In one of my recent blog posts, I discussed the work of NYU economist William Easterly. In particular, I noted how his work on the pitfalls of modern economic development planning bear a striking resemblance to the work and ideas of F. A. Hayek and James M. Buchanan.

Easterly makes a distinction between “planners” versus “searchers” in development activities. According to Easterly, a “planner” is someone who “thinks he already knows the answers.” A “searcher,” meanwhile, is someone who “admits he doesn’t know the answers in advance; he believes that poverty is a complicated triangle of political, social, historical, institutional and technological factors” (page 6 of The White Man’s Burden). For Easterly, the world of development is full of planners. I contend this argumentation relates directly to F. A. Hayek’s discussion of top-down economic planning. Just as central planners cannot possess the knowledge necessary to plan economy, development planners face similar knowledge problems.

Easterly also argues that the world of development planning is plagued with incentive problems. The incentives faced by recipient governments, various government and non-government organizations, etc. often lead to perverse outcomes. This line of thinking draws heavily on the ideas of James Buchanan and the larger body of work on public choice economics.

Peace on earth, goodwill
Sounds ideal to you and me
MICC has other plan

Leaving the movie theater after watching Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, I was wondering if the “one off”—a story that is within the Star Wars universe but is independent from the nine core films (Episodes I through IX)—might really be the recipe needed to reboot the franchise. The move to Disney Studios likely helped reinvigorate the movies (if not the story itself), and Rogue One, unlike the other episodes in the grander saga, embodies the feel and tightness of a complete movie. Solid performances by the cast, a storyline that keeps a brisk pace, and directing that maintains consistent forward momentum have produced a film that is an enjoyable and rousing action yarn. This is no small feat given that the vast majority of the audience knows, or at least suspects, the ending.

Rogue One centers on a missing link between Revenge of the Sith (Episode III), which sees the construction of the planet destroying super weapon Death Star, and A New Hope (Episode IV), which chronicles the rise of Luke Skywalker as the Jedi Knight in training who harnesses the Force to destroy it. In Rogue One, we meet Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), the scientist who reluctantly designs and oversees the construction of the Death Star, and discover how the Rebel Alliance secures the plans to destroy it. The story hinges on Galen’s daughter, Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), who was hidden from the Galactic Empire, rescued by, and then ultimately abandoned by, rebel leader Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker). Jyn is a criminal in route to a work camp when she is “rescued” by the rebels, who want her to find her father. They know about the construction of the Death Star and her father’s role, and they see his daughter as the key to finding him and stopping its construction. Thrown into the mix is Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), a Rebel Alliance intelligence officer, who is secretly ordered to kill Galen Erso when they find him.

The film does an excellent job of taking the audience through a linear sequence of scenes and episodes, reintroducing well-known and little-known characters from the epic in ways that should please die-hards without weighing the film down for those less familiar with the details of the epic. Despite dozens of characters entering, reappearing, and leaving the story, many have clearly defined character arcs that allow audiences to connect with them. This gives the characters heart, if not a deeper spiritual soul. Even supporting players such as stoic, rebel veteran Saw Gerrera and the defecting Imperial pilot Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed) find their characters changed in meaningful ways by the events and the heroism elicited from the challenges they face. The more intriguing characters include Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen), a blind warrior who believes in the Force, and his friend and mercenary rebel Baze Malbus (Jian Wen). The two characters play off each other well, and they embody the nascent and untapped potential of the rebellion along with the implications of applying a naive and untrained understanding of the Force.

In fact, Rogue One is an artful example of how multiple characters evolve along these different arcs in ways that serve the story and the film, and, ultimately, see their own destiny in working with and respecting others in service to a higher purpose (the defeat of the Galactic Empire). Through its focus on individuals and these relationships, the story plays on the development of individuals, their relationships, and the bonding that comes from understanding and evolving mutual respect. This is one of the few movies in the Star Wars saga where I left the theater with a slight sadness about not seeing these characters again. The tightness of the story, pace, and character development benefited from the discipline needed to constrain the story to a normal length feature film (about two hours), and the experience is richer for it.

