Steve Chapman on Consent Searches

Steve Chapman takes a look at the problem of ‘voluntary’ roadside searches.  Excerpt:

If I approach as you pull into a parking space and ask if you’d mind my rummaging through your car, the chances are at least 90 percent that you’d decline. But if a police officer stops you with the same request, the chances are higher than 90 percent that you’d agree. Something about that badge makes citizens eager to be helpful.

Or maybe not. In civics class and 4th of July speeches, we are told that American democracy rests on the consent of the governed. But interactions with the police serve as a useful reminder that government rests less on voluntary cooperation than on fear and force. A nation is free to the extent it prevents the rulers from bullying and coercing the ruled. By that standard, American society still has a way to go.

Read the whole thing

Learn what your rights are.  Get the Busted dvd.  Related Cato work, here.

It’s Midnight in America

You could be excused for getting that vibe from this McCain campaign video, what with its vaguely X-Files-esque theme music and apocalyptic imagery (am I the only one who finds the little girl picking flowers reminiscent of “Daisy” the famous anti-Goldwater ad from the ‘64 campaign?). The Teddy Roosevelt tape is from TR’s unhinged speech to the 1912 Progressive Party convention, a speech that ends “we stand at Armageddon–and we battle for the Lord!”

Election 2008: the Messiah vs. the Prophet of Doom. Sigh. Whatever happened to normalcy? Where have you gone Warren Harding? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

EPI Gets Trade and Jobs Story Wrong Again

According to a report released today by the Economic Policy Institute, trade with China has caused a loss of 2.3 million American jobs since the Asian giant joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. The study will get a lot of coverage, but its numbers and methodology are shockingly flawed.

This is a well-traveled road for EPI and the report’s main author Robert Scott. Scott has authored other reports that have come to the same conclusion about NAFTA and earlier periods of trade with China. The methodology virtually guarantees a finding of job losses: It assumes that imports displace a certain number of workers while exports create new jobs, and since we run trade deficits with China and Mexico—surprise!—trade with those countries leads to net job losses.

I’ve dissected the flaws of EPI’s approach elsewhere, but to just summarize what everyone should keep in mind when you read about the EPI report:

EPI exaggerates the number of American companies and workers who compete directly against Chinese imports. Many of our main imports from China—shoes, clothing, toys, and consumer electronics—were being imported from other countries before China’s emergence as a major supplier. In fact, as imports from China have risen since 2001 as a share of total imports, imports from other Asian countries have been in relative decline. So imports from China do not typically displace U.S. production but instead displace imports from other countries. In fact, in the past year, the U.S. unemployment rate has been heading up as our overall trade deficit has been heading down.

EPI ignores the creation of jobs elsewhere in the economy that are made possible by trade and globalization. Exports aren’t the only channel through which trade and globalization creates jobs. Foreign capital flowing into the United States—the flip side of the trade deficit—creates jobs through direct investment in U.S. companies and indirectly by lowering interest rates, which stimulates more domestic investment.

Even when trade does displace workers, in a flexible and growing economy, new jobs will be created elsewhere. As I reported in my October 2007 study “Trading Up,” job losses in manufacturing during the past decade have been more than offset by net job gains in better-paying services sectors.

Since China joined the WTO in 2001, U.S. exports to China have shot up by 22 percent per year, the U.S. economy has added a net 6 million new jobs, real compensation per hour earned by U.S. workers—that is, wages plus benefits adjusted for inflation—is up 9 percent, and manufacturing output is up 10 percent. Last year, America’s supposedly beleaguered manufacturers earned collective profits of $305 billion, more than five times what they earned the year China joined the WTO.

As we struggle through a domestic slowdown and rising prices for consumers, we could use more trade with China, not less.

