Guardian headline omits fact that Palestinians were killed AFTER attacking Israelis

The Guardian has once again published a report on terror attacks with a headline that not only focuses onthe fate ofthose who initiated the violence, but fails to even inform readers that the Palestinians were killed only after attempting to attack Israeli security forces.  The Guardian’s version of an Associated Press (AP) report, on multiple terror incidents in the West Bank, published earlier in the day, led with this headline:

headline fail

It’s only in the strap line, and then in the opening passage, that we’re told Israeli security forces were under attack before the Palestinians were shot.

Tellingly, the original AP article (which included information on additional terror incidents during the day) did in fact note in the headline that the Palestinians killed were “attackers”.

ap headline

Remarkably, even Al Jazeera’s headline accompanying their own report on attacks in the West Bank that day managed to note that the Palestinians…

View original post 37 more words

Scalia on who should decide vexing social issues @PeterDunneMP

image

Source: Antonin Scalia was a truly great Supreme Court justice.

Why @NZGreens @GreenpeaceNZ are enemies of workers & poor

image

Source: An Environmentalism for the Left | Dissent Magazine.

Tuition mixes

The Sand Pit

That students share in the burden of paying for their tertiary education is not all that uncommon.

Times Higher Education puts up this graph, from the OECD’s 2015 Education at a Glance report, showing the proportion of private expenditure on tertiary education.

proportion-of-private-expenditure-on-tertiary-education-110216-large

The OECD average has around 30% covered privately. NZ’s figures, as usual, aren’t in the OECD table. But the last numbers I’d seen on it had it around 16% in 2010 – already at the very low end of the table. Eyeballing it, we’d be between Sweden and Slovenia.

And so I get a bit puzzled.

Labour’s pushing for zero tuition fees here, which would push us further out as an outlier on this one. When Oliver suggested that might not be such a great idea, Chris Trotter launched into an attack suggesting that only wild neoliberal Business Roundtable types could oppose free tuition. I guess the…

View original post 736 more words

My submission to Parliamentary committee on TPPA treaty examination

Despite all the passions about the TPPA, the correct starting post for an economist on regional trade agreements is lukewarm opposition. That is the position of Paul Krugman. Paul Krugman summarised the TPPA well recently from a standpoint of a professional economist:

I’ve described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don’t share the intense dislike of many progressives, I’ve seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint….

What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Republicans in general are mad because the labour protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I’ll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer.

Krugman then reminded that a trade agreement is most politically viable when it is most socially harmful. This is the point that the opponents of the TPPA miss. They will not want to discuss how some trade agreements are good deals but others are bad. That would admit that trade agreements can be welfare enhancing, and sometimes they are but sometimes not.

The correct economic name for free trade agreements is preferential trading agreements. These agreements give tariff and other preferences to some countries over others.

Tariffs are lower for the members of the agreement, creating more trade, but there is also trade division.

CER offers a neat example of trade diversion. Instead of buying cars from the cheapest source and collecting tariff revenue, the hopelessly inefficient Australian car industry did not have to pay tariffs so it made New Zealand into a major export market until tariffs were abolished in 1998.

Less tariff revenue because of CER but we still paid way over the odds for Australian instead of Japanese cars. We were worse off. Less tariff revenue but car prices pretty much as high as before.

New Zealand tariffs are minimal these days. The TPPA reduces the key tariffs on our exports at an excruciatingly slow pace.

There is no discussion of trade diversion in the National Interest Analysis before this committee. For that reason alone, the National Interests Analysis is inadequate and should be returned to the Ministry for further work. Right now, it would not pass a first semester test in a basic international economics course because that most basic risk from trade agreements is not discussed.

Most of the TPPA is not about tariffs. Many of these other chapters are suspicious add-ons to trade talks.

Developing countries rightly regard trade and environment clauses in any trade agreement as a new form of colonialism.

Unions, the Labour Party and Greens happily demand these intrusions into the regulatory sovereignty of developing countries to protect special interests against import competition.

The sovereignty objections to trade agreements are no different to those that can be made to climate change treaties and International Labour Organisation conventions. It is all in the details – what do we get in return?

Consistency would help too. Trade agreements should not include labour or environmental standards as they, for example, limit our right to deregulate our labour market. Be careful for what you wish for when you oppose international agreements on sovereignty grounds.


The intellectual property chapters of the TPPA are truly suspicious. With each new day, the case for patents and copyrights is weakening in the economic literature. Some have made powerful arguments to abolish patents and copyrights altogether.

There are modest extensions of the term limits of drug patents and much more mischief on copyright terms. These should be watched carefully in future trade talks and one day will be a deal breaker.


Good arguments can be made against investor state dispute settlement provisions even after the carve-outs. These provisions have no place in trade agreements between democracies.

Foreigners can take their chances in democratic politics like the rest of us. They might occasionally get a short deal because of left-wing or right-wing populism but these gusts of xenophobia are mostly an occasional irritant in the rich fabric of Western democracies.

Developing countries sign-up to investor state dispute settlement to signal they are open for business. Foreign investors do not have to put up with their corrupt courts and bureaucracies and hopelessly venial politicians.

The logic of regional trade negotiations is we cut tariffs we should have cut long ago in return for others cutting their tariffs which they too should have cut long ago.

Much is made of the cost-benefit analysis of the TPPA. All the critics are really saying is cost benefit analysis is really hard and often imprecise.

If the econometric estimates were not in doubt in this or any other public policy field, the academics are simply not trying hard enough to win tenure and promotion. Academics make their careers by being contrarian.

For this lukewarm opponent of regional trade agreements, the TPPA is a so-so deal with small net gains. There is no harm in signing it.

Democrats appear to have an army of young radicals

Image

The evolution of New York’s skyline since 1876.

https://twitter.com/JustHistoryPics/status/699070903431380993

@BernieSanders has serious problems with Uber because it is unregulated

Bicyclists do not like evidence-based road safety policy

Bicyclists get very upset when they are told about the dangers. They immediately resort to personal abuse about my post arguing that bicycles at night should be banned.

This anger is another reason why bikes must go. Bicyclists are surly people who respond aggressively when they should do more reserved and careful.

The Angels – No Secrets

Previous Older Entries

Overcoming Bias

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

Coyote Blog

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Overlawyered

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

American Enterprise Institute – AEI

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

The History of Parliament

Blogging on parliament, politics and people, from the History of Parliament

(macro)Economics live from London

Franck Portier's professional page

Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

The Secret Barrister

Independent Blogger of the Year, The Comment Awards 2016 & 2017

Notes On Liberty

Spontaneous thoughts on a humble creed

StephenFranks.co.nz

A New Zealand lawyer, ex-MP, farmer and enthusiast for life opines on law, politics and the universe

Books & Boots

reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

The Dangerous Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

The Long Run

the EHS blog

The Undercover Historian

Beatrice Cherrier's blog

Vincent Geloso

Economics, History, Lots of Data and French Stuff

Climatism

Tracking Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Point of Order

Politics and the economy

FREEcology

Libertarian environmentalism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

Newmark's Door

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Media Myth Alert

Calling out media myths

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

European Royal History

Exploring the History of European Royalty

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Marginal REVOLUTION

Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

THE COLUMBOPHILE

The blog for those who LOVE Lieutenant Columbo...

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

STOP THESE THINGS

The truth about the great wind power fraud

Trust, yet verify

Searching for the missing pieces of climate change communication

Roger Pielke Jr.

professor, author, speaker

%d bloggers like this: