Socialists on Chavez

When Venezuela's Hugo Chavez died, conservatives and libertarians cheered while Democrats mourned. But with so many on America's right decrying Chavez as a socialist, what did the actual self-proclaimed socialists think of him?

Not much. The Socialist Equality Party newsletter, available online at the Bellingham Politics and Economics blog, has this to say about him:

Chavez's nationalist rhetoric, his government's diversion of revenues from the country's protracted oil bonanza to pay for social assistance programs and its forging of extensive economic ties to China earned him the hatred of both Washington and a fascistic ruling class layer in Venezuela. They did not, however--as both he and his pseudo-left supporters claimed--represent a path to socialism.

Chavez was a bourgeois nationalist, whose government rested firmly on the military from which he came and which continues to serve as the crucial arbiter in the affairs of the Venezuelan state.
...
Both the share of the country's economy controlled by the private sector and the portion of national income going to employers as opposed to labor were greater under Chavez than before he took office. An entire new ruling class layer--dubbed the boliburguesia-- was spawned by chavismo, growing rich off of government contracts, corruption and financial speculation.

 While I'm a bit late for commentary on Chavez, I found this interesting, as it is not the first time I've found the Socialist Equality Party agreeing with the conservative mainstream...

Under the Protection of the State

This is absolutely disgusting (ht Bob Murphy, more here and here). Even moreso that it happened here in Washington state. In a nutshell, public schools in Longview didn't know what to do with disabled children when they acted up. So they built specially-designed "isolation rooms" and then they locked children in these padded rooms -- in some cases without parental permission, notification or even internal documentation. Now that they've been found out, the schools are "suspending" the use of solitary confinement in the padded rooms, apparently reserving the right to use them again once the media isn't watching anymore.

Furthermore, the "alternate methods" they plan to use in the meantime (including isolation in non-padded rooms, immobility holds and aversion therapy) aren't going to work either. People with cognitive disabilities don't (usually) act out because they want to be bad. They act out because they have some need that is not being met, and they don't know any other way to have that need met. Sometimes it can take a lot of time and effort to find out what that need is, or to get the person to express the need in a socially-acceptable manner, but that's why the phrase "special needs" was coined in the first place. The problem is that every one of the proposed "alternate methods" to handle these children ignores the unmet need, and therefore guarantees the bad behavior will continue.

But it gets worse. While I try not to talk about my work on this blog, I work at a company that works directly with the disabled. We are very heavily regulated and very closely monitored by the state government to ensure the rights of our disabled clients are not infringed. If we, as a private company, did anything close to what Longview public schools did, we would be shut down immediately.

But Longview public schools, as government institutions, are protected in ways that children in their care are not. As far as I can tell, apparently nothing will be done to the teachers or schools who used the isolation rooms. Police and regulators have done nothing; the only investigation has apparently been led by ABC News and the local ABC affiliate, KATU. The teachers and school administrators who locked children in the padded rooms without parental permission, who failed to notify the parents and who failed to even document the incidents (in violation of state law) will apparently not suffer any consequences at all. And that's just as disgusting as the fact that it happened in the first place.

No on Three Minor Statewide Issues

With exactly a week before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out a bit faster now. So far I've voted yes on I-1185, I-1240 and SJR-8221, approved R-74 and voted no on I-502. Below are three minor statewide issues: SJR-8223 on public fund investments, plus two advisory votes.
 
NO on SJR-8223, Public Fund Investments

The Issue: In general, Washington state public funds are prohibited from investing in private stocks and bonds. Over time, a laundry list of exceptions has been added to the constitution, primarily allowing public trust funds and public pension funds to invest in private stocks and bonds. SJR-8223 would add the operating budgets of the University of Washington and Washington State University to the list of exceptions.

My Position: Using public funds to invest in private companies looks to me like a backdoor way to pick winners and losers with voters none-the-wiser. I think the general prohibition is a great idea, and that we should probably reduce the list of restrictions rather than increase it.

REPEAL A-1, B&O Tax Increase

The Issue: The Washington legislature raised B&O taxes on some financial institutions and lowered taxes for others, including manufacturers of agriculture products and newspapers, for a net 10-year tax increase of $24 million.

My Position: Tax increases in general are bad. This one in particular is worse. It raises taxes on a disfavored industry (finance) by $170 million, and mostly offsets it with cuts to favored industries (agriculture, newspapers). While this is only an advisory vote, I will vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases and against favors to certain industries over others.

