In the Heights Is a Charming Musical About Immigration and Entrepreneurship


IN-HEIGHTS-LG1

I have a confession to make. I have never seen Hamilton. Indeed, not only have I never seen Hamilton, I do not particularly care for most musicals (with a few notable exceptions), or dancing, or stage-style bare-your-soul, explain-your-thoughts singing. Nothing that matters in life or in movies should ever be resolved by singing or dancing. Fictional characters should work out their internal issues and external conflicts in normal and relatable ways, with terse monologues, glowering stares, and elaborately choreographed action scenes.

So when it comes to the musical art form and all its trappings, I admit to being what you might call a curmudgeon, which a long way of saying that I am very much not the target for In the Heights, the new movie musical from Hamilton scribe Lin Manuel Miranda and Step Up 2: The Streets director Jon M. Chu. This movie isn’t for me. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

And yet, somehow, I found it rather charming, even heartwarming. I don’t know if it’s a great movie, but it’s a gentle and genuinely appealing production, buoyed by a message of DIY community building and entrepreneurial advancement.

Some of that charm is a product of Chu’s deft direction, which takes the choreographed song spectacles of the stage musical, which debuted in 2005, and transforms them into a series of decidedly cinematic sequences. A few of these songs produce big numbers with ambitious designs and dozens of extras. But some of the film’s best bits are smaller, more intimate, as Chu recasts the rhythms of everyday life—walking down the street, stamping prices on food cans at a small corner market—into cleverly edited bits of musical cinema.

Much of the film’s success owes to its genuinely appealing cast, in particular, Anthony Ramos as Usnavi de la Vega and Melissa Barrera as his (maybe) love interest, Vanessa. Both deliver wholehearted performances that manage to be deeply earnest without ever quite coming across as cheeseball.

That earnestness, in turn, is what fuels the story’s big themes and values, which revolve around entrepreneurship, immigration, and self-made communities. In the Heights is set in the heavily Dominican New York City neighborhood of Washington Heights, and it is, at heart, the story of an immigrant community coming together to determine its own future.

Sometimes that future is forged by fighting with a labyrinthine immigration bureaucracy and racist attitudes, and there’s an admittedly too-on-the-nose subplot about DREAMers that wasn’t present in the stage version. But politics are only part of the story. By and large, In the Heights casts immigration as an entrepreneurial act, an individual decision to build a better life in concert with one’s new neighbors.

So it is fitting that, as often as not, the community’s future is forged through commerce. The plot runs through Usnavi’s neighborhood bodega, but there’s also a salon and gathering place run by two neighborhood women, a taxi dispatch, run by another local, Kevin Rosario (played with delightful ease and gravitas by Jimmy Smits), a local lawyer who handles tough immigration cases, and even a piragua (Puerto Rican shaved ice) cart run by a character played by Lin-Manuel Miranda.

These businesses are consistently portrayed both as sources of hard-earned personal wealth and valuable social connection, especially when the neighborhood faces a crisis, in the form of a citywide power outage, late in the second act. Charging people money in exchange for useful services—and keeping those services going when times are tough—is how they make their own lives better, and also how they help their neighbors. Their lives are improved, and their local universe is a better place, when their businesses grow.

The movie doesn’t quite bang you over the head with this message, but it’s not exactly subtle, either: The final, post-credits scene shows Miranda’s street-cart piraguas becoming a hot commodity with the block’s residents. In response to rising demand, he raises prices, and in the process, he outcompetes the Mister Softee truck that had been his biggest rival. (Mister Softee responds not with anger but with grudging respect.) It’s an entrepreneurial immigrant success story, and a fitting grace note for a movie that earnestly, ebulliently celebrates such values—albeit through people who spontaneously break out in song and dance to share their feelings. Huh. Maybe I do like musicals after all.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cuGWGo
via IFTTT

The Doubling of Life Expectancy Is the Greatest Achievement in 100 Years


v3

It took us four years just to identify the virus that caused AIDS in the ’80s,” says Steven Johnson. “Imagine COVID where it’s four years before we even know what is causing the outbreak. That’s what would have happened if we just shifted 20 years, 30 years earlier in terms of when this outbreak happened.”

