Topic: General

When Dogs Are Criminalized, Only Criminals Will Own Them

Kansas City has followed the lead of Denver and Ontario, Canada in instituting a ban on pit bulls. Any pit bulls found in the city will either be turned over to shelters outside the city or, more likely, euthanized.

Breed-specific prohibitions are a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the most glaring is that the most common target of these laws – the “pit bull” – isn’t really a breed, but a generic name given to dogs with those features we’ve come to associated with aggression. The “pit bull” very generally refers to the American Staffordshire Terrier, but can include a number of breeds with similar features, including the most recent Best in Show at the Westminster Kennel Club and, more importantly, one of my dogs. (We were repeatedly warned when she was a puppy that she might be mistaken for a pit bull, but she’s the sweetest, most harmless dog I’ve ever known, unless you happen to be a rug or a pair of shoes).

What’s more, as the New Yorker’s Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, it’s not even clear that pit bulls deserve their reputation:

A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five thousand dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog’s stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way. Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. “We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs,” Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. “I’ve tested half of them. And of the number I’ve tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children.”

Pit bulls do boast strong jaws that can lock into place. But many breeds can deliver a nasty bite when provoked. The attention directed at pit bulls seems more due to their trendiness, not to any unique aggressiveness in their genetics. The tough guy dog du jour was once the equally powerful Rottweiler.

Which means the problem is with the owners, not the dogs. Ban pit bulls, and the riffraff that uses them for nefarious purposes will move on to another breed.

The law in Kansas City, however, is particularly dumb. Apparently, the city has instituted an “amnesty period,” during which well-intentioned owners can turn their pups over for euthanizing without facing a fine.

To see the folly in this proposal, let’s consider two hypothetical put bull owners.

Owner A is a family who had the misfortune of picking a pit bull from the pet store, breeder, or pound. They’ve raised the dog as a pet, and it lives in a happy, loving home. It’s harmless.

Owner B is a drug dealer who bought a pit bull to protect his contraband. He has trained the dog to attack. The dog, obviously, is vicious and dangerous.

Which dog owner is more likely to follow the law, and take advantage of the amnesty period? Which dog is more likely to be turned over and euthanized?

Seems to me that Kansas City has created a scenario where all of the harmless pit bulls around town will be destroyed, leaving only the dangerous ones.

Which of course will (1) reinforce stereotypes about the breed, and (2) likely give police license to shoot on sight any dog remotely resembling a pit bull without much in the way of repercussions.

Winning with Zero

Though prospects for broad reform of the U.S. antidumping law are tied to the now-moribund Doha Round of trade negotiations, curtailing antidumping abuse is still viable through other channels. Yesterday, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization ruled that the U.S. dumping calculation technique known as “zeroing” violates the WTO’s Antidumping Agreement.

In determining margins of dumping (which dictate the prospective antidumping duties applied to affected imports), the Department of Commerce typically compares a foreign exporter’s U.S. and home market prices. There are usually dozens or hundreds (sometimes thousands) of comparisons made, each generating a margin of dumping, which can be positive, negative or zero.

Before averaging the individual dumping margins to produce an overall antidumping duty rate, the DOC perpetrates some sleight of hand by setting all of the negative dumping margins to zero. This, of course, has the effect of seriously inflating the overall rate and dissuading subsequent importation.

Zeroing is probably the most distortive of a multitude of methodological tricks the DOC undertakes in the name of fighting unfair trade. In previous research, Brink Lindsey and I looked at 18 actual dumping cases and found that had the DOC not engaged in zeroing, the antidumping duty rates would have been, on average, 89 percent lower.

If the United States complies with yesterday’s ruling and ceases the practice in all cases prospectively, the antidumping law will remain a nuisance, but its capacity to seriously obstruct trade will be weakened considerably.

Who Is Really “Obsessed” Here?

I just fired off this letter to the editors of the Houston Chronicle:

Who Is Really “Obsessed” Here?

In an August 16 editorial (“Voucher Obsession”), you claim as fact that “vouchers would only [help] a few students.” The Netherlands has had a nationwide public and private school choice program since 1917. About three quarters of Dutch students now attend private schools. Chile introduced school choice in the 1980s, and the majority of students in that country are now enrolled in private schools.

As school choice programs allow demand to rise, the supply of private schools rises to meet it. For you to be unaware of such an elementary fact about market-based education systems does a disservice to your readers. And it begs a serious question: if you know so little about school choice, why do you oppose it so obsessively?

Censorship Is Worse Than Fake News

A big story on the front page of the Washington Post Style section is illustrated with a beautiful, stylized photo of new CBS anchor Katie Couric. In tiny letters almost invisible to the naked eye, the photo source is identified as CBS. In other words, it’s a publicity photo, not a news photo. There’s another glamorous CBS photo dominating page 8, where the story jumps.

