I pointed out in a talk on C-SPAN in late 2001 that one should be skeptical of government running airline security when that same government still requires that flight attendants show you how to fasten a seat belt.

From 1790 until 1913, the dollar lost 8 percent of its value. Since the Fed’s creation in 1913, however, the dollar has lost (so far) an additional 95 percent of its value. Given that one of the Fed’s mandates is to maintain price stability, such inflation is hardly evidence of successful performance.

Look, everyone knows that completing and implementing big trade agreements like KORUS or NAFTA (or the WTO’s Doha Round) requires strong leadership from the top. The President alone has the platform to debunk the myriad protectionist myths out there and to champion the national interest over insular constituent politics. But in order to do this, he must have both the ability and desire to take on partisan protectionists, loudly advocate free trade, and then actually advance and implement the trade liberalization policies that he champions. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had that ability/desire, and they backed up their rhetoric with action. So far, Barack Obama hasn’t.

So long as China keeps bringing its checkbook to U.S. Treasury bond auctions, it is beyond idiotic for Obama and other U.S. politicians to keep giving China the finger. This is no way to treat America’s lead international banker. Rather than scream like hungry infants about Chinese exports, Obama and like-minded American officials should stare in the mirror and ask themselves this: How has big government made the U.S. so uncompetitive that it is more economical for American companies to abandon domestic factories and, instead, manufacture in a nominally Communist country on the opposite side of the planet?

For some reason, Americans tend to be complacent about our business climate. In fact, the same laws of economics that apply to Ireland and every other country also apply to us. We are, in many ways, not as competitive as we should be. Our sky-high corporate income taxes and outrageously progressive personal taxes are among a number of factors that seriously inhibit economic growth.

somebody will have to consume less as the baby boomers retire. Either the younger generation will pay more in taxes, giving them less consumption opportunities. Or the older generation will have less in benefits. Or some other government service will be cut to fund the benefits, in which case the generational impact depends on what gets cut (if it’s Medicare, the old folks have to pay for more of their own health care and get to consume less other stuff; if it’s everything else, it’s probably mostly non-elderly that get to consume less.)

I wonder if the Fed is not trying to fix a modern 2010 economy with tools made in the ’50s, based on theories based in the writings of a bunch of dead white guys. They were smart guys, I give you that. But times have changed. And our measurement tools seem flawed to me.

What looks like a small, sensible reform to someone not involved in lobbying takes on enormous significance to the lobbying group. Thus, seemingly sensible reforms that both parties might support can be as difficult to enact as more comprehensive measures. Again, this is also true for trying to trim public sector employee compensation or for trying to reform entitlements. The lobbyists fight small reforms just as vigorously as they fight larger changes.

Cognitive dissonance is the phenomenon whereby people hold two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time. I think I’ve discovered the secret of political success in California. That is, you promise two contradictory ideas at the same time: i.e., we will balance the budget by not cutting spending or raising taxes. Apparently my fellow Californians are willing to accept this. Maybe that is why we are an overwhelmingly Democratic state, the home of Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and Barbara Boxer. Meg Whitman never had a chance.