Party of 1

“Haiti has some of the weakest property protections in the world, as well as some of the most burdensome business regulations.” Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Tuesday.

“Haiti has a notoriously weak state—the sort that couldn’t enforce building codes, or prevent the deforestation that has left the soil unable to deflect routine flooding.” Dayo Olopade, The Root, same day.

I suppose these statements are not flat-out contradictory, since they both make reference to the weakness of the Haitian state, in one respect or another….

As of Thursday evening, the latest reports indicate that, with the port facilities of Port-au-Prince largely destroyed, relief supplies can enter Haiti only through the relatively unscathed airport, which reportedly is overwhelmed. With the critical third day since the earthquake now upon us, one can only agree with the sentiment expressed Thursday morning by the Wall Street Journal editorial board in its Review & Outlook feature (“Haiti’s Tragedy”), wishing “godspeed to the armies of relief headed for Haiti’s desperate shore.”

Under the circumstances, it might seem petty to take too much of a nitpicking approach to the paper’s commentary. Nevertheless, in polemics, everything is grist for the mill, and there is an important point to be made with scrutiny of the following sentences from this editorial, which, I would argue, carries just the slightest tincture of ideology: “The earthquake is also a reminder that while natural calamities do not discriminate between rich countries and poor ones, their effects almost invariably do…. The difference is a function of a wealth-generating and law-abiding society that can afford, among other things, the expense of proper building codes.”

Indeed, the unfolding catastrophe in Haiti exceeds that of Hurricane Katrina by at least one level of magnitude — because that latter tragedy befell a relatively poor city in what nevertheless is a rich country. Therefore, New Orleans could afford “the expense of proper building codes.”

There are two ways of looking at “the expense of proper building codes.” The editorial board prefers to look at them as a function of “a wealth-generating and law-abiding society” that permits entrepreneurship, so that we can become rich and afford building codes. Thank God for the entrepreneurs!  Without them we might be inhabiting something like the shantyowns of Port-au-Prince.

The second way of looking at the matter would be to remind ourselves that building codes are a restriction. They are a limitation. They are a violation of the strict rules of laissez-faire. If we did not have them, wouldn’t there be ideologues at hand to tell us that we absolutely must not enact them, lest we ruin everything? Might not the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Manhattan Institute be pumping out learned papers to that effect? (”Zoning? But in Houston they don’t have zoning, and look how fast they’re growing!” Maybe they have zoning in Houston by now — but, you get the point.)

Entrepreneurship and the development of the corporation were necessary for the sake of economic development. As thinkers like Hayek established so insistently, they had to be given a measure of independence, since economic knowledge necessarily is dispersed. However, we gave them that independence for the sake of the benefits it would yield — not for its own sake. Beyond a certain point, we cannot garner the fruits of economic development without the introduction of restrictions, taxes, and subsidies. Otherwise we might forever remain in something like the condition of an undeveloped frontier — or a shantytown, such as we might find in the absence of building codes….

“Long before cellphones became common, industry pioneers were aware of the risks of multitasking behind the wheel. Their hunches have been validated by many scientific studies showing the dangers of talking while driving and, more recently, of texting.” So reports Matt Richtel in Monday’s New York Times, in an article on telecommunications firms and their positions on the dangers of cellphone use while driving, as the technology won wider acceptance from consumers over the past quarter-century.  The article is the latest in a series on the dangers of cellphone use, including texting, while driving.

Sounds like a legitimate matter of public concern — but, wait a minute; what was that about “scientific studies showing the dangers of talking while driving”? Everyone knows that such things can’t be taken at face value.  Why, the researchers might have harbored an anti-corporate bias.  Maybe they were just trying to stir up a panic about using cellphones while driving.  They could’ve being angling to enrich themselves by garnering a lucrative government research grant.  Wait a minute, I have a great idea — somebody ought to hack into the email servers of the cellphone-safety researchers.  Maybe they were trying to cook the data….

Indeed, the matter carries clear overtones of the debate over another prominent political issue….

Among anti-corporate activists, few organizations attract as much hostility as agribusiness and biochemical firm Monsanto — not even Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil.  Now, Peter Whoriskey reports for the Washington Post that U. S. antitrust investigators are looking into the possibility of a case against the firm.

Much of the hostility to Monsanto through the years has involved its activity in the “developing world,” i. e. the impoverished countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Whoriskey, however, reports that U. S. farmers feel the firm is charging monopoly prices for its “Roundup-ready” seed.

Much of the impetus for the antitrust inquiry, reports Whoriskey, is coming from Monsanto’s competitor DuPont….

The American Financial Services Association held a conference call with reporters, trumpeting its success at blocking a consumer-protection bill for the financial sector, reports Dana Milbank for the Washington Post.

There could be just one little problem. “The trade group’s analysis was astute. But the presentation took a considerable amount of nerve. The AFSA’s membership, according to its Web site, includes some of the best-known names of the financial crisis: CIT, CitiFinancial, Countrywide, EquiFirst, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo Financial and GMAC. The trade group points out that its members did not directly receive bailouts from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (those went to banks, including some of the AFSA members’ parent companies), but it’s a safe bet that many of those firms would have failed if the government hadn’t intervened to prop up the financial markets…. Big firms such as J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America — direct or indirect beneficiaries of federal bailouts — are all battling efforts to rein in derivatives. And credit card issuers, facing new regulations scheduled to take effect in February, have responded by increasing their rates and fees.”

