Set aside arguments for or against the safety of genetically modified, or GM, foods. Consider their impact on property rights. I recently saw a report on how a farmer that collected his own seeds ran into trouble when a herbicide-resistant strain of canola started growing on his property. He couldn’t get rid of it with normal herbicides and sued Monsanto for the damages caused to his crops.

Monsanto counter-sued the farmer for growing its canola without a license. Monsanto won both of its cases. While the farmer is appealing the case, he’s outclassed in terms of what he can do legally. Other farmers that maintain their own seed banks have been sued by Monsanto when some of Monsanto’s species started to grow on their property. The farmers never intentionally planted the crops, but courts have nevertheless held them liable for violating Monsanto’s property rights.

This is a travesty. Leave the benefit or harm of GM crops aside: no amount of benefit could justify the way Monsanto is essentially polluting the countryside and then using that pollution to take down farmers not using its products. Simple laws that should keep plundering such as this from happening have been easily perverted by Monsanto’s legal teams. Yes, Monsanto’s got to make a profit to stay in business, but for it to destroy rights in the name of profits is inexcusable.

Below are links to PDF files for my AP US Government and AP Economics classes. These files are current as of August, 2010. Syllabuses for my courses are updated and abridged versions of the ones I submitted to College Board, so AP instructors hoping to submit them will be advised to use my fuller, approved syllabuses I’ve already submitted to CB. Instructors and students are free to use this material for personal and class use, but are not allowed to present this material as their own work, nor are they permitted to sell this material. All materials copyright 2010 and on, L. Dean Webb and Zzzptm.com. All rights reserved.

AP US GOVERNMENT
AP US Government Syllabus

AP US Government Multiple Choice Question Correlation

AP US Government Free Response Question Correlation

AP MACROECONOMICS
AP Macroeconomics Key Concepts and Terms 2010

AP Macroeconomics Multiple Choice Question Correlation

AP Macroeconomics Free Response Question Correlation

James Pethokoukis of Reuters reports that we might see the current administration use the Bush-era HARP program to forgive hundreds of billions in bad mortgages. The bailout would not require congressional approval, since the money would go to Freddie and Fannie. Both of those entities have no ceiling on their bailout amounts. Unemployment is heading back up, GDP growth is sluggish, and Obama’s numbers are low. Three reasons why we might see an August Surprise.

Cash for Clunkers, the one-off housing credits, and the hiring for the census all boosted the economy and put dollars into it to increase AD. However, all those programs have ended. The car industry is still in a mess. There is still a 40+ month supply of houses and new home construction is very low to non-existent. Unemployment remains above 9% and would be much higher without birth/death adjustments arbitrarily placed on the figures. (One of the B/D adjustments is to automatically fudge in an increase in housing construction and hospitality jobs during the late spring and summer. Both of these increases account for almost all of the job growth in recent months. Data show that housing construction is very low and the hospitality sector is enduring a very rough season, meaning those B/D adjustments are misplaced in the jobs environment of 2010.)

What the increase in G has accomplished is, following a temporary statistical boost, no net gain to GDP, an increase in the federal government’s share of total USA indebtedness, and an increase in USG interest payment obligations. The net impact of the increased spending was zero.

That doesn’t mean the government should cut all programs: that’s a recipe for a disaster of a different sort. But so-called stimulus programs will stimulate the economy only as long as they are in existence. We saw the same thing in Depression-era programs. If the fundamentals of the economy remain troubled, as they do in the wake of severe asset devaluation recessions, no amount of stimulus spending will get the economy back on its feet permanently. Put another way, a true Keynesian solution means regulating the economy to prevent it from melting down in the first place, thereby keeping the fundamentals in the banking and finance sector sound enough to provide a foundation for further recovery. In those cases, government stimulus can help reduce the impact of a short recession.