Johnson is the author of the new book Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer, which is also running as a series on PBS (watch online here). The rapid advance in vaccine technology, which is bringing an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, is best understood in the context of a series of innovations that more than doubled the life expectancy of the human race over the last 100 years. Extra Life explores how innovations in epidemiological statistics, artificial fertilizer, toilets, and sanitation systems, along with vaccines and other measures, have allowed billions of people to flourish until old age. By 2016, global life expectancy at birth had reached 72 years, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Johnson was a founder of the pioneering website Feed in the 1990s and has authored a shelf full of books about human progress, including best-sellers such as The Ghost Map, which recounted how doctors and researchers ended the threat of cholera in 19th-century London, and Future Perfect, which argues that the modern networked world is far more resilient than previous iterations.

He talks with Nick Gillespie about how we managed to massively increase our lifespans in the 20th century, and whether we can do even better in the 21st. 

Produced by Ian Keyser and Isaac Reese; written and narrated by Nick Gillespie; Camera by Kevin Alexander.

Music: Discovery/Kevin Graham/Artlist

Photos: personaldemocracy/Flickr/Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0); NIAID; Nutopia Ltd; Mirrorpix/MEGA/Newscom/ASLON2/Newscom; BING GUAN/REUTERS/Newscom; IVAN PIERRE AGUIRRE/REUTERS/Newscom; DAVID SWANSON/REUTERS/Newscom; LINDSEY WASSON/REUTERS/Newscom; JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ/REUTERS/Newscom; JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom; JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom

Footage: SinCabeza/Envato; Bokstas/Envato; PBS/BBC

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3vbApH9
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Your Place or Mine


policemirror_1161x653

A now former South Carolina state trooper has been charged with misconduct in office for making inappropriate advances to a woman he stopped for DUI. Officials say that instead of taking the woman to jail, Donovan Hadley asked her to come back to his house. When she refused, he drove her to her cousin’s house, where he gave her a hug and complimented her appearance. He later texted her and told her he would drop the DUI charge and return her driver’s license if she would come to his house to pick the license up.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cxglZ9
via IFTTT

The Doubling of Life Expectancy Is the Greatest Achievement in 100 Years


v3

It took us four years just to identify the virus that caused AIDS in the ’80s,” says Steven Johnson. “Imagine COVID where it’s four years before we even know what is causing the outbreak. That’s what would have happened if we just shifted 20 years, 30 years earlier in terms of when this outbreak happened.”

Johnson is the author of the new book Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer, which is also running as a series on PBS (watch online here). The rapid advance in vaccine technology, which is bringing an end to the COVID-19 pandemic, is best understood in the context of a series of innovations that more than doubled the life expectancy of the human race over the last 100 years. Extra Life explores how innovations in epidemiological statistics, artificial fertilizer, toilets, and sanitation systems, along with vaccines and other measures, have allowed billions of people to flourish until old age. By 2016, global life expectancy at birth had reached 72 years, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Johnson was a founder of the pioneering website Feed in the 1990s and has authored a shelf full of books about human progress, including best-sellers such as The Ghost Map, which recounted how doctors and researchers ended the threat of cholera in 19th-century London, and Future Perfect, which argues that the modern networked world is far more resilient than previous iterations.

He talks with Nick Gillespie about how we managed to massively increase our lifespans in the 20th century, and whether we can do even better in the 21st. 

Produced by Ian Keyser and Isaac Reese; written and narrated by Nick Gillespie; Camera by Kevin Alexander.

