Anti-Discrimination Act (Great White Sharks) 2011

Reddit

Last weekend’s Daily Reckoning turned out to be suspiciously popular. We’ll try harder this time.

This week, let’s take on the right wing of politics. Although it’s not really clear what that actually is. Conservative? Fascist? Nationalist? Heck, some call themselves liberals. Sorry… ‘Liberals’. Which is the opposite of liberal, right?

Dizzy yet?

It’s pretty difficult to hit a moving target, so let us know your definition of ‘right’ at dr@dailyreckoning.com.au and we’ll expose the flaws next week. Until then, how about a third option?

If you find yourself too confused to stick to the one team, left or right, why not analyse each issue as it comes? Sounds novel, but you’ll soon find yourself with remarkably consistent conclusions. Far more consistent than either the left or the right.

That’s because both sides advocate doing something to other people. They want to redistribute wealth, fight wars, prevent producers from polluting, define marriage, prohibit immoral and unhealthy practices, regulate voluntary exchanges and kiss babies.

Nobody ever asks the baby. But maybe it doesn’t want to be kissed by the person who will tax it, send it to die in a foreign country, stop it from making stuff, tell it who it can or can’t marry, influence or define what it can eat, drink and otherwise ingest – and, worst of all, determine what it can agree to.

There is a moral, ethical and philosophical argument against all this interfering. But that’s not what convinced your editor to reject the left and the right. At least initially. It’s the hopelessness of their cause. You may think starvation in Africa is bad. But sending aid just makes the problem bigger. You may think workers are being exploited. But minimum wage laws only make jobs disappear. You may think discrimination in the workplace is wrong. But creating laws against it discourages employers from hiring people from minority groups. The list of failed interferences is endless.

What were the notable policies of the past few years? Were any of them successful? Only if you have the wrong definition of success. Think of it this way: If it were a good idea, it would have been done voluntarily. Instead, it had to be done with the threat of force. Either a fine or prison for anyone who objected.

The saddest part of all this is that politicians don’t know when to give up and go home. In that sense, they have the same outlook on life as central bankers. (And the opposite of people in the private sector.) The interventionists all advocate doing more intervening when their intervention – thus far – hasn’t worked. It usually exacerbates the problem. Albert Einstein defined insanity as ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’.

People have repeatedly been quoting him ever since.

On the other side of things, an Australian businessman of the year once said  his motto was ‘if it works, multiply the sh*t out of it’. Unsuccessful business people don’t last. And in business, you know exactly what success is: Profit – which is defined as serving your customers so well they will pay you more than it costs to provide the service.

Apart from that, if your accountant promises not to charge you for something called a ‘carbon tax’ or ‘GST’ and then does, you have all sorts of contractual remedies. They have breached the contract between you. Try suing a politician for their broken promise. And what about all the laws we live under but never agreed to? When did you agree to pay a flood levy?

For those of you who think a world with hardly any government would simply shift power elsewhere, you’d be right. Buy only to the extent that it benefitted people. Companies need profit to survive, which means they need customers, which means they need to be beneficial to their customers. Looking at the alternative, we know unbridled democracy leads to a welfare state. But who has the power in that kind of democracy? The majority or the rich?

Companies don’t vote, but they sure seem to get a lot of government cash when they kick up a fuss. Again, something the taxpayer never agreed to.

Not to worry though. Debt levels are maxing out. On a global scale. And the interventionists will run out of other people’s money soon. In the meantime, they are keeping busy. Taxing, banning, regulating and investigating.

At least you can give politicians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentions. Statisticians that call themselves economists should get less leeway. Together, they are a disastrous duo. Here’s an example of the kind of economic theory politicians base policy on:

Men are nine times more likely to be attacked by a Great White shark than women’.

Before you know it, the government will be implementing the Anti- Discrimination Act (Great White Sharks) 2011.

The idea that great white sharks discriminate is of course rubbish. Men are just more likely to be surfing and swimming. But the headline makes you believe otherwise. It doesn’t say ‘any part of the population disproportionately represented in the number of swimmers and surfers are more likely to get attacked by sharks’. Instead, the headline makes you think that a shark, presented with a choice of a female and male dinner, will choose the male. And politics is based on headlines. Not just because of populism and the media. But also because the kind of economist who is willing to back up their statistic rubbish with policy advice is the kind that gets to give policy advice. In the case of shark food, this would be the economist who comes up with idea of a compulsory sex change for professional male surfers. Occupational health and safety is a serious issue. On that note, there are going to be huge changes to Australia’s OHS legislation from 1 January 2012. If you need to find out how to prepare for them, click here.

Anyway, the female economist that goes swimming with sharks, believing her sex makes her safe, is a plonker.

It’s a silly example. But no less stupid than many of the statistics we base policy on. For example, inequality statistics show that the distribution of income is widening. What is rarely mentioned is income mobility. Someone in the bottom 20% might have moved to the top 20% of income earners the next year. But the statistics won’t show that. The policy solution to unequal distributions of income are to have progressive tax rates. The effect of this is to reduce the income mobility – the very thing that allows the poor to get rich.

The inherent problem with using statistics to reach conclusions is that it’s impossible to adjust for all the other pressures that might affect whatever you’re measuring. So if black people earn less money, a statistician will conclude blacks are stupid or are discriminated against. Only one of those two conclusions will get a statistician a job, so that’s the one they pick. But the conclusions they have reached are completely invalid without adjusting for all sorts of variables. Age and work experience are two non-controversial examples. If blacks have a lower age on average, they are likely to earn less on average. It’s pretty much impossible to actually adjust for all the variables. And many aren’t really measurable.

