Labeling of GM foods up for vote in Washington state

Jayson Lusk discusses here

Two excerpts:

1.  "Last year there was much discussion on California's Prop 37, which would have mandated labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.  After enjoying strong a strong lead in the polls, Prop 37 actually failed to garner a majority of votes, and thus did not become law.   One year later, Washington State now has a similar initiative up for vote (the text of the law is here; a few more details are here)." 

2. "Here is Cass Sunstein, Obama's former "regulatory czar" had to say on the issue: "Any such requirement would inevitably lead many consumers to suspect that public officials, including scientists, believe that something is wrong with GM foods -- and perhaps that they pose a health risk.  Government typically requires labeling because it has identified such a risk (as in the case of tobacco) or in order to enable people to avoid or minimize costs (as in the case of fuel-economy labels).  A compulsory GM label would encourage consumers to think that GM foods should be avoided."

I agree with Lusk and Sunstein.  If getting GM (or non-GM) foods matters to you, you do have a choice.  You can obtain non-GM foods by buying organic.  But by mandating labeling of GM materials, there are two potential costs.  One is that producers may make (expensive) changes to their products to make them non-GM, which will increase grocery bills.  Given that increases in grocery costs will most affect the poor, you could expect worse diets mainly among those with lower incomes.

The question I ask to everybody who doesn't follow the issue too closely (and often has a default bias of "sure, let's label them) is: "How much of an increase in obesity would you find acceptable in order to label foods as GM?"

The second cost is very related to the first.  If producers don't make changes, then products will be labeled as GM. Those who are less intelligent/informed are not going to realize that GM-free does NOT mean healthier.  Because time and attention at the grocery store is limited, there will be people who pay attention to the GM-label but less attention to the nutrition qualities of food and their diet will deteriorate.

I know the federal government spends a fortune trying to get people to eat healthier.  Much of this is aimed at those with lower incomes and education levels.  (I actually think too much is spent on this, but that's another issue.)  This type of law would have the opposite effect.  It would focus on irrelevant characteristics and would lead those who are poorer and those with less intelligence (or who are less informed) to eat worse foods.

The more-vulnerable socioeconomic groups will suffer if this becomes law.  The left likes to claim they look out for vulnerable groups.  On this issue, that's clearly not true.

Fracking ban up for vote, and other links

1. In Ohio community, fracking will be on the November ballet

Once again, a charter amendment proposed by the FrackFree America National Coalition, known as the Youngstown Community Bill of Rights, will appear on the Nov. 5 ballot. The slightly modified charter amendment would ban fracking and the injection of drilling waste water in the city of Youngstown.

2. Charles Krauthammer's oped from this weekend is outstanding.   

Excerpts:

President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama­care are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.

Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obama­care five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.

He's right that leftists do comment, all-the-time, that this law is settled and we should just deal with it.

And ...

Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a presidential veto.  The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. 

3. We should remember that communism (i.e., government control of the economy) has killed 100 million people

To talk openly about the history of communism is to talk openly about the history of the Left. And even among those who were not communists themselves, vast swathes inside the Leftist tradition stayed far too close to the communists for comfort.

It's their very dirty big secret, and although they can't do much these days about tracts such as theBlack Book of Communism lying on the dusty top shelves of our public libraries, they'll be damned if they're going to start handing them out to children in the classrooms.

Assorted Links

1. Supreme Court will hear compelled unionization case.

Great news!  Here's an excerpt:

An Illinois executive order and law declares all personal home assistants to be public employees, for the sole purpose of being represented by a collective bargaining unit of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) that seeks to lobby for greater government spending (Medicaid) on home healthcare. 

PLF joined the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in an amicus brief written by Tom Caso, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to answer that question, and today the Court agreed to do so.  

2. National Park hotels losing money.

I'm sure this is true.  But unless people who can't vacation at a national park decide to spend their money outside the USA, this has no economic impact on our nation.  In fact, it means hotels NOT near national parks are likely earning extra revenue.