Music: Discovery/Kevin Graham/Artlist

Photos: personaldemocracy/Flickr/Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0); NIAID; Nutopia Ltd; Mirrorpix/MEGA/Newscom/ASLON2/Newscom; BING GUAN/REUTERS/Newscom; IVAN PIERRE AGUIRRE/REUTERS/Newscom; DAVID SWANSON/REUTERS/Newscom; LINDSEY WASSON/REUTERS/Newscom; JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ/REUTERS/Newscom; JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom; JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom

Footage: SinCabeza/Envato; Bokstas/Envato; PBS/BBC

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3vbApH9
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Your Place or Mine


policemirror_1161x653

A now former South Carolina state trooper has been charged with misconduct in office for making inappropriate advances to a woman he stopped for DUI. Officials say that instead of taking the woman to jail, Donovan Hadley asked her to come back to his house. When she refused, he drove her to her cousin’s house, where he gave her a hug and complimented her appearance. He later texted her and told her he would drop the DUI charge and return her driver’s license if she would come to his house to pick the license up.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cxglZ9
via IFTTT

80 Percent of Americans Say Abortion Should Sometimes Be Legal


rollcallpix125001

Americans remain fairly evenly split on the morality of abortion. In a new Gallup poll, 47 percent of people said that abortion is morally acceptable, while 46 percent said that abortion is morally wrong. “The 47% who say it is acceptable is, by two percentage points, the highest Gallup has recorded in two decades of measurement,” the polling organization notes.

Over the past 20 years, the split between the number of Gallup poll respondents saying abortion is morally acceptable and those saying it’s morally unacceptable has run a wide gamut, ranging from zero to 20 percentage points.

“Americans have been typically more inclined to say abortion is morally wrong than morally acceptable, though the gap has narrowed in recent years,” Gallup reports.

From 2001–12, the average gap between the two positions was 11 points. Since 2013, the average gap has been five points.

In 2020, the divide between the two positions was three points—slightly smaller than it was this year, but with a higher percentage of respondents (47 percent versus 44 percent) saying abortion is morally wrong.

As expected, Democrats are more likely than their Republican counterparts to deem abortion morally acceptable. And over the course of the Gallup poll, both Democrats and Independents have become more likely to hold this view.

In the latest poll, 64 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of Independents, and 26 percent of Republicans said abortion was morally OK.

While Americans may be split evenly on the moral acceptability of abortion, the percentage who believe it should be legal is still significantly higher than the percentage who believe it should be illegal.

Some 32 percent of poll respondents this year said abortion should be legal “under any circumstances,” while nearly half—48 percent—think it should be legal “under certain circumstances.” Only 19 percent say it should be “illegal in all circumstances.”

“The nearly one-third of U.S. adults who support fully legal abortions is the highest such percentage since the early to mid-1990s, when it was consistently at that level,” Gallup points out.

But of those who think it should be sometimes legal, many would only see it so in narrow circumstances:

Currently, 33% favor legal abortions in only a few and 13% in most circumstances. This translates into 52% supporting a more restrictive approach on abortion, saying it should be either illegal in all circumstances or legal in only a few. Meanwhile, 45% favor a less restrictive approach, preferring that it be legal in all or most circumstances.

Perhaps that explains why the legal/illegal divide is so different than the divides on morally acceptable/unacceptable and pro-choice/pro-life.

For decades, Gallup has also found a fairly even split between the number of Americans who consider themselves “pro-choice” and who consider themselves “pro-life”:

Just as the public is evenly divided in their beliefs about the morality of abortion, so too are they about equally likely to personally identify as “pro-choice” (49%) versus “pro-life” (47%).

Americans have been closely split in how they identify their abortion stances in recent years. Since 1998, an average 47% of U.S. adults have considered themselves pro-choice and 46% pro-life. Between 1995 and 1997, the public tilted more pro-choice (52%) than pro-life (38%), on average.

In the most recent poll, women were somewhat more likely than men to consider themselves pro-choice (52 percent versus 45 percent) and college graduates were more likely than non–college graduates (65 percent versus 40 percent).

Gallup’s poll was conducted May 3–18 and involved a sample of 1,016 American adults. Based on the question, the margin of error was ±four to five percentage points.

