johaneriksson.se

Tyler Cowen cites some Rasmussen polls:

63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Obviously there’s a lack of identification with the current government, along with serious doubts about its goals and trustworthiness. Should a small-government supporter, such as myself, be feeling optimistic?

Perhaps. The tea-party movement started as a sign pointing in the right direction, even though Republican clowns, sensing the opportunity to win some easy votes, are likely to take the libertarianish edge off it. In the end, established politicians launching themselves into the movement, claiming to fight for a smaller role for the federal government, may lead to those demands disappearing into the void. But that still leaves the displeased voters displeased.

With the poll numbers in mind, it’s not clear that people are demanding less government. Certainly, the deficits worry people, but start talking about serious cuts in benefits and I’m not so sure the support is there.

It will be interesting to see where this energy ends up. Assuming that by the end of the year, we’ll have a Republican congress joining forces with the Obama administration to maintain the borrow-and-spend policies in a bipartisan spirit, the opportunities for a political entrepreneur might be there. In the bad scenario that leads to light-weight populism. In the good scenario, if voters are finally genuinly tired of such theatrics, it leads to more responsible policies, and a smaller role for Washington. A plausible third option might be that the global economy recovers well enough, and people worry less about politics, allowing Washington to continue on as usual.

What’s your take?

—

Andra intressanta bloggar om: politik, usa

For quite a while now, the BP oil spill has put barrel upon barrel of oil in the Mexican Gulf. Alex Tabarrok puts the effects — or at least the effects on bird life — into perspective.

Number of birds killed by the BP oil spill: at least 2,188 and counting.

Number of birds killed by wind farms: 10,000-40,000 annually.

Number of birds killed by cars: 80 million annually.

Number of birds killed by cats: Hundreds of millions to 1 billion annually.

Don’t worry there is some good news.

Number of birds killed by fisheries: tens to hundreds of thousands annually (fortunately for the birds, some of these fisheries are now shut down).

Mind you, I’m certainly not claiming the event is insignificant. It isn’t. And I think it’s obvious that BP should pay for the damages they’ve caused (or their insurance company should, if they were insured against this type of thing). And, of course, there are other, presumably worse, environmental effects than dead birds.

Even so, it’s good to put things in perspective.

—

Andra intressanta bloggar om: politik, olja, bp, miljö

Lee Harris has written an essay containing some interesting ideas concerning the concept of natural libertarians. He explains the concept like this:

They knew they couldn’t stand the idea of someone else owning them, someone else telling them what to do or how to think, of someone else bossing them around. They all felt competent to manage their own lives and deeply resented any attempt by other people, including the government, to manage their lives for them. Rightly or wrongly, natural libertarians are firmly convinced that no one else can know their best interests more than they do. They insist on remaining in charge of their own destinies and bristle whenever other people seem intent on taking charge of their lives. Because natural libertarians respect their own independence, they respect the independence of others. They do not aspire to control other people’s lives, but when other people aspire to control theirs, they will resist tooth and nail. The natural libertarian will behave this way not because of an ideology, but because of his or her distinctive attitude towards life.

Arnold Kling offers up some comments, and suggests a test for natural libertarianism.

I think that most people resent being told what to do, and yet such people are not libertarians when it comes to other people being told what to do. I have a stronger criterion for natural libertrianism. When you see other people doing something that really offends you, are you willing to see the state allow that behavior to continue? Only if you can answer “yes” are you a natural libertarian. I think that there are very few natural libertarians.

Would you consider yourself to be a natural libertarian?

I agree with Kling’s view, that there aren’t very many such folks. Personally, while I do have some of the inclinations described in the first quote, and also would pass the test on some issues, on others I most likely wouldn’t. Ultimately, I’d rather stick with the label that is a part of this blog’s name.

—

Andra intressanta bloggar om: politik, ideologi, libertarianism

[T]he flames kindled on the 4 of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.

With Thomas Jefferson’s hopeful message in mind, have a happy 4th of July!

—

Andra intressanta bloggar om: politik, usa, frihet

Non-Swedish readers of this blog who, for some reason, are interested in Swedish politics, would probably enjoy Tino Sanandaji’s guide to the upcoming general election. It covers all the major parties, including a brief historical overview for every one of them, and makes a rather good introduction.

Given the interest in the policies of the Nordic countries, in particular among the American left, articles like this one are very welcome.

—-

Andra intressanta bloggar om: politik, sverige, valet 2010

One of the fundamental insights of economics is that incentives matter, and that therefore, the rules and institutions of society matter too.