REPEAL A-2, Petroleum Tax

The Issue: A tax on certain commercial petroleum products was set to expire, and the Washington legislature extended the expiration date for a 10-year tax increase of $24 million.

My Position: Once again, tax increases are bad. While A-2 is not as bad as A-1, I will still vote to repeal to send a message against tax increases.

Yes on I-1240, Charter Schools

With less than two weeks before my ballot has to be back in the government's hands, I'm filling it out bit by bit. Voting Yes on I-1185 was easy; I-1240 is more difficult.

I-1240, Charter Schools

The Issue: I-1240 would create a "new" type of public school, one managed by a non-religious, non-profit organization, yet funded by the state government. Forty-one other states have adopted charter schools; I-1240 would allow a total of 40 charter schools in Washington. The pro-1240 website is here; the anti-1240 website is here.

My Position: In general, I support increasing school choice. In this particular case, I'm a bit leery for a few reasons. However, any reform that provides more choice is a step in the right direction, so I support I-1240.

My Reservations: I have three main concerns about I-1240:

1) Washington's charter schools will be explicity non-religious. Now under current Supreme Court doctrine, we may not have any other choice, but it still concerns me. If I-1240 passes, Washington will be establishing a program to give tax money to private organizations, and explicitly excluding certain organizations from consideration for that money based soley on religion. (On the other hand, it's not like regular public schools are any better in that regard, and at least I-1240 will expand parental choice.)

2) Washington's charter schools can only be run by non-profits. By removing the profit motive, I-1240 removes one of the best advantages charter schools have over regular public schools. (On the other hand, Washington voters have already rejected charter schools three times. Non-profit charters may be the only kind of charter school we can hope to see here in the near future.)

3) I would prefer a full voucher system that allowed parents the full range of choices for their children's education. (On the other hand, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon, at least not in Washington state.)

Counterarguments: The No-on-1240 side makes four main counterarguments against I-1240, quoted below from the official Argument Against published in the voters' pamphlet:

1) "Charter schools will drain millions of dollars from existing public schools." (Rebuttal: In Washington, public school funding is based on enrollment. If a student enrolls in a different public school, the money follows the student. Charter schools will take money from existing schools only to the extent that parents choose charter schools over existing schools.)

2) "Charter schools will serve only a tiny fraction of our student population." (Rebuttal: Since school funding follows the student, this means that only a tiny fraction of public school money will be taken from existing schools. So what's the problem? I have a hard time taking this counterargument seriously. If the problem is that only a few would benefit, what kind of solution is it to forbid those few from benefiting?)

3) "Charter schools are an unproven, risky gamble." (Rebuttal: Forty-one states plus DC have already adopted charter schools, some more than twenty years ago. You might say compact discs are unproven, risky gambles too. But seriously, regular public schools are a gamble too-- some fail spectacularly. The difference is that you currently can't leave a public school without shelling out thousands to a private school or homeschooling. The parents' option to exit will not only keep charter schools on their toes, but improve performance in non-charter schools as well.)

4) "Charter schools undermine local control." (Rebuttal: I should hope so! If I were a parent, I wouldn't want the local board to have such total control over where I educated my children. I-1240 only undermines "local control" insofar as it restores choice to parents.)

I will be voting YES on I-1240.

Recent Reasons for Optimism Reloaded

I know "Reloaded" was the second movie, and this is my third Recent Reasons for Optimism entry, but... yeah, I don't have a good reason, so on to the optimism! Space news dominated the week, but there are also reasons to be optimistic about agriculture, health and the economy.

1. For starters, Joshua at PostLibertarian has his own list of reasons for optimism, including SpaceX's success with the Falcon 9, Cubify's new 3D printer and the lowering of legal hurdles for driverless cars. Also check out his previous reasons for optimism, including lower child mortality and improving technologies, among others.

2 Speaking of space, SpaceX has also just signed their first commercial contract for the Falcon Heavy rocket. The Falcon Heavy is basically three Falcon 9's strapped together. When completed, it will be able to take 58.5 tons into orbit, more than double the shuttle's 26.8 tons at less than a quarter of the cost.

3. SpaceX isn't the only good news in space. A company in the UK has announced plans (ht One Per Cent) to launch nanosatellites that, once in orbit, can dock with each other in novel configurations. One of the benefits would be easier in-orbit upgrades to satellites equipped with the technology. In a perfect example of the Matt Ridley quote in the sidebar here, the nanosatellites would use Kinect cameras to sense each other and make docking possible. "The more we invent, the more inventions become possible."