In related news, a federal appeals court has blocked a Missouri law banning abortion after eight weeks:

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling Wednesday upheld a lower court’s injunction of the law, which would ban the procedure after eight weeks of pregnancy. The statute also specifies that an abortion cannot be performed “solely because of a prenatal diagnosis” indicating a child might have Down syndrome.

The three-judge panel ruled that Missouri’s law amounted to a ban, rather than a restriction, on the procedure.

Full ruling here.


FREE MINDS

Three police officers in Columbus, Ohio, face criminal charges stemming from their treatment of anti–police brutality protesters last May. The charges come as part of an investigation by a special prosecutor and independent investigator into alleged misconduct during protests over the murder of George Floyd. That prosecutor, Kathleen Garber, said the investigation is ongoing.

For now, Columbus cops have been charged with offenses including assault, dereliction of duty, falsification, and interfering with civil rights:

Officer Traci Shaw was charged with three counts each of assault, dereliction of duty and interfering with civil rights, after video taken at the event allegedly showed Shaw exiting her police cruiser and pepper-spraying individuals. A witness said Shaw allegedly did so without provocation or warning, according to the complaint.

Officer Phillip Walls was charged with two counts each of assault, dereliction of duty and interfering with civil rights, after video allegedly showed him pepper-spraying “peaceful protestors who are standing on the sidewalk,” according to a complaint.

Sgt. Holly Kanode was charged with one count of falsification and one count of dereliction of duty, after she allegedly told an officer filling out an arrest report that the individual had “grabbed hold of another Officer and jerked him to the ground with his gear,” despite body camera evidence to the contrary, according to a complaint.


FREE MARKETS

Biden cancels Trump’s TikTok ban. The Biden administration is dropping its predecessor’s pursuit of a U.S. ban on Chinese-origin apps TikTok and WeChat. But the new administration “will conduct its own review aimed at identifying national security risks with software applications tied to China,” notes Al-Jazeera. “A new executive order on Wednesday directed the Department of Commerce to undertake what officials described as an ‘evidence-based’ analysis of transactions involving apps that are manufactured or supplied or controlled by China.”


QUICK HITS

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is under investigation by the state bar association. The organization seeks to determine whether his “failed efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election based on bogus claims of fraud amounted to professional misconduct,” reports the Associated Press.

• Oregon lawmakers have approved a measure banning cities from fining or arresting homeless people “for sleeping or camping on public property when there are no other options.”

• Are holograms the future of remote chat?

• Alabama is considering using COVID-19 relief funds from the federal government to build new prisons.

• “The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which helps set borrowing costs on everything from corporate debt to mortgages, closed at 1.489%…its lowest settle since March 3,” notes The Wall Street Journal.

• “A Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy has been charged with assault and evidence tampering stemming from an arrest she made in Lancaster two years ago,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zhgYji
via IFTTT

80 Percent of Americans Say Abortion Should Sometimes Be Legal


rollcallpix125001

Americans remain fairly evenly split on the morality of abortion. In a new Gallup poll, 47 percent of people said that abortion is morally acceptable, while 46 percent said that abortion is morally wrong. “The 47% who say it is acceptable is, by two percentage points, the highest Gallup has recorded in two decades of measurement,” the polling organization notes.

Over the past 20 years, the split between the number of Gallup poll respondents saying abortion is morally acceptable and those saying it’s morally unacceptable has run a wide gamut, ranging from zero to 20 percentage points.

“Americans have been typically more inclined to say abortion is morally wrong than morally acceptable, though the gap has narrowed in recent years,” Gallup reports.

From 2001–12, the average gap between the two positions was 11 points. Since 2013, the average gap has been five points.

In 2020, the divide between the two positions was three points—slightly smaller than it was this year, but with a higher percentage of respondents (47 percent versus 44 percent) saying abortion is morally wrong.

