the dispersed knowledge of the beneficiaries.

Re: Why Political Parties Exist

Robert — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:41:11 -0000

The democrat party exists to promote slavery for the benefit of an elite minority. That is why it was founded in the early 1800s, and why it exists today. The only difference between then and now is that they have added socialism to their toolbox, and expanded their reach to include the enslavement of even more people than just blacks and the poor.

Re: Why Political Parties Exist

Hologram5 — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:21:46 -0000

The way I see it is you have to look at this from all angles. BOTH political parties depend on each other to survive. Look at it as a triangle. We as people are the bottom, the base if you will. The political parties are the two "Uprights". Picture the triangle, they lean on each other for support, one without the other would fall down and vice versa. They require both to exist and one without the other would not. That's why we sorely need a third viable party to offset the triangle and put some competition into the mix and make things a little more "Stable" if you will.

Re: There’s No Such Thing as a “Tax Expenditure” or “Tax Subsidy”

Michael Giles — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:20:08 -0000

You're starting with the assumption that because the budget is "balanced", all the spending actually has to be made. It may simply be a case of politicians spending every cent they could get their hands on. IOW, you took in $10 billion so they immediately ran out and spent $10 billion, although they only needed spending of $8 billion. The other $2 billion being vanity projects the only purpose of which was to get them reelected.

Re: There’s No Such Thing as a “Tax Expenditure” or “Tax Subsidy”

Bryan Pick — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:08:27 -0000

Let's take two countries with balanced $10 billion budgets, Country A and Country B. But the next year, Country A decides to offer a $1 billion tax credit to farmers and Country B decides to spend $1 billion in direct farm payments.

Country A
Farmers have an extra $1 billion in their pockets
Deficit: $1 billion

Country B
Farmers have an extra $1 billion in their pockets
Deficit: $1 billion

In both cases, farmers have an extra $1 billion and future taxpayers are on the hook to pay for what the government borrowed to pay for other spending. There might be an efficiency difference between administering a tax credit versus cutting checks, but unless there's a difference in the governments' other fiscal choices, the outcome looks just the same even though Country B's spending is 10% higher than Country A's.

Is Country A just letting people keep their hard-earned money while Country B is a big spender?

Re: CRAFTing A Career Transition

George Scoville — Tue, 31 May 2011 15:15:45 -0000

Rob---Thanks for your note. I wouldn't miss it! Looking forward to continuing our working relationship.

Re: CRAFTing A Career Transition

Rob Bluey — Tue, 31 May 2011 14:55:44 -0000

Congrats on the new job! I'll miss collaborating with you at CATO, but hope you'll head over to The Bloggers Briefing with Hackbarth every Tuesday.