4. Just one more about space: Virgin Galactic has been granted an FAA permit for the first rocket-powered tests of SpaceShipTwo, which will eventually carry tourists into space. They plan to begin those tests this year, with an eye to actual tourist flights starting in 2013-2014.

5. The Free Exchange blog at The Economist reviews two recent books, one painting a picture of an America in decline, the other the opposite. In blogger R.A.'s words, "To spin a story of decline, one has to demonstrate that policies are considerably worse than they used to be, and that they're unlikely to improve. It's actually quite difficult to do this." While there are looming problems, R.A. says, "these issues, and other worries as well, are not being ignored or greeted with complacency," and "American innovation is proving as impressive as ever."

6. Two studies covered at World Climate Report (ht @mattwridley) portend good news for crop yields. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide helps rice out-compete weeds and encourages more photosynthesis in wheat. Higher temperatures also improve wheat water use efficiency. The scientists predicted that by 2050, global warming would raise wheat yields by about 5.8% in lower altitudes and more than 10% in higher altitudes.

7. A ten-year-old girl, Sammie Hicks, was until recently only able to hear with a hearing aid. In April, she was given a cochlear implant and recorded for Youtube the moment it was finally turned on in May. She jumps as the sounds come in, and adjusts to hearing herself breathe for the first time. In the video, she starts crying, and later said, "It was overwhelming. But the reason I really cried? I couldn’t believe all the stuff I was missing." In a later video, she talks about hearing pencils writing at school, and the wind on her way home.

8. Paralyzed rats with "severe spinal injuries" were effectively cured of their paralysis, regaining the ability to walk after 2-3 weeks and achieving "100% recuperation" after 5-6 weeks of treatment, including a special stimulating device and the ratty equivalent of physical therapy. A similar treatment for humans could be available within just a year or two.

9. The plural of anecdotes is not data. However, anecdotally, in my little corner of the world, the economy seems to be improving. People I know who have been unemployed, some for a very long time, over the last few weeks have been finding jobs. Walking down the street this past week, I've seen "Now Hiring" signs in the windows of local businesses. There are fresh faces working at businesses I frequent, and even the local mall is expanding.

10. With Friday's disappointing employment numbers from the establishment survey, you'd be forgiven for thinking the economic data is all doom and gloom. However, the household survey told a different story. While the establishment survey measured only 69k new jobs, the more-accurate household survey picked up 422k.  Even the establishment survey looks better when you look at the private sector, which is where we want the growth to happen anyway. And while the unemployment rate ticked up from 8.1% to 8.2%, this was because the labor force grew by 642k as the long-term non-employed start looking for work again. That's not a bad thing!

11. Finally, a note on optimism itself. The CultureLab blog at New Scientist interviews Elaine Fox, author of the book Rainy Brain, Sunny Brain. Fox believes that we can retrain our brains to become more optimistic. She also cites research on the benefits of optimism, saying, "The research shows that, as long as they are realists too, people who have an optimistic mindset and feel like they are able to cope when things do go wrong benefit in all sorts of ways. The evidence is also quite strong now that an optimistic mindset is beneficial for our health. People with optimistic mindsets are also more successful in business, and seem to live longer."

The SpaceX Launch

Tomorrow, the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, better known as SpaceX, will, if all goes well, launch the first private cargo ship to the International Space Station. Many, including me, are hailing the upcoming launch as a triumph for the private space industry. To be fair, however, it's not exactly an entirely private enterprise. SpaceX has, to date, received $381 million in taxpayer money from NASA. Success tomorrow means another $15 million from NASA in their current contract, as well as another contract worth about $1,600 million to deliver future NASA payloads to the ISS.

Given the costs involved, and the public-private nature of what SpaceX is doing, some on the right have begun to criticize the company and even the NASA program under which they're operating. The Republican-led US House Appropriations Committee recently released a report comparing SpaceX and other NASA-funded private space companies to Solyndra, the failed, government-backed solar power company.

As someone who leans libertarian yet also supports the NASA-SpaceX partnership, I think it's important to confront this criticism. While SpaceX is, effectively, a government-sponsored enterprise, it's important to remember the direction of movement here. Compare space exploration to other government-dominated industries, and you'll see what I mean.

Solar
Prior to government spending on renewable energy in the past few years, solar power got some government help in the form of individual tax credits, but it was primarily a private industry. In the last few years, solar production has been growing exponentially, driven almost entirely by government subsidies. Solyndra was just one example of a general move from a small, private industry to a large, government-supported industry.