What is missing from Rogue One, in my view, is a new understanding or exploration into the soul of the saga. Perhaps the movie doesn’t need one to be good, or even excellent. We already know that this is a story of a heroes versus villains, Jedi Knights versus an authoritarian empire, individual courage against collective repression. These stories play out on a grand scale in the original nine episodes of Star Wars. (For libertarian takes on these themes, see articles by software developer Russell Hassan, Ilya Somin’s podcast here, and here, among just a few.) This soul, however, is what captures the imaginations of many in the libertarian movement as well as triggers numerous debates over its content. A new look at how this soul manifests itself in the Rebellion would have deepened the film. Ironically, Rogue One could have provided this through the evolution of the relatively minor characters of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus as well as Saw Gerrara’s decision to break from the Alliance.

My own views probably map closely with those of Amy Sturgis (see her excellent essay in Reason magazine here), who has discussed ways the sprawling Star Wars universe has facilitated broad, cultural myth building around an anti-authoritarian ethic, despite the creator’s ambivalence toward capitalism or a truly libertarian understanding of freedom. George Lucas may be a skeptic, but his story focuses on how individuals work together to fight totalitarianism. The emphasis on individual identity in service to a larger public good gives some libertarians pause, but the central thrust of the story in still focused on protecting individual freedom. Rogue One adds to this by highlighting and honoring the courage and sacrifices of individuals with smaller parts in the overall universe, but whose actions have profound implications for the outcome.

“In the end, Star Wars doesn’t say anything profoundly new, or even say it in a stunningly original way,” writes Sturgis on the saga in general.

“It is a saga with global underpinnings, one that echoes the classical epics that first gave shape to what mythologist Joseph Campbell dubbed the Hero’s Journey. But the true genius of Star Wars rests in how it distills recent popular culture down to its most potent symbols, such as the cowboy or the samurai or Flash Gordon himself. Furthermore, it’s a “working myth” that carries a sense of history and message of substance with which to challenge contemporary audiences. What we’ve seen thus far during the Disney era of the franchise suggests that the most interesting days of Star Wars storytelling are far from over.”

I agree, but would add that in the hands of good filmmakers it makes an excellent and satisfying ride. Rogue One hopefully foretells many more similarly engaging and entertaining films to come from Disney studios.

The Colombian government recently “persuaded” food producers to agree to have the prices of some of their goods “frozen.” Soon the prices of products like red meat, fish, dairy, eggs, grains, and processed foods will be set by the Colombian government. Once imposed, producers of these goods will be unable to raise their prices.

According to Colombia’s Agricultural Minister, Aurelio Iragorri, the measure is intended to achieve food security following price fluctuations over the past several months.

On this blog I’ve discussed how the price system is fundamentally important. Only via the mechanisms of private property rights, prices, and profit and loss can resources be allocated to their highest valued use.

But these facts of economics don’t always make people happy. As I explain to my principles students, sometimes everyday citizens and government officials look at the prices of particular items and don’t like what they see. They think some prices are either “too high” or “too low.” As a result, government will attempt to “fix” these “wrong” prices by imposing a price control. In the case that a price is deemed to be “too low,” governments will impose what’s called a price floor, setting the minimum price that consumers must pay for a particular good or service. The most common example of this type of price control is the minimum wage.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has published a chart showing how health-benefit costs among private employers have increased over the past decade. The chart shows health benefits increased from 6.9 percent of total compensation in September 2006 to 7.6 percent last September. The 0.7 percentage point absolute increase is a relative increase of ten percent.

The chart shades the period of the Great Recession (December 2007 through June 2009), after which health benefits as a share of total compensation really jump. This increase is counter-intuitive, because health benefits are stickier than wages, so they would normally have shrunk as a share of total compensation as wages caught up.

