Arnold Kling insightfully asks if an artificial-intelligence personal computer is an oxymoron.
Fiona Harrigan is correct: “Trump’s mass deportation plan is anti-American.” A slice:
Mass deportations would prompt American “business owners to cut back or start fewer new businesses, in some cases shifting their investments to less labor-intensive technologies and industries, while scaling back production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods,” warned George Mason University economist Michael Clemens. “Prior episodes of mass deportations and exclusions” in U.S. history, Clemens continued, have reduced both employment and earnings for American workers “in the short run and long run.”
Interstate emissions and national energy policy are inherently federal issues that must be resolved under federal law by federal courts. Congress decides how to regulate national energy production and interstate emissions and has done so through laws setting standards for pipelines, power plants and other things that use oil and gas. Congress has never passed a law disrupting the balance of state and federal power in this area; nor has it empowered states to impose their own half-baked climate schemes on their neighbors.
GMU Econ alum Ninos Malek warns of the dangers of antitrust. A slice:
Antitrust legislation ostensibly exists to maintain a competitive market economy; however, it is often wielded as a governmental tool to punish success. Not surprisingly, antitrust laws are supported by less successful businesses against their more formidable rivals. In addition, the words control and power are often misused when referring to business activity. Companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are often portrayed as monopolies that exercise control and power. However, this obscures the true essence of what competition really is. Trying to “kill off” one’s competitors is the goal of dominating a market. Attempting to prevent other companies from successfully negotiating deals with rival firms is not anti-competitive. In fact, these are clear examples of real competition. Power and control imply force; in the case of Google and other “tech monopolies,” they cannot force individuals to use their services. Unfortunately, this point is often ignored by standard economics textbooks and economists who label themselves as “free market”-oriented.
“Libertarians booed Donald Trump because he isn’t libertarian.”
Eric Boehm isn’t swallowing Vivek Ramaswamy’s insistence that the nationalism peddled today by the likes of Donald Trump and Robert Lighthizer is nothing more than “national pride and identity.” (Also disagreeing with Ramaswamy is David Henderson – see the comments.)
Wall Street Journal columnist Allysia Finley wants to know what Fauci’s senior adviser, David Morens, was hiding. Two slices:
The Covid pandemic wasn’t government’s finest hour, not least because of a persistent lack of transparency. Emails released last week by the U.S. House reveal how Anthony Fauci’s former top adviser worked to keep the public in the dark and thwart investigations into Covid’s origins.
…..
Dr. Morens noted in another email to Dr. [Gerald] Keusch: “I learned the tricks last year from an old friend, Marg Moore, who heads our FOIA office and also hates FOIAs.” FOIA productions are burdensome, but government officials are required by law to preserve their emails and to conduct government business on government accounts.
Dr. Morens didn’t, and his emails suggest Dr. Fauci might also have used private addresses in this manner. Dr. Morens wrote to Mr. [Peter] Daszak on April 21, 2021: “PS, i forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.”
The next day, Dr. Morens wrote to Dr. Keusch: “If i had to bet, i would guess that beneath Tony’s macho I-am-not-worried reaction he really is concerned. And whatever the case he should be very concerned about what happened to Peter, to our research portfolio in an extremely important area, and to scientific independence.”
Daniel Hadas tweets: (HT Jay Bhattacharya)
Lockdown was a war on society, or a war of society on itself, because it attacked every bond that holds groups of people together, that makes them more than bio-mass sharing the same spaces.
Accordingly, it began by attacking the family, the earliest and tightest bond of all.
