The Pin Factory Blog

Committed to a meritocratic society, many States in America allow nearly anyone with the filing fee and handful of supporters to run for office. This is, of course how a body-building actor and a professional wrestler filled the governorships of California and Minnesota.

In 2008, comedians have taken over as the joke candidates, as Al Franken becomes increasingly serious in his bid for Senator in Minnesota and Steven Colbert’s short presidential campaign dies in South Carolina. Both men, comedians and commentators adored by the left, began their campaigns mocking the process, but ambiguous about their true intentions. Colbert feigned seriousness until the end, but Franken has begun to act like a real candidate and looks more like a serious candidate and threat to Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. However, as he picks up the traits of a classic candidate, one wonders: has Franken taken his candidacy to this level to further mock the others, or is he now seriously considering himself as running for office and unfortunately slipped into the characteristics he once so mocked?

Nevertheless, people frustrated with government originally loved Colbert and Franken because they mocked the process. Once comedians actually join in the fray, they lose their appeal. As Franken’s candidacy becomes more viable and he slips into the traditional candidate image, what more does he have to offer the people?

Support for those who mock the process show the frustration and dissatisfaction of most people with government administration. Comedians are meant to continually poke leaders with a stick, not become them. An attempt like Franken’s shows the problems inherent to government, that even the most stinging commentators will fall in line with the election and governing machine when placed in the position. In reality, the process needs its commentators, because it's so difficult to check the power of government from inside.

After four months here, the time has come to say goodbye to the ASI and return home to the US. Working here has been quite the experience and of what I remember, I'll never forget. I will certainly miss the guys in the office and the slice of English culture I've gotten to know.

I've had a fantastic time exploring London, but now I'm ready to return to small town life in Walla Walla, Washington and complete my undergraduate work at Whitman College. I'm especially looking forward to Senior year when I will stop paying rent on my house and simply take up residence in the library as I attempt to finish my thesis.

Good luck to the ASI and to everyone here!

A fascinating conversation with Arthur Laffer about the Laffer Curve. Yes, it is both obviously true and a little more complex than is often assumed.

Correcting unsound ideas about other economists: no, Adam Smith was not laissez faire. 

This is supposedly about boxing but actually has more to do with the Brits abroad and interactions with Johnny Foreigner than anything else. 

More blog news from America. Netsmith agrees with Dizzy here, whoever invented that phrase should be fired . 

Extremely depressing news about fisheries . At least some politicians have managed to cotton on to the problem: but there's not going to be any action towards the obvious solution. 

No, this might not have been the best idea about food suggestions for the holiday season. 

And finally , film ideas that really were so bad that they didn't get made. 

Denmark is often looked at as a society that is somewhat fairer and more equal than ours. This view is mainly due to an economic system fundamentally based on very high levels of taxation and generous welfare payments. However, the Danish system is sometimes referred to as "flexicurity" since it has a uniquely liberal approach to hiring and firing which has allowed the country to produce growth figures of some 3.5 percent in 2006 whilst approaching full employment. Nonetheless, this approach still isn't without its problems. There seems now to be a brain drain occurring, with Denmark having to face up to European (as well as global) tax competition.

In key areas such as the highly skilled they are suffering from a shortage. This is highlighted by The Confederation of Danish Industries' estimation that through the end of 2005, the workforce had shrunk by around 19,000 Danes, mainly through them leaving the country. This outflow is not being matched by the inflow of foreign workers, which tends to lower levels of skill. One of the key reasons for this brain drain is the high taxation that highly skilled workers have to pay to keep the lavish welfare system going. Faced with paying 63 percent of their own income to the government, many understandably decide to leave and take advantage of the lower rates around Europe.

Unless something changes, the Danes may be facing growth figures of only around 1 percent for the 5 years from 2009 onwards. The obvious approach to this problem is to lower the tax rates to more competitive levels, attracting Danes back and enticing in others as well. The Danish only need to look to London to see how lower taxation on high earners can promote growth. Alternatively though, we could always ship over those on the left who love the Scandinavian model of taxation and welfare. Then they can pay the tax bills.

When I was younger I hated going to weddings. It seemed that all of my aunts and the grandmotherly types used to come up to me, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, 'You're next.'

They stopped doing that when I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.

Barbara Young, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, was our guest at a Power Lunch in Westminster this week. She's had a difficult few months dealing with the physical and political results of widespread flooding in the UK – two major inundations in just a few months.