Their argument: “Don’t regulate us now because the economy is still suffering from the mess we made because we weren’t regulated the last time. Chutzpah, it appears, is recession-proof.”

I haven’t commented up to now on this site on the commentaries of Roger Cohen, which appear on the New York Times website but which are printed only in the International Herald Tribune. Saturday’s column by Cohen, however, cries out for attention because it flies in the face of the libertarian sensibility that dominates so much commentary in the blogosphere.

“I’ve come to love the dull, solid mid-rise brick buildings of the garment district, a universe away from the high-rise glass-and-neon of that other country two blocks away where Planet Hollywood and M&M’s World strut their stuff…. No — miracle of miracles — people here still buy and use sewing machines! A million square feet or so are devoted to garment manufacturing. The jobs have not all vanished to Bangladesh.”

Furthermore: “Speaking of food, the move has also brought deliverance from theme restaurants and chains to a garment-district diversity as wondrous as the ostrich feathers and sequined robes in store windows. Let’s face it: Dives are the last redoubt of genuine fare in New York.”

Cohen believes that New York has done a better job of preserving such neighborhoods than its cosmopolitan rivals, London and Paris. The takeaway: “I’m grateful for my New York journeys and for the zoning laws that make them possible. Wholesale gentrification deadens. There’s an untamed thread that binds button stores and stir-fried intestines with chili: They’re genuine. The fight for the genuine in the world’s great cities is also a fight for jobs, workers and creativity.”

Earlier this month I blogged on a column by Nicholas Kristof on the dangers of chemical compound found in many household products — bisphenol A. “The stuff may indeed be dangerous,” I wrote the time, although I noted that I was not quite   prepared to throw out all the plastic cups and bottles in my kitchen.

Now, Harper’s Magazine, in its December issue, (in a piece that may be available only to subscribers, for the moment) has dredged up a memo from the BPA Joint Trade Association — BPA being an abbreviation for bisphenol A. The material comes from minutes of  an association meeting in May. A summary notes that member firms “need to be more proactive in communications to media, legislators, and the general public to protect industries that use BPA” and “put risks from chemicals in proper perspective.” It was noted that attendees “suggested using fear tactics” (”Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?” or “You have a choice: the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh, or foods packaged in cans”).

It’s the sort of thing with which our whole system is shot through. Pundits like George Will, who come down on the side of absolutely unlimited corporate prerogative, do everything they can do to enable it. I recall running across an article by somebody who put it this way; If the epidemiologists discover dangers insecondhand smoke, they belittle the epidemiologists; if the climatologists detect climate change, they slander the climatologists.

I have in my possession a consumer-protection newsletter, unavailable on the Internet, which in its most recent issue mentions that cell phones have been determined to be safe — according to studies “funded by the telecommunications industry.” The author, a PhD in environmental studies, warned nevertheless against holding the things against your cranium for very long.

Think carefully, gentle reader, before you acquiesce in allowing the foxes to guard the chicken coop….

Nicholas Kristof has a column in Sunday’s New York Times about bisphenol A.  You’ve heard about it — it’s the stuff that’s in almost everything — everything plastic, or so it seems — including baby bottles, which is prompting some people to throw out their plastic bottles and replace them with metal ones. Kristof: “In my family, we’re cutting down on the use of those plastic containers that contain BPA to store or microwave food, and I’m drinking water out of a metal bottle now.”

The stuff may indeed be dangerous, but I’m afraid Kristof may be leaving himself open to caricature. For my part, slave to the nanny state that I am, I’ll wait until the gummint bans it or otherwise confirms its danger before I go about disposing of every plastic item in my little household. There are limits to how progressive and forward-thinking one can be. If I were meticulous about considering the dietary advice offered by locavores  and “foodies,” the time commitment would seriously compromise my ability to produce this website. A similar problem would arise, were I to attempt seriously to reduce my “carbon footprint.”  I tell myself that no single individual can save the planet by ceasing to drive. I’ll have to reduce my miles driven, along with everyone else, if such a thing is mandated by changes in government policy or the marketplace for energy.

All that is not to say that bisphenol A may not pose a serious danger. It’s just that, in this day and time, we can count on someone — actually, several “someones,” more than likely, bankrolled by vested interests in many cases — to try to debunk the danger. More than likely, they’ll try to compare it to the scare over Alar in apples, 20-odd years ago.

That’s what I’d be worrying about if I were Nicholas Kristof. In fact, if I were trying to make a living by making book, I think I’d offer a betting line about exactly when John Stossel will produce a debunking piece about bisphenol A for Fox Business Network. The question would be whether this will come in over or under 30 days….

One issue we see coming up over and over in the regulatory area is that small producers often are overly burdened incomparison to multinational corporations. Now comes news that legislation aimed at regulating the lead content of toys manufactured in China, for corporations such as Mattel, may have a devastating effect on small shops and makers of handmade toys….

PepsiCo and Kellogg’s will withdraw from the much-derided Smart Choices food-labeling program, with the Food and Drug Adminstration working on new nutrition-labeling regulations, reports William Neuman for the New York Times. “The Smart Choices logo began appearing on food packages this summer but immediately met with criticism from some nutritionists who felt its criteria were too lax. They pointed to sugary cereals, like Froot Loops, and fat-heavy products like mayonnaise, which they said should not be considered among the healthiest choices in the supermarket. The first ingredient in Froot Loops is sugar.”