Would the Post print a corporate news release? Not likely, though smaller papers do. Is that different from using a corporate photo? Perhaps. Should the Federal Newspaper Commission look into the use of corporate photos and corporate news releases? Oh, right, we don’t have a Federal Newspaper Commission, because we have a First Amendment.

Why, then, is something called the Federal Communications Commission investigating the use of “video news releases” by television broadcasters (as reported on the front page of the Business section the same day)? Oh, right, because somehow the First Amendment doesn’t give broadcasters the same free speech rights that newspapers enjoy. Prodded by the anti-free-speech lobby Center for Media and Democracy, the FCC wants to know if broadcasters clearly label “video news releases” produced by corporations when they are used on local news programs. CMD is well within its rights to criticize the use of VNRs. But when it calls for government regulation of what can and must be shown on news broadcasts, it’s calling for censorship. And censorship is far worse than “fake news” about new products on local television broadcasts.

If This Is Wrong I Don’t Want to Be Reich

Pathological liar Robert Reich offers a commentary on Wednesday morning’s “Marketplace Radio” (not posted yet) complaining that American companies are not lobbying for more spending on science and math education because they are unpatriotically opening labs and software design offices in India and China. So let’s see … he’s upset that the people of the world’s two largest countries are finally entering the modern world, and he’s upset that huge American businesses are not lobbying for more business subsidies. What a great liberal!

Political Governance vs. Corporate Governance

A New York Times columnist says it may be a mistake to try “to make government run more like a business.” Citing research by Matthias Benz and Bruno S. Frey, summarized by Larry Yu, the Times says that government works better than the private sector:

The authority over government is split among the branches of government. In business, Mr. Yu writes, “even if directors have stepped up their governance in recent years, institutional norms still stack the deck in favor of C.E.O.’s.”

And while chief executives and directors can serve forever, politicians need to face re-election regularly.

When it comes to corporate governance, maybe there is something to be learned from governments.

Well, let’s see. According to a Booz Allen study, dismissals of corporate CEOs have risen sharply in the past decade. Among the world’s 2,500 largest public companies, “CEOs are as likely to leave prematurely as to retire normally. Continuing a pattern from 2004, in 2005 nearly half of all CEO departures were due to poor performance or mergers.”

Meanwhile, almost no members of Congress are removed from office involuntarily. As this chart shows, House reelection rates are approaching 100 percent.

Does that mean that the U.S. government is performing so much better than the average company that there’s no need for change? It seems unlikely that even the Times columnist would make that claim. No, if you read the links above from Booz Allen and the Washington Monthly, you can see some of the differences between politics and business: Business is competitive, to begin with. There are 2,500 large companies in the survey, all competing with one another and with millions of upstart challengers. If Sears and K-Mart don’t stay on their toes, Target and Wal-Mart will take their business. Wikipedia lists pages and pages of defunct companies, all of which failed to satisfy customers. Executives lost their jobs, and shareholders lost their money, and those realities are a powerful incentive to executives and shareholders of other companies. Corporate boards are getting more aggressive, and different companies are testing different rules for governance – outsider CEOs, separating the jobs of CEO and chairman, acquisitions, divestitures, going public, going private – in an attempt to find the rules that will produce the greatest customer satisfaction and thus the greatest profits.

Contrast that with government. Failed bureaucrats are almost never fired; indeed, the standard response to bureaucratic failure is to appropriate more money for the agency. Gerrymandering, campaign finance restrictions, and taxpayer-funded constituent service and propaganda make it almost impossible for a member of Congress to be turned out of office. People spend other people’s money far less efficiently than their own.

I think the Times got it backwards. It would be more appropriate to say, “When it comes to government, maybe there is something to be learned from corporate governance” – such as the value of decentralization and competition, retirement ages or term limits, and real penalties for poor performance. Since those factors are unlikely to occur in political systems, the best lesson is to keep as much of life as possible in the private sector.

“Abolish Religious Schools” — Guardian Columnist

In response to the latest Islamist terrorist plot, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee makes the following recommendation:

A new Commission on Integration and Cohesion, launching this month, will be worthless unless its first recommendation is to end religious and ethnic segregation in schools. That means no Church of England or Catholic schools, no Muslim or Jewish schools.

Ah yes, social cohesion through religious tyranny, a winning strategy down through the centuries. Nyet.

A nation that fought a number of civil wars over (among other things) the repression of religious freedom should have learned that compulsion in matters of faith does not breed social harmony. I would have thought Ms. Toynbee particularly well equipped to pass along that historical pearl, given that she is the descendant of not one but two well known British historians. Apparently the nut does sometimes fall far from the tree.