The Liberal Order

Speaking of Super Bowl ads . . .

. . . here is a funny remake of the old Coke commercial starring Amy Sedaris. Amy is from Raleigh and my wife and I enjoyed her talk at Quail Ridge Books last spring.

 

Reinvented to give you "everything you could possibly want."

Check out the ad below, which is to air (supposedly) during the Super Bowl. Isn't this the beauty of capitalism? Complete strangers - the investors, the managers, the contractors, the labor, and more - toil to give me "everything I could possibly want" in a car. I don't even know these people. A tear rolls down my cheek. 

Reinvented from DTan on Vimeo.

 

Finding Common Ground Between Tea Party and OWS

An excellent critique of Occupy Wall Street protestors by U. Chicago law professor M. Todd Henderson. Of note:

For example, in education policy, teachers are the one percent, while students and parents are the 99 percent. But it is generally the power of the concentrated teachers’ unions that drives decisions about education spending and policy. The fact that teachers unions support Occupy undermines its power. A true movement of the 99 percents would be on the side of students, not teachers.

Diane Sawyer and ABC News "Making America Poorer"

ABC News and Diane Sawyer are on a mission to make America poorer.

The average American will spend $700 on holiday gifts and goodies this year, totaling more than $465 billion, the National Retail Federation estimates. If that money was spent entirely on US made products it would create 4.6 million jobs. But it doesn't even have to be that big. If each of us spent just $64 on American made goods during our holiday shopping, the result would be 200,000 new jobs.

Let's forget for a moment that by "buying America" you forego buying goods and services that will provide you more value per dollar, like not buying a Toyota or Honda that you prefer over a Chevy or Chrysler. (If you did not expect that buying a Toyota rather than a Chevy would provide you more value per dollar, then you wouldn't have even considered purchasing a Toyta anyway.) The real problem with this plan is that it does not create jobs - it protects some jobs (typically union jobs, hence the media attention) at the expense of other jobs.

A dollar is a claim on goods and services produced in the United States. If I send $1,000 US to China in exchange for a television set produced by a Chinese firm (and it doesn't have to be a Chinese firm, it could be an American firm operating overseas and they enjoy the profits), then the Chinese company with which I did business has three options for using those $1,000: 1) buy something from someone in the U.S. worth $1,000; 2) buy something worth $1,000 from someone somewhere else in the world who wants the money so she can purchase something produced in the U.S.; or 3) invest the $1,000 in the US so that others can purchase goods and services produced in the U.S. (Yes, the Chinese company could do any combination of these three, but that's irrelevant. And yes, the Chinese company could burn these green pieces of paper, but we'll ignore this option since it's not likely to happen and we'd be much better off anyway.)

Not sending dollars overseas to obtain goods and services (mostly goods) produced by foreigners in other countries means that these foreigners don't have dollars to purchase goods and services produced in the US, goods and services that provide more value per dollar to them relative to any other choice they may have had. That makes us, and them, poorer, not richer! 

Yes, by "buying America" some jobs are saved in the domestic import industry, but other jobs are lost in the domestic export industry. Why ABC News can generate a positive response with this fallacious gimmick is due to the fact that the jobs lost in the domestic import industries, which operate at a comparative disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors, are visible. I buy a Toyota and someone at Ford loses a job. On the other hand, the jobs that are created in the domestic export industries, jobs in which we have a comparative advantage, are not so visible because without trade they never materialize.  

I don't quite understand the logic of ABC News with its "Buy America" advocacy campaign. If "Buy America" makes us better off, then why stop at promoting America as if it's some individual? Why not improve the wealth of every state in the union by advocating that North Carolinians buy only from people and firms located in North Carolina and people from New York buy only from people and firms located in New York? If this improves our states' economies, why not take it one step further to the county level? Or better yet, let's take it even further and advocate buying only from family members. Because it's obvious now that doing so is a sure road to poverty. This same road to poverty argument scales upward to the "Buy America" level as well.

Sounds Like Some of Those Who Make Up Occupy [Insert City Name]

A Chicago news anchor gets into trouble for saying on air that there is no Santa Claus.

“Stop trying to convince your kids that Santa is Santa,” Robinson said to co-anchor Bob Sirott during a segment Tuesday night. “That’s why they have these high expectations. They know you can’t afford it, so what do they do? Just ask some man in a red suit. There is no Santa.”

Hmmm?!? If only the OWS protesters were watching.

 

Russian News Anchor Flips Off Obama

Wow! Don't hold back; tell us how you really feel?

 

Here is a link to an active video.

Kudos to Bradley Birzer

My friend Brad Birzer does an excellent job defending liberal arts education against criticism by Rush Limbaugh. Of note:

From what little of I know of Limbaugh, I know he speaks affectionately of the Founding Fathers.  But, of course, the majority of Founding Fathers were classically educated.  It would have been impossible to have had an American Founding without the classics. 

Well stated. Excellent!

Nolan Finley Exposes the Differences Between "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea Partiers

The Detroit News's Nolan Finley can't wait for "Occupy Wall Street" to make it to Detroit. In describing the differences between them and the tea partiers, he notes:

State lawmakers in New York have received emails reportedly connected to Occupy Wall Street containing this cheery call to action: "It's time to kill the wealthy."

I haven't taken a poll, but my hunch is more Americans relate to "cut the spending" than to "kill the wealthy."

That's why I'm eager to see this freak show arrive in Detroit.

Here are two previous posts on the protest. 

The Angry Protesters On Wall Street

I would consider joining the protesters making up Occupy Wall Street if their protest was about the undue influence of Wall Street on Washington. But instead, it's too much of an eclectic mix of anti-capitalists, Marxists, unions, people dissatisfied with their lives and people with a legitimate gripe about Wall Street bailouts. Here is David Harsanyi's take on the demands of the protesters. 

What I find interesting is Barack Obama's favorable understanding and concern for Occupy Wall Street protestors and their demands, but complete disdain for the concerns of the Tea Party movement.

Speaking at a White House news conference, Obama says he understands the public's concerns about how the nation's financial system works. And he says Americans see Wall Street as an example of the financial industry not always following the rules.

Hmmm?!? What about people's concerns about how Washington works (or doesn't work) and their concerns about the corruption it entails. Cato's David Boaz chides the New Yorker's Jane Mayer for her similar inconsistent position.

Netflix Underestimates The Elasticity of Demand For It's Service

The revision reflects the negative reaction to Netflix's decision, announced in July, to separate its DVD-by-mail service from its faster-growing Internet streaming service. Before, DVD-by-mail was a $2 add-on for some streaming subscribers; now, each service now costs $8.

Some subscribers were upset by what was effectively a price hike, and a subset of them have cancelled their Netflix accounts.

In July, the company said it expected that it would end the third quarter with 22 million subscribers to the streaming service, 12 million of whom would also opt for the DVD-by-mail service. It expected back then that 3 million would opt only for the DVD service.

Now, it's expecting that just 2.2 million will opt only for DVDs, a drop of 800,000.

Netflix also anticipates a slight drop in streaming subscribers, to 21.8 million, a difference of 200,000 from the earlier estimate. It still expects 12 million of those streaming subscribers to also pay for DVD-by-mail, helping it to generate more revenue overall.

Story here.