On CNN’s GPS, Fareed Zakaria declared The Libertarian Mind “the Book of the Week.” Here’s the transcript:
This week’s book of the week is David Boaz’s “The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom.” People often wonder what it means when someone describes himself or herself as a libertarian. And that includes people like Rand Paul, Alan Greenspan and Peter Thiel. David Boaz does a superb job of explaining the ideas that animate an important philosophical tradition, and he does it with passion. For anyone interested in politics, this is a valuable resource and a well‐written book.
And here’s the 30‐second video:
The show ran last Sunday, so today is probably the last day of its reign as “Book of the Week.” Buy The Libertarian Mind today.
One of the European Union’s highest priorities in trade negotiations is to globalize its restrictions on the use of place names as generic product descriptions. When they negotiate a trade agreement, they insist that the other country adopt regulations requiring that, for example, all champagne come from Champagne and all parmesan cheese come from Parma. The United States, worried that these rules limit access for U.S. products, is trying to use its own trade agreements to contain the effects of Europe’s push to protect “geographical indications” (GIs) in countries around the world.
Europe’s GI protections restrict the flow of accurate information while reducing competition and innovation. GI protection is not about preventing consumer confusion or false advertising; European rules forbid the use of place names even when phrases like “style” or “type” are added.
One often overlooked but essential aspect of GI regulation is that use of a protected name requires not only physical location in that place but also adherence to government-mandated production practices. “Authentic” champagne is therefore not only made in Champagne, but made a specific way required by law.
By operating this way, the system functions not only to capitalize on a collective brand but also to reduce competition among producers. Once all the producers in a particular country (say, France) are divided by region and style, the industry starts looking a lot like a cartel. There may be multiple producers, but they all agree to keep making the same thing in the same place forever. They no longer have to compete on product quality.
U.S. trade negotiators are rightly resisting efforts to spread this anticompetitive regulatory scheme to other countries. As it stands, there is almost no chance that the United States could convince the EU or its member states to drop their GI regulations. But it is also unlikely that the United States will acquiesce to European demands to adopt such a system here, especially for meats and cheeses.
The battle over GIs is therefore being waged in other countries as the EU and the United States both use trade agreements to influence how GIs are protected in foreign markets. Commercially, the question is whether U.S. companies can continue to sell their generic brands abroad.
Yesterday, the international aid organization Health Poverty Action released a new study on the effects of the global drug war. The report is entitled, “Casualties of War: How the War on Drugs Is Harming the World’s Poorest.”
From its introduction:
Since the mid‐twentieth century, global drug policy has been dominated by strict prohibition, which tries to force people to stop possessing, using and producing drugs by making them illegal.
This approach, which has come to be known as the ‘War on Drugs’, has not only failed to achieve its goals—it is fuelling poverty, undermining health, and failing some of the poorest and most marginalised communities worldwide.
Both in the United States and around the world, the War on Drugs has been a humanitarian catastrophe and a financial money pit. Interdiction often harms indigent farmers who grow the coca and poppy plants for meager financial return while the global drug marketplace continues to meet high demand. Prohibition‐fueled violence among rival cartels and gangs invariably spills over to claim innocent lives. For those reasons, it is no exaggeration to say that the $100 billion spent on global drug prohibition annually takes food off the tables of the poor and leaves many more dead from violence.
Well‐meaning people can disagree about what is best to spend that $100 billion on—vaccines, food aid, micro‐loans, infrastructure, clean water projects, drug treatment, etc.—but a growing number of people would say it would be better spent not fighting the Drug War.
Read the whole report here.
Tomorrow at CPAC, I will discuss some advantages of infrastructure privatization. Perhaps the largest advantage is innovation. Unlike government bureaucracies, private firms in a competitive environment are eager to maximize the net returns of projects, so they find new ways to reduce costs and improve quality.
The benefits of innovation are obvious in fast‐moving industries such as high‐technology. But innovation can also be important in long‐established, hard‐hat industries such as highway building. Numerous countries are ahead of the United States in privatizing and partly privatizing (“public private partnerships” or “P3s”) government assets such as highways, airports, seaports, passenger rail, and air traffic control. Experience around the world shows that much innovation is possible after such industries are liberated from the bureaucratic yoke.
A House hearing last year looked at the international experience with privatization. The head of a provincial P3 agency in Canada said that P3 projects are more likely to be completed on time and on budget than traditional government infrastructure projects. And he said, “Competition and the profit motive can lead to startling results, where the winning proposal provides solutions that the public owner never contemplated. This happens over and over again.” Isn’t that interesting?
In his latest newsletter, Robert Poole provides more evidence of the “innovative effect” of P3s. He discusses $2 billion of cost savings from P3 highway projects in Texas, which are examined in a paper by Fidel Saenz de Ormijana and Nicolas Rubio:
Texas DOT has been gradually increasing the extent of design flexibility it gives project developers, via two methods. One is to encourage P3 developers to submit “alternative technical concepts” (ATCs) as part of their proposals in response to an RFP. The other is to encourage potential developers to present innovative ideas during the industry review meetings that precede issuance of the RFP. In the latter case, those ideas may be included in the RFP as options for all potential bidders to consider.