President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. It is hard to determine the ACA’s effect at any single point after that date, because its regulations dripped out over the years. The exchanges, which heavily subsidized individual health insurance, began providing coverage in January 2014. The establishment of exchanges would have encouraged employers to “dump” their employees into them.

King Donald the First

A bad reality show

Say it ain’t so, Joe

President Obama signed the 21^st Century Cures Act on December 13. Promoted as a pro-innovation bill, the new law will improve the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory processes; as well as fund Vice-President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, the National Institutes of Health, and steps to reduce the opioid epidemic.

However, the final version of the bill also included an important payment reform: Significantly expanding the use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) by small businesses. The Affordable Care Act limited employers’ use of these funding vehicles. The IRS promulgated rules levying an excise tax of up to $100 per employee per day.

The advantage of HRAs and similar funding vehicles is that they allow employers to give money directly to employees, who can spend it on medical care. This gets around health insurers’ bureaucracies, which add unnecessary administrative costs.

Last Wednesday, the Trump transition team disclosed the remarkable news that Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, an architect of Obamacare, was Mr. Trump’s first official guest of the morning. The spokesman demurred with respect to the details of the conversation, but I can guess: Dr. Emanuel was urging Mr. Trump to remain in office only one term, in accordance with Dr. Emanuel’s principle that people should be cut off at age 75.

Dr. Emanuel proclaimed this doctrine in The Atlantic in October 2014. Mr. Trump will turn 75 in June 2021, only half a year after beginning his second term (if elected again). So, surely Dr. Emanuel was just asking Mr. Trump to do himself and everyone a favor by not wasting everyone’s time taking a second run at the presidency.

But seriously, it is not a bad idea for the president-elect to meet with Dr. Emanuel. As I have previously noted, Dr. Emanuel threw in the towel on Obamacare in September 2014. Most of those associated with the law have not been so forthright in admitting it did not achieve its goals.

What was especially interesting about Dr. Emanuel’s change of heart was his insistence that the federal government could not force change on the health system. Instead, he now encourages policies which allow states to innovate. That has long been a Republican principle.

Let’s hope Dr. Emanuel’s visit to President-elect Trump signals acts of contrition from Obamacare’s many other “architects.”

* * *

For the pivotal alternative to Obamacare, see Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis and A Better Choice: Healthcare Solutions for America, by John C. Goodman, published by Independent Institute.

The FBI and CIA are in agreement that Russia in some way interfered in the U.S. election. What is known so far is that Russian hackers were able to access the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Hackers also breached the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

According to sources, the Russian government sought to hinder the Clinton campaign and work to assist Trump in winning the presidency. In his last press conference for 2016, President Obama discussed the hacks, but carefully avoided questions on whether or not Russian president Vladimir Putin was involved. He did, however, say that “not much happens in Russia without Putin.” President Obama said he saw Putin in September while abroad in China and told him to “cut it out” with regard to the election hacking. He continued, “there would be some serious consequences if he (Putin) didn’t [put an end to the cyber hacks].”

People seem floored by these revelations. How could Russia interfere in the workings of the U.S. political process? How dare they try to manipulate the outcome of a presidential election?!

I’m reminded of a Biblical passage.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own?

Last week, Dutch politician Geert Wilders was convicted of inciting discrimination and of insulting a group. The offending remarks came at a political rally when Wilders suggested that his country would be better off without any more Moroccan immigration. The New York Times has this news story here.

Many folks who read this website are likely in favor of open borders and profoundly disagree with Wilders’ position on immigration. That’s a fine and reasonable position to hold. But it is also within the bounds of human reason to hold a contrary position—especially in a western welfare state where Third World immigration has the potential to adversely impact the national budget, debt, and sundry other matters.

My point is this: We should shudder when the expression of a widely held political opinion, in a western nation with a history of freedom, is criminalized.

Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the Dutch Criminal Code (starts on page 81) operate to prohibit making public intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions. In essence, this law makes it a crime to honestly discuss political matters such as gay marriage, Islam, and immigration.