Category Archives: ethics

It’s Not A New Idea

Posted on by
Reply

Adam Smith articulated it two and a half centuries ago, for instance.

The prudent man always studies seriously and earnestly to understand whatever he professes to understand, and not merely to persuade other people that he understands it; and though his talents may not always be very brilliant, they are always perfectly genuine. He neither endeavours to impose upon you by the cunning devices of an artful impostor, nor by the arrogant airs of an assuming pedant, nor by the confident assertions of a superficial and impudent pretender.

 

h/t The Wall Street Journal

No Fly Lists and Guns

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama said in his Oval Office speech Sunday evening that it’s insane to let people on the DHS No Fly List have access to guns. Obama also said that it’s wrong to operate on the basis of suspicion and hate.

While folks on the No Fly list aren’t necessarily objects of hatred, they are targets of suspicion. But that’s all they are. They’ve done nothing, and they’ve not been convicted for anything—other than of being objects of suspicion. Stephen Hayes was on the No Fly list; he’s a target of suspicion solely because he’s an Evil Conservative and an Evil Journalist. DHS employees are on the No Fly list. They’re targets of suspicion because…? Then-Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA) was on the No Fly list. Say, what?

What none of these suspicious persons have been through, though, is Due Process. Not being able to fly into the US does not block them from entering the US; it just inconveniences them: they have to travel via other means. Not being able to have access to firearms is more than an inconvenience, regardless of one’s view of gun control. That denial is a blanket denial of one’s access to one’s Constitutional rights, and that requires a due process proceeding first.

What’s insane is denial of due process, of violating the law, whenever that becomes inconvenient. What’s insane is operating on suspicion rather than the law. What’s insane is decrying operating on suspicion while operating on the suspicion of a government List.

“Retail Investor”

Posted on by
Reply

The Left’s new obfuscatory synonym for “dumb Americans.”

US securities regulators, under pressure to demonstrate they have a handle on potential risks in the asset-management industry, are about to crack down on the use of derivatives in certain funds sold to the public, worried that some products are too precarious for retail investors.

Because us dumb Americans are just too ignorant to make our own investment decisions. We need the Progressive Know Betters to tell us how we should make some investments, and to deny us access to other investments.

[U]nder pressure to demonstrate they have a handle on potential risks in the asset-management industry: this is actually the problem. The securities regulators, themselves, have no idea of the risks of derivatives. They showed this risk all through the Panic of 2008, and they’ve done nothing substantive to correct their failure.

If these regulators were serious about the precariousness of (some) derivatives, they’d require the chaining of them and the arithmetic underlying them to be made public so that all investors—institutional and dumb Americans retail alike—could make our own assessments. Without Big Government Know Better interference.

The Pseudo-Logic of the Climatistas

Posted on by
1

Fat Head has a piece about the climate by Tom Naughton (the head fat head); it’s well worth the read.

What’s interesting to me, though, is his comment in the comment stream of his post.

Penn & Teller got hundreds of people at a environmental conference to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide—including the “science” information officer.

The real problem with this is that P&T ignored the at least equally pervasive problem of hydrogen hydroxyl. This extremely dangerous chemical already is pervasive in our atmosphere, in our lakes and rivers, and in our oceans. If allowed to accumulate too much in our oceans, in particular, it’ll lead to relative desalination of those critical waters, poisoning salt water life, right down to the sea water dependent single-celled organisms that are the very foundation of Gaia’s life-bearing ecology.

Why didn’t that Science Information Officer call P&T on this danger, instead of meekly signing their limited petition? It’s for the planet, after all, and all the children who live on it.

More Government Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

This time, by the Federal Reserve Bank. As most of you already know, the Fed runs “stress tests” to determine whether financial institutions can survive an economic dislocation of the magnitude of the Panic of 2008. Among other things, if the institution fails the stress, the Fed dictates to the institution the dividends it will be allowed to pay until the conditions leading to the alleged failure are corrected.

That’s a serious overreach; it is a government entity presuming to intrude itself into a private enterprise decision, a decision that the free market is fully capable of sanctioning or accepting without Big Government involvement.

It’s worse than that, though. Fed Board of Governors member Daniel Tarullo has exposed the more massive overreach.

Even though we do not publicly release the models, we have put systems in place to ensure oversight and accountability[.]

The Fed uses non-peer reviewed, secret models to make its assessments. Because of that secretiveness, we have no way of assessing the adequacy of the Fed’s “oversight and accountability” of those models. We also have no way of assessing the accuracy—even the legitimacy—of those models.

Tarullo’s excuse?

…disclosing the models could give banks an opportunity to game them….

Because the financial institutions don’t already game the system. Like nobody ever games any system. No, of course we do. It’s what competition does. Gaming—free market competition—is innovation, prosperity production. And, yes, the instability of creative destruction, which leads to breakout innovation and prosperity production.

It’s a disingenuous excuse for a disingenuous practice. The deliberate lack of transparency of this arm of the Big Government is of a piece with the general secretiveness of this Big Government.

It’s necessary secretiveness, however. If the public knew more about these models, knew something of how they work (or fail to work), we might do more than force corrections to them. We might do away with the Fed’s interference in private business decisions altogether, and that would reduce the power of the men in Big Government.