Jeff Miron on economics

Jeff Miron with the four best paragraphs you will read today.

Joe Wong, Asian comedian

When I was a freshman, my Taiwanese roommate told me this Chinese joke. A man is on death row and will be given whatever he wants for your last meal. He says "just a tangerine, please" to which the guard replies, "they won't be in season for months."

"That's fine."

Here's Joe Wong with some less cerebral humor:

Scott Brown drives a truck

Today the Senate voted down a proposal to eliminate $24 billion in corporate welfare for oil companies. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) said he opposed the bill because it would not allow for the construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. In a statement released by his office, he commented that "two wrongs make a right" in explaining to his preference for bad policies over a mix of good and bad.

In other news, Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren posted her positions on foreign policy with subsections on terrorism, Israel, Iran, and Afghanistan. When asked how many continents there are, her campaign responded with "for policy purposes, two."

Cig tax isn't a tax?

I didn't read the Supreme Court arguments yesterday, so I just saw this bit out of context:

Most of the justices seemed skeptical. Some questioned whether the penalty for failing to buy insurance is a tax at all, meaning the law wouldn't apply. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "This is not a revenue-raising measure, because if it is successful, no one will pay the penalty."

If Ginsburg said that since a penalty is meant to discourage behavior it's not a tax, then no Pigouvian tax counts as a tax. The gas tax isn't a tax. The cigarette tax isn't a tax. It's a strange view of the English language. (She might think the "right-to-seek medical care while uninsured" tax is different because in theory no one would pay it, but that's not true. If the tax were meant to discourage everyone it would just be set at $10 trillion.)

Cute pic of the day

Cute little Chinese girl. I hope one day I can have a daughter that cute.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is going to hand down a ruling on ObamaCare. If you read the news you might get the impression that lawyers and judges care a lot about logical consistency, previous rulings, and the wording of the laws.

But if you ask anyone to predict how the court will vote they will explain that there are 4 liberals and 4 conservatives, and there is one moderate and it likely hinged on his vote. The key here is that the judges votes can be predicted based on ideology. 

So my question is why people write so many columns about ObamaCare and .... laws. The judges might rule based on whether they think the externalities from free riding are large or will become large. They might rule based on whether they care if people have health insurance or have sympathy for those facing bankruptcy. More likely they will rule based on what their gut says about Democrats and Obama in particular. However they make the decision, we can be pretty sure that prior rulings, the wording of the law, and legal precedent won't be important so who cares?

(I did consider that maybe some people think there is a "right" ruling and that, even if we know the judges aren't interested in finding it we should go through the intellectual exercise anyway. But I'm skeptical. If I heard more statements like "I think ObamaCare is bad policy but constitutional" or "I think ObamaCare is the right policy but unconstitutional" I'd start to believe people are interested in finding the "right" ruling.)

Edit: Most Americans agree with me. According to a CNN poll "Fifty percent say that the justices' decisions will be based mostly on their personal political views, with 46% saying their decisions will based on an objective interpretation of the law." But I'm shocked nearly half of Americans think the justices give a shit about being objective. I was wrong. A sizable market for discussion of the legal facts etc. exists, namely half the country.

I killed Trayvon Martin

I helped kill Trayvon Martin. You might have too.

And he isn't the only person we killed. The Tampa Bay Times reports that "stand your ground" has been used as a defense for at least 91 murders since 2005 and "justifiable homocides" have tripled in that timeframe.

I don't know the details in all of those cases and we still don't know the details in Trayvon's case. We do know the details of how Trevor Dooley murdered David James. Dooley was angry that James defended a skateboarder riding near a public park. He decided to go to his house, get a gun and flash it at James to intimidate him. James, a 20 year veteran of the Air Force, wasn't happy about it so he (reports vary on the exact wording) said he wanted to have a word with Dooley. Dooley responded by shooting James.

While we know the stand your ground law is being used as a defense for murder in 91 cases, we can't be certain how many murders would have been deterred if the stand your ground law didn't exist. In Zimmerman's case it appears he acted in cold blood and may have been deterred if he thought he might go to jail (or face the death penalty). In Dooley's case it appears he fired due to irrational panic and deterrence was unlikely. In at least some of the 91 cases the death was a result of self-defense. But I suspect that in at least a handful of cases the stand your ground law led someone to shoot first and ask questions later. In 2005, I didn't believe that would happen.

In 2005, back when I still lived in Florida, I didn't understand the uproar. As I understood things, it had always been legal to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary. If you found yourself in that situation you would always go to trial and someone--a judge or jury--would have to arbitrate if your claim was reasonable. The law didn't change the language and common interpretation that it all hinged on what was reasonable. I supported the stand your ground legislation.

I was wrong. The reading of the law that I had was a reasonable belief about how it would be interpreted and used by law enforcement, judges and juries, but it was wrong. The fact is that law enforcement officers who said it could amount to a license to kill were right. And when you give people a license to kill, more people will be murdered. People respond to incentives.

Not everyone believes that people respond to incentives. I believe in the death penalty. I think it deters murders. I don't base that belief on any data because no data is up to task, so I'm going on my gut. My brother, going on his gut, thinks that no one who murders thinks about costs and benefits, implicitly or explicitly. My brother shouldn't believe he killed Trayvon Martin. But I think I helped. I no longer support stand your ground and now that I've seen evidence to make me believe stand your ground is causing more people to die than it saves (my guess is that it has saved no one) and causing more harm than good.

I live in Massachusetts now. A state senator introduced stand your ground legislation here a few days ago. I e-mailed my state senator to let him know I oppose it and why. I don't want another young man and another father to die when we can change the rules--that will change people's beliefs that will change their actions--and prevent it from happening.