A somewhat unusual event demonstrating this, occurred in the 1994 Shell Caribbean Cup. Wikipedia describes the football match between Barbados and Grenada thus:

Grenada went into the match with a superior goal difference, meaning that Barbados needed to win by two goals to progress to the finals. The trouble was caused by two things. First, unlike most group stages in football competitions, the organizers had deemed that all games must have a winner. All games drawn over 90 minutes would go to sudden death extra time. Secondly and most importantly, there was an unusual rule which stated that in the event of a game going to sudden death extra time the goal would count double, meaning that the winner would be awarded a two goal victory.

Barbados was leading 2-0 until the 83rd minute, when Grenada scored, making it 2-1. Approaching the dying moments, the Barbadians realized they had no chance of scoring past Grenada’s mass defense, so they deliberately scored an own goal to tie the game at 2-2. This would send the game into extra time and give them another half hour to break down the defense. The Grenadians realized what was happening and attempted to score an own goal as well, which would put Barbados back in front by one goal and would eliminate Barbados from the competition.

However, the Barbados players started defending their opposition’s goal to prevent them from doing this, and during the game’s last five minutes, the fans were treated to the incredible sight of Grenada trying to score in either goal. Barbados also defended both ends of the pitch, and held off Grenada for the final five minutes, sending the game into extra time. In extra time, Barbados notched the game-winner, and, according to the rules, was awarded a 4-2 victory, which put them through to the next round.

Hat tip goes to Angus, who also provides video evidence.

—-

Andra intressanta bloggar om: fotboll, incitament, ekonomi, lustigheter

Mick Hume puts his finger on why the media coverage from South Africa is annoying:

Either we are lectured by worthy Western journalists about how Africans need money to be spent on bread and houses, not football competitions, thus imposing their own fashionably miserabilist outlook on the masses of the continent. Or else we are invited to clap along with the ‘vibrant’ colours and culture of black South Africans, as they supposedly dance for the tourists like the tame natives of old. Where Rudyard Kipling’s ‘The White Man’s Burden’ branded colonial peoples ‘half devil and half child’, now they are depicted as ‘half helpless victim and half grinning idiot’. Enough with the Afro-nonsense, time to treat them as equals off the pitch in the way other teams now have to do on it.

Slightly related is this series of photographs, depicting people from Malawi. Photographer Duncan McNicholl explains:

We’ve all seen it: the photo of a teary-eyed African child, dressed in rags, smothered in flies, with a look of desperation that the caption all too readily points out.  Some organization has made a poster that tells you about the realities of poverty, what they are doing about it, and how your donation will change things.

I reacted very strongly to these kinds of photos when I returned from Africa in 2008.  I compared these photos to my own memories of Malawian friends and felt lied to.  How had these photos failed so spectacularly to capture the intelligence, the laughter, the resilience, and the capabilities of so many incredible people?

Overall, I think it would be beneficial if journalists put more effort into their stories, rather than simply giving us the images and perspectives we’ve come to expect, and without hiding the problems that plague that part of the world.

—

HT: Jason Kottke
Andra intressanta bloggar om: politik, media, afrika, journalistik

The world cup of football begins on Friday, and while Sweden’s inability to qualify makes it slightly less exciting for me, I’ll still enjoy the games.

If you enjoy the sort of thing, The New Republic’s world cup blog seems like a good place to visit. Via Jason Kottke:

They will write about the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of this tournament, I’m sure. But they will also write about tactics and players and coaches. They have a green light to be as wonky as they want.

I used to enjoy football more when I was younger, but the diving and play acting has taken some of the fun out. Even so, there is a certain beauty to the game, and in a grand setting such as the world cup, memorable moments are bound to occur.

—

Andra intressanta bloggar om: fotboll, vm, sydafrika

As you can see, I’ve done some work on the presentation of the blog. The idea was to go simpler, and make sure as little as possible gets in the way of the actual content. Feel free to let me know whether you like it, and if there are any glitches.

Most likely, I’ll be making small tweaks as I find time. I hope you find it to be an improvement.

I found this remark, via Tyler Cowen:

The iPad makes using a computer less of a commitment and that has important implications for the way I compute. I like how I feel when I am using the thing.

I’ve had mine for a few weeks, and this rings true. I haven’t yet settled into a usage pattern, but I do like it. It subtly changes the experience from, say, browsing on a laptop.

For one thing, it’s much quicker to access. Even if it only shaves off a second or two, it makes a difference. I’m more likely to look things up when a thought pops into my head, than I was before. Overall, I’d say the immediacy of the device is the biggest change it brings.

It’s also more comfortable to read on it. Longer articles, or blogs, benefit from being displayed on a tall and narrow screen.

And it’s great for board games, especially when you sit opposite of your opponent, like in chess.

I’m curious to see where software will take it. But I’ve enjoyed mine so far.

—-

Andra intressanta bloggar om: ipad, teknik