The largest cost savings discussed in the paper concern the LBJ (I‑635) project in Dallas, where TxDOT’s conceptual design called for the express lanes to be constructed in a new tunnel beneath the existing general‐purpose lanes, due to severe right of way constraints. During design review, the authors’ companies (Ferrovial and Cintra) suggested the alternative of a depressed center section for the express lanes, with the rebuilt general‐purpose lanes partly cantilevered over the express lanes. This was presented in the RFP as an option, and the authors’ consortium’s bid that used this approach came in at substantially lower cost, contributing a large fraction of the resulting $1.3 billion construction cost savings.
The other cases described in the paper deal with several phases of the North Tarrant Express project in Fort Worth. In these cases, the developer‐proposed changes were of two types. Some were changes in the design and placement of lanes and ramps, to provide better traffic flow (and generate more toll revenue). Others were changes in phasing, so as not to incur premature construction costs for lanes needed only in the ultimate configuration (10 to 20 years in the future), while designing now to facilitate their later addition within the long term of the concession agreement. These changes saved $480 million in NTE 1 and 2W and another $150 million in NTE 35W.
… By looking at the LBJ and NTE projects as businesses, the team was strongly motivated to come up with alternative designs and more‐careful phasing of improvements to make the projects financially feasible. And to its great credit, Texas DOT was willing to accept many of those changes, resulting in projects that will provide very tangible benefits, without putting taxpayers at risk.
For more on infrastructure P3s and privatization, see here.
Yesterday, my colleague Dan Ikenson blogged here about an op-ed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in which she was critical of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in trade agreements.
Jeff Zients, director of the National Economic Council, posted a response to Warren on the White House website. In this post, I'm going to comment briefly on his response, going through item by item. His statements are in bold; my comments follow in bullet points.
Zients: "The purpose of investment provisions in our trade agreements is to provide American individuals and businesses who do business abroad with the same protections we provide to domestic and foreign investors alike in the United States."
• It’s important to be clear that these protections go both ways. Under ISDS, foreign investors can also sue the U.S. government. Of course, they could already sue under U.S. domestic law. In effect, ISDS means that foreign investors in America have two avenues for a lawsuit, while U.S. investors in America only have one.
• With regard to protections abroad, the result of ISDS is that American investors have protections in foreign countries, but non-Americans do not have protections in those countries. That seems like a bad signal to send: American investors get good treatment, but non-Americans do not. If the concern is expanding protections, there is a better way to do it: encourage these protections to be incorporated into domestic law, so that everyone gets them.
Will America ever again be at peace? Pressure is building for the U.S. again to intervene in Libya.
Less than three years after Libya’s civil war the country has ceased to exist. This debacle offers a clear lesson for American policymakers. But denizens of Washington seem never to learn.
The administration presented the issue as one of humanitarian intervention, to save the people of Benghazi from slaughter at the hands of Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy.
Although he was a nasty character, he had slaughtered no one when his forces reclaimed other territory. In Benghazi he only threatened those who had taken up arms against him.
In fact, the allies never believed their rhetoric. They immediately shifted their objective from civilian protection to slow motion regime change. Thousands died in the low-tech civil war.
Alas, Libya was an artificial nation. When Khadafy died political structure vanished. The country split apart. Today multiple warring factions have divided into two broad coalitions.
“Operation Dignity” is a largely secular grouping including Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s “Libyan National Army” and the internationally recognized government. Last May Haftar launched a campaign against the Islamist militias with covert support from Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.
“Libya Dawn” is a mix of Islamists, moderate to radical, and conservative merchants which now controls Tripoli. They are backed by Qatar, Sudan, and Turkey, and deny that the Islamic State poses much of a threat.
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) increases the minimum criminal penalty for defendants convicted of illegal firearm possession who also have three prior violent crime convictions. While the Act lists many crimes as qualifying as “violent”—such as burglary, arson, and extortion—it also contains a catch-all provision, a “residual clause,” that includes crimes that “otherwise involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
While that language may seem clear, its precise meaning has bedeviled courts for decades. In fact, Johnson v. United States represents the fifth time since 2007 that the Supreme Court has been asked to clarify what the residual clause means. For example, does drunk driving count? How about fleeing from officers in a high-speed chase? Even though the high court only hears about 75 cases per year—and it rarely revisits a law within such a short time-span—the ACCA’s residual clause keeps coming back. As Justice Antonin Scalia quipped in the last such case, “We try to include an ACCA residual-clause case in about every second or third volume of the United States Reports.” Justice Scalia’s comment came in a dissent in which he argued that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, and it seems that the rest of his colleagues paid attention. This is the second time this term that this case will be argued before the Court.
Last November, the issue was whether merely (illegally) possessing a short-barreled shotgun is a crime that fits into the residual clause. In January, however, the Court ordered that the case be re-argued on the larger question of whether the residual clause is itself unconstitutionally vague. Apparently, in discussing the law for the fifth time, the justices got tired of trying to answer questions that Congress should have addressed by writing a clearer law.