Pun Salad

I've been a Google fanboy for a long time, thanks to their supplying me with insanely functional services for free. What's not to like?

Yes, I sometimes quibble about the search results. But … free!

So I was concerned about the recent efforts to use a 19th-century law as a hammer to "break up Google". And so I view this (from Jack Nicastro) as pretty good news: Trump and Biden tried to break up Google. Now, they’ve both failed.

Bottom line:

In his decision, Mehta rightly recognized that Google's domination of the search engine market was not solely due to unlawful, anticompetitive behavior but in large part to its "best-in-class search quality, consistent innovations, investment in human capital, strategic foresight, and brand recognition." Mehta's refusal to break up Google has been called "a green light for monopolization to every big business" by some antitrust crusaders. [Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics] has another take; he says Mehta's decision is "definitely a win for consumer welfare over the vision of antitrust espoused by the [Justice Department's] proposed remedies."

"Consumer welfare": that's you and I, reader.

Also of note:

• When the demand is "DO SOMETHING!", we shouldn't be surprised when "SOMETHING" turns out to be bad. We recently linked to Jonathan Turley's litany of ChatGPT horrors: "suicide, defamation, and even murder." Over at TechDirt, Mike Masnick notes OpenAI’s Answer To ChatGPT-Related Suicide Lawsuit: Spy On Users, Report To Cops.

  When you read about Adam Raine’s suicide and ChatGPT’s role in helping him plan his death, the immediate reaction is obvious and understandable: something must be done. OpenAI should be held responsible. This cannot happen again.

  Those instincts are human and reasonable. The horrifying details in the NY Times and the family’s lawsuit paint a picture of a company that failed to protect a vulnerable young man when its AI offered help with specific suicide methods and encouragement.

  But here’s what happens when those entirely reasonable demands for accountability get translated into corporate policy: OpenAI didn’t just improve their safety protocols—they announced plans to spy on user conversations and report them to law enforcement. It’s a perfect example of how demands for liability from AI companies can backfire spectacularly, creating exactly the kind of surveillance dystopia that plenty of people have long warned about.

  I think of Mike as the "usually sane" one at TechDirt.

• Betteridge's law of headlines doesn't apply. Walter Block asks: End the Fed?

  Some 500 economists work for the Federal Reserve System. This is probably more than the entire dismal science faculty at all eight Ivy League Universities, perhaps with Chicago and Berkeley thrown in for good measure. If the Fed were disbanded, they would all have to seek other work, perhaps leading to prosperity. Under the present institutional arrangements, they undermine the economy. On the other hand, this is an empirical issue. Presumably, many of them would obtain faculty positions, on the basis of which they would be inculcating their charges with the same voodoo economics with which they ruin the economy.

  Why? How so? That is because one of their present roles is to determine, among other things, the interest rate. Thus, this job of theirs is “beneath contempt.” From whence did this phrase spring? It comes to us courtesy of an economist who has been accurately characterized as a “national treasure.” Here is the quote from Thomas Sowell (from Sowell’s textbook, Basic Economics) to which he refers:

  “Another reason for public support for protectionism is that many economists do not bother to answer either the special interests or those who oppose free trade for ideological reasons. The arguments of both have essentially been refuted centuries ago and are now regarded by the economics profession as beneath contempt.”

  Well, so it is for price controls, and, as interest rates are a price, just like that of imports, so too is controlling them via the Fed’s central planning “beneath contempt.”

  Here's a bonus video where Thomas Sowell deems the Fed to be a "cancer":

• How about if I leave out the bacon? Robert Graboyes provides a mouth-watering metaphor: Tariffs are to Economic Growth What a Bacon-Cheeseburger Is to Weight Loss. He's been asked a lot of questions about them. And…

  The questions have generally fallen into two categories:

  • FROM TRUMP SUPPORTERS: Given the positive economic numbers of recent months, are you finally ready to admit that Trump’s tariffs have been a net positive for economic growth?

  • FROM TRUMP OPPONENTS: Can you please explain the logic of how Trump’s tariffs will be a net positive for economic growth?

  Here’s my answer to both groups: Tariffs are to economic growth what a bacon-cheeseburger is to weight loss. You can lose weight in spite of a mega-cheeseburger-a-day habit, but, realistically, you'll never lose weight because of that habit. Equivalently, economies can experience economic growth in spite of tariffs, but they never experience growth because of tariffs. Various happy factors are currently boosting the U.S. economy sufficiently to overcome the damage done by President Trump’s shambolic tariffs. And lest I be accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome, I’ll offer that one can certainly argue that today’s robust growth is to some extent attributable to non-protectionist aspects of the Trump Administration’s economic policies.

  Robert includes a Dave Chappelle video in his post, so stick around for that.

• That depends on what you think the mark is. Jeffrey A. Singer brings a libertarian view to National Review when he suggests Ban the Fear, Not the Freedom: Massachusetts Bill Misses the Mark on Nicotine.

  Massachusetts State Senator Jason Lewis appears to suffer from nicotinophobia, the irrational fear of nicotine. He wants to add nicotine, which public health experts consider “relatively harmless,” to the list of drugs against which our country has been waging war — with dismal success — since the 1970s.

  Lewis introduced a bill in the Massachusetts legislature that would ban the sale of nicotine products to anyone born after 2005, aiming to create a “nicotine-free generation.” Strangely, Senator Lewis’s bill does not prohibit people from consuming nicotine gum and nicotine patches — two forms of nicotine marketed exclusively as tobacco cessation products, which people often use indefinitely. It only bans individuals from consuming nicotine if they derive a personal benefit from it.

  The University System Near Here) has also taken the prohibitionist stand. But, I think like the Massachusetts proposal, arbitrarily allows "Products that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for tobacco cessation or other medical purposes".

  I'm not a nicotine user, never have been, but haven't we had enough futile nannyism?