Mortgages
Housing finance through mortgages was a private industry from America's founding until the New Deal created Fannie Mae in 1938. Freddie Mac came along later in 1970, and both remained government-backed privately-owned companies until the 2008 financial crisis. The current federal government conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie completes a decades-long move from a wholly private to a government-run mortgage industry.

Autos
Despite licensing requirements and safety regulations, auto companies have been wholly private enterprises for many decades. That came to an end with the 2008 financial crisis and the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, in which the US and Canadian governments became minority stockholders of both companies. Since there have been efforts to back these governments out of ownership roles since then, and since Ford and indeed the Asian auto companies never went bankrupt in the first place, this is hopefully not part of a general movement from private to public. However, it is at least a temporarily public ownership of a typically private industry.

Space
In contrast to the solar, mortgage and auto industries, space has never been a private industry. The first launch into space was done by the Soviet government. Until 2004, every human being who had ever gone to space had been sent by one government or another. Far from taking over a previously private industry, NASA's partnership with SpaceX is part of a general move from public to private.

While conservatives and libertarians are right to criticize the movements from private to public in the solar, mortgage and auto industries, it's a mistake to lump in with those the space industry's movement from public to private. It's true that the space industry continues to be almost entirely public, and it will be years or possibly even decades before private sources of revenue outpace public sources in space. However, the NASA-SpaceX partnership is the next, necessary step down the road to an independently profitable private space industry. It is in this context that we should view SpaceX-- not as a private contractor feasting on government largesse, or a crony capitalist waste of taxpayer dollars, but as a necessary step in the privatization of space.

EDIT: I just came across this quote from Phil McAlister, NASA Commercial Spaceflight Development Director, that I think is appropriate to add: "Once we get the private sector out there, there will be no turning back. [Spaceflight] will no longer be subject to the prevailing political winds. It will just push further and further out, no more looking backwards, only looking forwards."

Everything We Hold of Value

The company Planetary Resources, and their plans to mine asteroids for gold, platinum and water, have been all over the news and the blogosphere the past few days. Now that I've stopped jumping up and down in excitement, here are a few thoughts I've had.

I) This is yet another piece of evidence to counter Tom Murphy's idea that the space age is over. As such, it's also another piece of evidence against his idea that growth must stop.

II) The announcement came just days after the space shuttle Discovery's last flight over DC on her way to the Smithsonian, and while the other shuttles are still being sent out to their final resting places. I can think of no better timing-- and indeed, maybe this was intentional-- to symbolize the transition from public to private. Space exploration is no longer the sole domain of government. As the private sector takes over, the industry will grow like never before.

III) The venture very well may fail. As the New York Times notes, it wouldn't be the first time a company had aimed to mine asteroids only to fail before getting there. That kind of thing happens in the private sector. It also happens in the public sector, with one very important difference. When Solyndra failed, it took with it my money, as well as yours, if you're an American taxpayer. The continuing failure of the United States Postal Service keeps taking taxpayer money with no end in sight. But if Planetary Resources fails, the only people who will lose money are those who are running it.

IV) One piece of evidence cited by reporters and bloggers as a reason they'll fail is NASA's upcoming OSIRIS-REx mission, which is spending a billion dollars to bring back just two ounces of material from a near-Earth asteroid. If they succeed, it will be an amazing example of the private sector's ability to do the same thing government does only cheaper. And even if they fail, they will surely develop some technologies along the way that will make things easier and cheaper for NASA's next asteroid mission, as well as the rest of the private space industry.

V) If they succeed, the added supply of gold will wreak havoc on any country using gold as a base for their currency. Anyone who still wants to go back to the gold standard needs to convince themselves that Planetary Resources-- and any successor companies-- will fail.

VI) In related news, a Canadian company recently got its first customer for material mined from the bottom of the sea near Papua New Guinea, with what they say is the "world's first commercial sea-floor mine." They're planning to begin operations in 2013. With mining on the bottom of the sea and in space, in a couple decades everything we now think is rare will be plentiful.

I'll close this with a quote from Peter Diamandis, one of the billionaires backing this enterprise: "If you look back historically at what has caused humanity to make its largest investments in exploration and in transportation, it has been going after resources, whether it's the Europeans going after the spice routes or the American settlers looking toward the west for gold, oil, timber or land. Those precious resources caused people to make huge investments in ships and railroads and pipelines. Looking to space, everything we hold of value on Earth - metals, minerals, energy, real estate, water - is in near-infinite quantities in space."