As expected, Democrats are more likely than their Republican counterparts to deem abortion morally acceptable. And over the course of the Gallup poll, both Democrats and Independents have become more likely to hold this view.

In the latest poll, 64 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of Independents, and 26 percent of Republicans said abortion was morally OK.

While Americans may be split evenly on the moral acceptability of abortion, the percentage who believe it should be legal is still significantly higher than the percentage who believe it should be illegal.

Some 32 percent of poll respondents this year said abortion should be legal “under any circumstances,” while nearly half—48 percent—think it should be legal “under certain circumstances.” Only 19 percent say it should be “illegal in all circumstances.”

“The nearly one-third of U.S. adults who support fully legal abortions is the highest such percentage since the early to mid-1990s, when it was consistently at that level,” Gallup points out.

But of those who think it should be sometimes legal, many would only see it so in narrow circumstances:

Currently, 33% favor legal abortions in only a few and 13% in most circumstances. This translates into 52% supporting a more restrictive approach on abortion, saying it should be either illegal in all circumstances or legal in only a few. Meanwhile, 45% favor a less restrictive approach, preferring that it be legal in all or most circumstances.

Perhaps that explains why the legal/illegal divide is so different than the divides on morally acceptable/unacceptable and pro-choice/pro-life.

For decades, Gallup has also found a fairly even split between the number of Americans who consider themselves “pro-choice” and who consider themselves “pro-life”:

Just as the public is evenly divided in their beliefs about the morality of abortion, so too are they about equally likely to personally identify as “pro-choice” (49%) versus “pro-life” (47%).

Americans have been closely split in how they identify their abortion stances in recent years. Since 1998, an average 47% of U.S. adults have considered themselves pro-choice and 46% pro-life. Between 1995 and 1997, the public tilted more pro-choice (52%) than pro-life (38%), on average.

In the most recent poll, women were somewhat more likely than men to consider themselves pro-choice (52 percent versus 45 percent) and college graduates were more likely than non–college graduates (65 percent versus 40 percent).

Gallup’s poll was conducted May 3–18 and involved a sample of 1,016 American adults. Based on the question, the margin of error was ±four to five percentage points.

In related news, a federal appeals court has blocked a Missouri law banning abortion after eight weeks:

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling Wednesday upheld a lower court’s injunction of the law, which would ban the procedure after eight weeks of pregnancy. The statute also specifies that an abortion cannot be performed “solely because of a prenatal diagnosis” indicating a child might have Down syndrome.

The three-judge panel ruled that Missouri’s law amounted to a ban, rather than a restriction, on the procedure.

Full ruling here.


FREE MINDS

Three police officers in Columbus, Ohio, face criminal charges stemming from their treatment of anti–police brutality protesters last May. The charges come as part of an investigation by a special prosecutor and independent investigator into alleged misconduct during protests over the murder of George Floyd. That prosecutor, Kathleen Garber, said the investigation is ongoing.

For now, Columbus cops have been charged with offenses including assault, dereliction of duty, falsification, and interfering with civil rights:

Officer Traci Shaw was charged with three counts each of assault, dereliction of duty and interfering with civil rights, after video taken at the event allegedly showed Shaw exiting her police cruiser and pepper-spraying individuals. A witness said Shaw allegedly did so without provocation or warning, according to the complaint.

Officer Phillip Walls was charged with two counts each of assault, dereliction of duty and interfering with civil rights, after video allegedly showed him pepper-spraying “peaceful protestors who are standing on the sidewalk,” according to a complaint.

Sgt. Holly Kanode was charged with one count of falsification and one count of dereliction of duty, after she allegedly told an officer filling out an arrest report that the individual had “grabbed hold of another Officer and jerked him to the ground with his gear,” despite body camera evidence to the contrary, according to a complaint.