The Stevens Scandal

Don Boudreaux of George Mason University sent out the following missive about Ted Stevens’s indictment. I don’t see it posted at Cafe Hayek, though it might yet be. But since I can’t improve on his pithy commentary, I offer it here:

I’m delighted to see Sen. Ted Stevens face jail time for his crimes while in office. To charge him with concealing gifts totaling $250,000, however, is the equivalent of charging a confessed mass murderer with jaywalking. If that’s the only way to bring the criminal to justice, fine. But Sen. Stevens’s most significant misdeeds - ones of which he boasts! - are his decades-long success at directing billions of taxpayer dollars to special-interest groups for no reason other than the fact that he possessed the power and position to buy himself even greater security in office by doing so.

Of course, punishing all the criminals guilty of THAT offense would depopulate Capitol Hill.

Building Afghanistan

Building a state in Afghanistan is the job of the Afghans. The United States can help, especially with infrastructure projects and military training, but our principle objective there should not be counter-insurgency, but counter-terrorism. That mission requires no surge in American or NATO forces.

Don’t take it from me, take it from Rory Stewart, the crazy Scotsman and former employee of the British Foreign Office, who walked across Afghanistan in 2002 with a dog, lived to write a great book about it, and now lives in Kabul.

Stewart’s article is latest in an outbreak of Afghanistan surge skepticism.

Treating Angelenos as Children

A law that would prevent fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles neighborhoods was unanimously approved by the LA City Council on Tuesday.

Paternalist? You bet. Violation of equal protection? It would seem so. The City Council trusts white people, but not the blacks and Latinos who live in South Los Angeles, to make their own food decisions? Ouch.

But I was particularly struck by this statement from Councilwoman Jan Perry, sponsor of the measure: “I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options.”

Greater food options? All the council is doing is banning some restaurants. How will that give residents more options? Maybe – maybe – other restaurants will open in South Los Angeles because fewer fast food restaurants will open over the coming year. But residents will still not have “greater food options,” just different options, courtesy of those who know best.

Thomas Sowell wrote in Knowledge and Decisions of the “surprising … persistence and scope of the belief that people can be made better off by reducing their options.” Twenty-eight years later, the belief persists. But now people who reduce other people’s options claim they are increasing options. That’s progress, of a sort.

The citizens of South Los Angeles should rebel against the unchosen nannies who think that they can run adults’ lives better than those adults can run their own lives.

Depth Takes a Holiday

In yesterday’s New York Times, David Brooks lamented the yawning chasm in educational attainment that divides America: the children of wealthy and highly-educated parents graduate from high school and go on to college vastly more often than those of lower-income, less educated parents. Here, he is on solid ground. But, columnists being columnists, Brooks goes on to give us his unsubstatiated opinion that: “Barack Obama’s education proposals… flow naturally and persuasively from this research,” while “McCain’s policies seem largely oblivious to these findings,” as exemplified by the Republican’s “vague talk about school choice.”

A look at the evidence reveals Brooks’ intuition to be exactly backwards.

Senator Obama’s education platform can verily be described as more of what the federal government has already been doing: more spending on government pre-school programs aimed at ever-younger children, especially the fifty-year-old Head Start program; tweaking of the No Child Left Behind act to make it look a little more like it did in its first four decades, when it went under the name Elementary and Secondary Education Act., etc.

But these programs were in full blown operation during the entire period, from the seventies to the nineties, during which Brooks notes that ”America’s educational progress slowed to a crawl.” So Brooks is arguing that doing more of the same is a “natural” and “persuasive” solution to our longstanding educational problems. His hope in this regard is indeed audacious.

And what of McCain’s “vague talk” about private school choice programs? Is it really irrelevant to the educational attainment gap that Brooks is so concerned with? If Brooks had spend just a few minutes Googling the issue he would have come across the nationwide study by University of Chicago economist Derek Neal showing that urban African Americans are vastly more likely to graduate from high school, gain acceptance to college, and graduate from college if they attend Catholic rather than public schools. He would have found the similar findings by Evans and Schwab. He might even have come across the two separate studies of the Milwaukee voucher program showing significantly higher graduation rates for the poor students attending private schools under that program than for students in the Milwaukee public school system. 

People who actually care about the socio-economic divide in our nation should familiarize themselves with the evidence before trying to influence public opinion on presidential candidates or policies.