By any standard, the floods were unusually bad - maybe a one in a hundred years event. Though the worry is that they might get more frequent due to climate change. But one in a hundred years events do occur (roughly every hundred years or so, in fact) and you can't necessarily say that they herald a change. A hurricane just a few years back devastated New Orleans, and everyone started talking about climate change. But even in the 1960s, forecasters knew that a hurricane of a certain strength and a certain trajectory would do that. There were plenty of hurricanes over the next forty years, but only one got lucky. A sign of climate change? Hardly. And don't forget that a hurricane devastated Galveston a century earlier.

But if things really are changing, we are in a mess. One of the things that made the floods so devastating was that nobody seems able to take charge. The water companies control the pipes and sewers. Local authorities are in charge of logistics. The Environment Agency has other functions. When there is a national emergency, we could use smoother and more co-ordinated systems.

Meanwhile, the 55,000 flooded houses that are being refurbished after the floods are being restored to - their original condition. Why don't the insurers use it as an opportunity to flood-proof them while they're about it? Maybe it's because Barbara Young's government colleagues have regulated them all senseless.

If you need a stocking-filler, look no further than Model turned Tory Leader's Wife turned Novelist Sandra Howard. Well, not her personally, but her new novel Ursula's Story (usually £12.99, our price £9.74+P&P). Ursula's ex-husband is all over the tabloids as he marries a government minister. Her young children are excited at they meet half the cabinet. But what effect does it all really have on them, and can she get them through it?

The two leading democratic presidential candidates, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, have begun a war sure to last through the primary season and into the nominations. While fighting over policy and personality, many attacks concentrate on their respective plans for universal healthcare. Clinton criticizes Obama, claiming that his plan will fail to cover everyone in the nation. Obama argues in return that her plan will also leave some out. The New York Times thinks neither of the plans goes far enough, approvingly citing an economist who thinks people should be fined for not having insurance.

These policies, and the fights and commentaries that stem from them, indicate an unfortunate trend in politics – a faith in the abilities of the government and the idea that programmes like universal care will mean more freedom, not less. Many falsely view government provisions as a release from economic hardship, rather than an intrusion into individual choice. Obama should be defending his plan because it allows people to opt out, not in spite of it.

The Democrats are fighting over the wrong issue, and pandering to the belief that the success of a government programme rests on the number of people forced to abide. One would think that the voters of a party meant to be the champion of individuality should be wary of any policy which forces all citizens into anything, and candidates from a true party of freedom would argue over the openness offered by their programmes, not the coercion.

Mirable dictu! It would appear that a large majority of the British public actually do understand the points about free trade. Now all we have to do is get the politicians to understand....

 Gary Becker poses an interesting question . Why is tax evasion actually so low?

Teaching economics through popular music . An example: In this excerpt, Coolio suggests that he would rap for no money. Draw a representative labor supply curve.

Teaching economics by video: in this one , tax competition and its value in keeping pressure on governments to be efficient (replace with "not so grasping" to taste). 

Teaching the economics of fisheries by blog post. It's a Commons problem and will only be solved by that which solves such problems: property rights.

A twist: teaching yourself about bias by talking to economists. 

And finally , pie shops and Cantonese and the wonders of Stenthenge . 

Fraser Nelson had an excellent piece on the Spectator's Coffee House blog yesterday, arguing that the UK economy is in "a far worse condition than Gordon Brown makes out... his skill [as chancellor] was not in managing the economy well, but in making people believe it had been managed well."

Indeed.

As Fraser points out, most developed countries have had better growth than the UK since 1997, and Britain has actually been the worst economic performer in the English-speaking world. So much for the miracle economy! And thanks to Brown's wasteful public spending we have the biggest deficit in Western Europe, at a point in the economic cycle when we should really have a surplus. Government borrowing has placed a heavy burden on future generations. Inflation is making a comeback. Millions of Britons are economically inactive and dependent on state benefits. The list goes on...

What should be done? I believe overhauling the welfare system is the most urgent task facing the country – done correctly it would reduce spending and increase economic growth, by getting people off handouts and into productive work, as well as having an important social impact. Our recent report Working Welfare provides a handy guide to reform.

Alongside that we need to bring public spending under control, making public services more efficient and cutting government waste (£101 billion of which was recently identified by the Taxpayers' Alliance). Add in a few juicy tax cuts to boost enterprise and strengthen incentives, and you've got a recipe for real economic success.

Doesn't sound that hard, does it?