FREE MARKETS

Biden cancels Trump’s TikTok ban. The Biden administration is dropping its predecessor’s pursuit of a U.S. ban on Chinese-origin apps TikTok and WeChat. But the new administration “will conduct its own review aimed at identifying national security risks with software applications tied to China,” notes Al-Jazeera. “A new executive order on Wednesday directed the Department of Commerce to undertake what officials described as an ‘evidence-based’ analysis of transactions involving apps that are manufactured or supplied or controlled by China.”


QUICK HITS

• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is under investigation by the state bar association. The organization seeks to determine whether his “failed efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election based on bogus claims of fraud amounted to professional misconduct,” reports the Associated Press.

• Oregon lawmakers have approved a measure banning cities from fining or arresting homeless people “for sleeping or camping on public property when there are no other options.”

• Are holograms the future of remote chat?

• Alabama is considering using COVID-19 relief funds from the federal government to build new prisons.

• “The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which helps set borrowing costs on everything from corporate debt to mortgages, closed at 1.489%…its lowest settle since March 3,” notes The Wall Street Journal.

• “A Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy has been charged with assault and evidence tampering stemming from an arrest she made in Lancaster two years ago,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zhgYji
via IFTTT

Gorsuch Pushes Stronger Fourth Amendment Protections


topicslaw

In 2019, California’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a police officer may always enter a suspect’s home without a warrant if the officer is in pursuit and has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a misdemeanor. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether that ruling should be overturned.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to have a problem with the lower court’s decision. Under the common law, Gorsuch pointed out during oral arguments in Lange v. California, the police did not “have the power to enter the home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes.” The Fourth Amendment was built on that common-law understanding. So “why would we create a rule that is less protective than what everyone understands to be the case of the Fourth Amendment as original matter?”

Gorsuch also seemed to have a problem with California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt’s argument that it is “settled that officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect has committed a felony.” The justice offered a different view.

“We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized,” Gorsuch told Harbourt. “Some professors have even opined that there’s not an American alive who hasn’t committed a felony…under some state law. And in a world like that, why doesn’t it make sense to retreat back to the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which…generally says that you get to go into a home without a warrant if the officer sees a violent action or something that’s likely to lead to imminent violence?”

In other words, since many felonies do not involve violence, why should the cops get to categorically evade the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement whenever they are pursuing a felony suspect? Because common law allowed police to pursue felons into their homes, Harbourt replied.

But “what qualified as a felony at common law,” Gorsuch countered, “were very few crimes, and they were all punished by the death penalty usually.” By contrast, he emphasized, “today pretty much anything or everything can be called a felony.”

In Gorsuch’s view, the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement should apply in such circumstances unless the police are pursuing someone suspected of committing a violent or dangerous crime. If adopted by the Supreme Court, that approach would place real limits on police power.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2RJPCS2
via IFTTT

Gorsuch Pushes Stronger Fourth Amendment Protections


topicslaw

In 2019, California’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that a police officer may always enter a suspect’s home without a warrant if the officer is in pursuit and has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a misdemeanor. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether that ruling should be overturned.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to have a problem with the lower court’s decision. Under the common law, Gorsuch pointed out during oral arguments in Lange v. California, the police did not “have the power to enter the home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes.” The Fourth Amendment was built on that common-law understanding. So “why would we create a rule that is less protective than what everyone understands to be the case of the Fourth Amendment as original matter?”

Gorsuch also seemed to have a problem with California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt’s argument that it is “settled that officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect has committed a felony.” The justice offered a different view.

“We live in a world in which everything has been criminalized,” Gorsuch told Harbourt. “Some professors have even opined that there’s not an American alive who hasn’t committed a felony…under some state law. And in a world like that, why doesn’t it make sense to retreat back to the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which…generally says that you get to go into a home without a warrant if the officer sees a violent action or something that’s likely to lead to imminent violence?”

In other words, since many felonies do not involve violence, why should the cops get to categorically evade the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement whenever they are pursuing a felony suspect? Because common law allowed police to pursue felons into their homes, Harbourt replied.