3. Are government grants skewing global warming data/results?  

Review of (clueless) AARP report on economic impact of Social Security

Short article here

Report here

The study states that their goal is to study the question: "What is the gross economic impact of Social Security benefits on the U.S. economy?"  But this is an irrelevant question to ask, as the "net economic impact" is the relevant issue.

Excerpt: 

Social Security benefit payments in 2012 supported: 
 About $1.4 trillion in economic output (goods and services) 
 Just over 9.2 million jobs 
 About $774 billion in value added (gross domestic product) 
 More than $370 billion in salaries, wages, and other compensation 
 Tax revenues for local, state, and federal governments exceeding $222 billion, including $78.9 billion in local and state taxes and $143.3 billion in federal taxes 

Every state—big and small—feels the effects of Social Security benefits being spent 
within its borders. Not surprisingly California, with the largest economy of the 50 states, 
showed the biggest impact. In California alone, Social Security benefits supported 
888,000 jobs, $147.4 billion in output, and $8.7 billion in state and local tax revenues.

When I discuss examples of poorly constructed (and/or biased) economic impact studies in the future, I will likely use this as an example.  This study implies that these benefits from social security arrived out of thin air.  Of course, we all know this isn't true.

Each individual who works pays over 12% of his/her income (between the worker share and the share the employer pays) in social security taxes (until the income threshold is hit).  Therefore, this study could also say the same thing but in reverse.  You could come up with a report that said that the social security taxes cost America ...

* About $1.4 trillion in economic output
* Over 9.2 million jobs
Etc.

Overall, the net effect is approximately zero, although its probably negative due to the negative distortions from government interference.

This type of study is a good reason why I tell reporters they should always be initially suspicious of economic impact study estimates.  Many are done well, but too many are simply propaganda pieces (with biased estimates) designed to mislead the public.

An oped urging the left to support privatizing liquor, and other Assorted Links

1. The claim that Spanish productivity is low because they're in the wrong time zone.

2. Jayson Lusk's The Food Police now has a study guide!

The book was great, and the study guide is good too.  My 12-year old has the book but only read a bit before he stalled with it and stopped.  Perhaps I'll print the study guide for him.

3. A liberal discusses the benefits of liquor privatization (via Commonwealth Foundation).

This is a well-written piece explaining why those on the left should support private liquor.  I agree that this isn't a left-vs-right issue. Its a unions-buying-corrupt-politicians issue.

The shutdown and economic uncertainty

Latest Krugman rant here ...

An excerpt:

“Remember when Republicans were worried about ‘economic uncertainty’?”

Actually, no, I don’t. I remember when they claimed to be worried about economic uncertainty — but it was completely obvious even at the time that this was nothing but an attempt to put a new, quasi-academic gloss on the same old same old. 

Many people, myself included, have been worried about uncertainty.  I still am, in fact.  I think much of the layoffs and economic issues now is that firms don't know what to expect.  This is the uncertainty over government policy.  And this matters!

But does the type of uncertainty from a government shutdown impact business hiring over the long term?  Of course not.  Nobody believes this will last too long, and it shouldn't affect any long term planing. It is a convenient way to attack opponents, however.

Krugman closes:

The point is that there are a lot fewer good-faith economic arguments out there than a naive observer might think — and that’s precisely because powerful forces are doing their best to hoodwink said naive observers.

I think he believes this - Krugman has made millions being one of these "powerful forces".

Two good higher education links

1. Marginal Revolution on a $10,000 degree.

Excerpt:

"The upshot of her approach is that an entire degree can be done for $10,000 per student."

2. Certifying MOOCs for credits - from Al Roth.


I think that MOOCs could become much more widespread and have a huge impact on the higher education system.  Its not difficult to imagine a scenario where students could take a MOOC, and then travel to a local center every so often to take an in-person test.  (If there are concerns over cheating, and I think there should be, then this is an easy work-around.)  It seems quite plausible that, in the future, 10-20% of all students will complete one or two years of college through MOOCs.