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico remains a terrible problem and its pollution will have an impact on wildlife for decades. It’ll also wipe out competition for the major oil companies, giving the majors even more power over the US energy market. The US (and other big nations) will make stiffer regulations for pollution controls and the only players that will be able to afford them will be the major oil companies. They’re the ones that pollute the most, and they’re the ones that benefit the most from wrecking the environment. They have enough money to hire lobbyists to assist in writing the legislation that will go before Congress. They’ll get their way, all thanks to the BP disaster.

On the AP Economics discussion list, a teacher mentioned how he teaches the concept of externalities – costs or benefits that happen to someone not party to an economic decision – with a discussion about smoking in public places. He mentioned he was glad that public smoking bans, when passed, are followed by a dramatic drop in heart attacks at local hospitals. He then lamented a recent repeal of such a ban.

Another person responded with praise for the repeal of the ban, indicating it to be a victory for freedom in his view. This is known as a “normative” statement in economics. Normative statements imply a value or other judgment. Positive statements in economics merely describe conditions, regardless of value. “Unemployment is at 9.7%” is a positive statement, for example.

Anyway, I had to respond to the idea of smoking as a freedom for one and all to enjoy. Here’s my response…

***

Ah, the glories of the normative arguments of freedom in issues regarding externalities! But for every normative argument, there is at least one equal and opposite normative argument, so let’s explore the issue.

If the smokers aren’t paying the medical bills of the people they impact, that’s one massive externality. If the cost cannot be passed on to the smoker through increased taxes, banning the activity reduces the extent of the externality and its impact.

If I claim to get pleasure from placing unshielded high-grade uranium ore on the table in front of me (and go to www.unitednuclear.com to order your hunk today!), and then go to a restaurant and sit next you with my hunk of unshielded 31,000-50,000 CPM pitchblende, you might have one of several legal reactions:

1. You might decide it’s my right as an American to enjoy the pleasures of uranium wherever I go. You endure the beta and gamma radiation and bear an increased chance of cancer from that moment forward. If it’s a big meal, you might develop radiation sickness within a week.

2. You can decide that if I’m gonna irradiate the room, I can pay for it, as well. Results are as in 1, but we now have a civil suit regarding who pays your medical bills. Since I’m already wiped out from paying for my own treatment, your lawyers advise you to pay your own. You’re now out the cost of your combined legal and medical bills.

3. You could also go after the company that sold the uranium ore. When you go to http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_4&products_id=463, you discover a disclaimer that your lawyers tell you is sufficient for their coverage. Since I used the uranium in a manner inconsistent with their instructions, they’re clean. Results as in 2, but with a much lower legal bill – probably just $50 for the initial consultation.

4. You could charge me with aggravated battery. That would at least get me off the streets with that radiation rock. Assuming your case prevails over my cries of, “I didn’t know! I was intoxicated! He got cancer somewhere else! I was eating Twinkies!”, I pay an economic price for my crime of injuring you by being put in jail for a period of time.

5. You could retaliate by lighting up a cigarette and giving me a taste of my own medicine. Freedom is freedom, right?

6. You could work with other like-minded individuals to pass a law that criminalizes possession or transport of unshielded radioactive materials. I can’t even have them in my own home under the statute. I grumble about it, move to a trailer home in a remote location, put barbed wire around my home, and continue using it in solitude. The small-town cops out there choose to tolerate my activity rather than follow a path of strict enforcement. I still injure myself and, if indigent, society bears the cost of my treatment, but the law has reduced the risk to others.

Exposing people to chemicals that will knowingly injure or kill them forces them to bear the costs of an economic decision they were not party to: it should therefore be their legal right to take proper recourse to reduce their exposure to those chemicals. In so doing, they enjoy the freedoms associated with a healthier lifestyle than one impacted by second-hand smoke. And, truthfully, I think we can all be happier with the statutory option than with the nuclear one.

Now that I think about it, maybe there are a few guys out there planning the nuclear option… better start passing some laws!