But “what qualified as a felony at common law,” Gorsuch countered, “were very few crimes, and they were all punished by the death penalty usually.” By contrast, he emphasized, “today pretty much anything or everything can be called a felony.”

In Gorsuch’s view, the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement should apply in such circumstances unless the police are pursuing someone suspected of committing a violent or dangerous crime. If adopted by the Supreme Court, that approach would place real limits on police power.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2RJPCS2
via IFTTT

Many Politicians Claim That Increased Spending Sparks Economic Growth. Here’s Why That’s Misleading.


ibphotos528511

The scale and scope of government spending expansion in the last year are unprecedented. Because Uncle Sam doesn’t have the money, lots of it went on the government’s credit card. The deficit and debt skyrocketed. But this is only the beginning. The Biden administration recently proposed a $6 trillion budget for fiscal 2022, two-thirds of which would be borrowed.

Obviously, the politicians pushing money out always make extravagant promises about the economic growth that will result from their generous use of other people’s money. A new study by George Mason University economist Garett Jones and myself dispels some of the magical thinking that goes on in this area.

In our paper published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, we review the most recent literature on the short-term effects of government spending, including recent findings on what economists call the “multiplier.”

The multiplier looks at the return we get in economic output when the government spends a dollar by directly hiring federal employees, paying contractors for public projects, and so forth. If the multiplier is above one, it means that government spending draws in the private sector and generates more private consumer spending, private investment, and exports to foreign countries. If the multiplier is below one, the government spending crowds out the private sector, hence reducing it all.

Economic textbooks traditionally claim that the government multiplier is high. In other words, they say that spending not only pays for itself but generates large increases in economic output. In recent years, Keynesian-leaning economists have had more modest expectations and have theorized a multiplier around 1.5 or two. However, reality is often different than theory.

The evidence presented in our paper suggests that government purchases probably reduce the size of the private sector as they increase the size of the government sector. On net, incomes grow, but privately produced incomes shrink.

According to the best available evidence, we find that “there are no realistic scenarios where the short-term benefit of stimulus is so large that the government spending pays for itself. In fact, even when government spending crowds in some private-sector activity, the positive impact is small, and much smaller than economic textbooks suggest.” If you understand how legislators make their decisions to spend money, based on politics rather than sound policy or economics, that finding shouldn’t surprise you.

We also find that the only case where the literature finds a multiplier above one requires some very specific conditions, such as a zero lower-bound interest rate. And even in that case, the multiplier is 1.4 at best. Arguably, we have those conditions today. That said, our colleague Scott Sumner offers a compelling argument that “this finding…is conditional on having an incompetent or passive monetary policy in place; that is, having a monetary policy not designed to hit a growth target in aggregate demand.”

A competent Federal Reserve would set its policy to achieve optimal growth of expected aggregate demand and attempt to neutralize the impact of fiscal stimulus through policies like quantitative easing. As for what it means today, if you think that the current monetary policy of the Federal Reserve is reasonably competent, then you actually shouldn’t expect the fiscal boost from all that spending to be large. In fact, it could be close to zero.

This is, of course, all before taking future taxes into account. When economists like Robert Barro and Charles Redlick have looked that the multiplier, they’ve found that once you account for the future taxes that will be required to pay for all that spending, the multiplier could be negative.

Finally, the COVID-19 recession was better described as a bad supply shock, where the pandemic unexpectedly affected the supply of goods and services, relative to demand. These poor conditions make a multiplier above one unlikely. Under circumstances where economies were closed by government officials and consumers were staying at home to mitigate the effects of COVID, government spending could not have stimulated the economy. As such, the hundreds of newspaper reports about COVID relief that called the spending “stimulus” were misleading.

On the flip side, reporters today should also be careful not to assume that government spending deserves all the credit for economic growth this year, since much of it will be the normal effect of the broad economy reopening. Many economists are worried that the extravagance of government spending may seriously backfire and lead to inflation.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3grHP3H
via IFTTT