One way to work around this is to select your data set more carefully. So, if you choose blacks and whites of the same age, education and all other similarities you can come up with, you might be able to discover something. Economist Thomas Sowell (who is African-American) does this type of analysis. From memory, he concluded that blacks and women of precisely comparable characteristics to whites and men earn more, not less, than their counterparts.

For more information on the nature of government’s lost causes, check out these videos. Or just read the newspapers.

Nick Hubble
Daily Reckoning Australia Weekend

Nick Hubble
Nick Hubble is a feature editor of The Daily Reckoning and editor of The Money for Life Letter. Having gained degrees in Finance, Economics and Law from the prestigious Bond University, Nick completed an internship at probably the most famous investment bank in the world, where he discovered what the financial world was really like. He then brought his youthful enthusiasm and energy to Port Phillip Publishing, where, instead of telling everyone about The Daily Reckoning, he started writing for it. To follow Nick's financial world view more closely you can you can subscribe to The Daily Reckoning for free here. If you’re already a Daily Reckoning subscriber, then we recommend you also join him on Google+. It's where he shares investment research, commentary and ideas that he can't always fit into his regular Daily Reckoning emails.
Reddit

Comments

  1. Excellent Nick. Since acquiring a driver license (22years ago) I have disagreed with people who say flying is safer than driving based on statistics. What if we break drivers down in to groups based on sex, age, drug and alcohol users etc.
    Scientific process is used to support government policy however in reality the process can be tweaked to give whatever results one desires.
    My own science (aka search for truth) says human nature ensures everything that can be corrupted for gain, will be corrupted for gain.

    Reply
  2. A minimum wage is a bad thing!

    “You may think workers are being exploited. But minimum wage laws only make jobs disappear.”

    You make a bold and dogmatic claim, yet provide no evidence to support it.

    In reality in order to prevent exploitation, there should be a ‘maximum’ wage too.

    Ownership and stewardship are totally different. I do not propose the restriction of the rights of Business Owners, just those fortunate enough to be tasked with running someone elses (in fact ours via our pension contributions and investments) Business.

    If a job is worth someone spending thier time to make something or to provide someone with a service, then it is worthy to provide the means to support that persons’ family and thier asperations.

    In today’s society we have two salary races. A race to the top by those that exploit the rest via their positions of authority and self annointment, and a race to the bottom for those who are exploited by the ever better paid. These are the people that actually do the work that others benefit from and whom would loathe to have to do themselves. These people ‘are’ the wealth generators and should be respected and be sharing in the rewards.

    I would advise you Nick, if you harbour this one viewpoint as you stated, you are very much Right Wing/Conservative and you should have no doubts.

    Reply
  3. Ah, nasty old rhetoric, the art of bull and spin, stuffing up the world again. English teachers are to blame, for teaching their little pets too well and the rest of the class not well enough to cut through their crap. We should punish them all: take away their Wuthering heights novels and scrabble boards and force them all into mathematics and logic study camps!

    But seriously, to me it’s weirdly ironic that you mention both disability legislation and OHS regulation in a subject about misuse of regulation making process. It makes me wonder if you know something more? I reckon some legislation makers/influencers in these two areas truly are abusers of language and the law-making process. They do it to get the legislation they want despite clear lack of evidence. So when I spotted your headline about disability law and sharks, my jaw dropped a little, as I initially thought for a second, “Oh my, they’ve really gone too far now”.

    Reply
  4. We know we have a very poor democracy. However, the technology is now at our fingertips to have a more representative democracy. Real votes on line! After a few false starts it wouldn’t take long for the continuously voting publis to make sensible choices about what taxes are needed for what services, which wars are worth dying for etc.

    The Governor General and State Governors could be given the power to call elections and to remove politicians who act outside their written mandate.

    Then you can forget about right vs left politics!

    Reply
  5. I’m more of a believer in small and nimble benign dictatorships myself. Now, where can we find a small and nimble benign dictator?

    Nathan Chattaway
    July 11, 2011
    Reply
  6. If you want to live in a society that taxes at a low level and is relatively “neutral” in its approach to control of its citizens, then you might like to try Singapore or Hong Kong where the tax rate is a low 20% on all citizens and standards of living are among the highest in the world.

    Unfortunately thee “benevolent? dictatorship” whic runas these economies
    is most certainly corrupt at many levels. However, standards of living for most citizens are relatively high. Just don’t try to “rock the boat” in your living practices, you could get badly hurt.

    Greg.

    Reply
  7. “You may think workers are being exploited. But minimum wage laws only make jobs disappear.”

    Really??

    To add to Joe’s comment.

    Ever heard of the 80/20 rule in business?
    Applies to economies too.
    How to get rid of the 20% dead-beat employers to increase efficiency and productivity? How to allocate capital to the most efficient users (or are the banks better at “picking winners (eg Bond, Skase)” than government)?
    How to ensure their employees do not carry them to the detriment of the economy?
    A minimum wage!

    There has been very little increase in America’s minimum wage for, how many years?
    America the engine of employment growth? In China maybe and all driven by debt because wages are so low in both countries.
    Finally, with a decent minimum wage, demand is created at the bottom where it is needed and gives more certainty in the payment of debt, unless people get really sucked in by the banks.

    Jim

    Reply
  8. Nickolai, maybe you should accept that your are right thinking individual. Even though you clearly reject being labelled. (a sure sign of a right thinker)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au