Jasper Smith

Matt Yglesias ponders government policy with respect to home ownership:

If we didn’t subsidize howmownership, people would own less home and own more stocks and bonds instead. Some of that owning “less home” would come from people renting rather than buying, and some would come from buyers simply buying smaller houses. That’s be good for the environment, and more capital would be available for business operating in non-housing sectors. Meanwhile, I feel like if we weren’t specifically encouraging an ideology of home ownership (“American dream” and all that), you might get less of the risky behavior that seems to be causing trouble of late. I feel like there are a lot of people who would never dream of doing something so exotic as margin trading who’ve been basically willing to do the same thing with their investment in the housing market. If anything, it seems to me that we should be work at the margin to discourage people from treating their homes as speculative investment commodities.

A number of Matt’s commenters raised objections to the above line of thought, perhaps best summarized by the line:

Homeownership is encouraged to make sure economics and democracy are properly aligned.

That’s all well and good, but this still doesn’t say why government (as opposed to, say, one’s family or friends, or the desire to have a golden retriever,  or the wish to paint one’s living room midnight blue) needs to “encourage” the consumption of owner-occupied housing — especially via massive tax code subsidies as is currently the case. I mean, if it were a matter of, say, having a 30% home ownership rate vs the actual 69%, the mortgage interest deduction might make more sense. But there are plenty of good reasons to own a home entirely independent of the government cash involved, and countries whose governments subsidize home ownership to a lesser degree than ours (Britain, for instance) enjoy home ownership rates comparable to America’s.

Thing is, it’s not even clear the tax code actually boosts the ownership rate, because that’s not the same thing as boosting the consumption of owner-occupied housing (which current policy most assuredly does accomplish). I think it’s entirely possible that the increase in the consumption of owner-occupied housing observable in increases in average home size and amenities (and, of course, price) largely cancels out hoped-for gains in the ownership rate (especially in areas where the subsidized increase in demand can’t easily be accommodated by new inventory).

What we should be asking ourselves is: is the cost of the tax subsidies and attendant misallocation of capital justified by the extra (say) three points of home ownership we may (or may not) gain as a result.

My guess would be “no.”

…I really really really hope the Good Lord allows me to come back as Tom Brady.

Will Wilkinson is skeptical of Ezra Klein’s claims about middle class economic anxiety. He also believes the benefits flowing from globalization strongly outweigh the negatives:

I think lots of firms will be seeking less-expensive foreign labor, that this will have a significant effect on the jobs available to Americans, but also on the price of many goods and services (down) and on the incentives to acquire new and/or improved skills (stronger).

Although I don’t disagree with any of this, and although I’m a committed fan of globalization, I’m skeptical that a government guarantee of health insurance, say, or a dollop of wage replacement insurance for those too old to make the transition into a new career would do all that much to blunt the incentives to upgrade skills. Moreover, I’m increasingly convinced that lack of health/economic security is exerting at least some negative impact on the ability of Americans to fully partake of the so-called “Ebay economy.”

I guess what I’m saying is that I suspect to a substantial degree we can have our cake and it eat it, too: Sam’s Club protections combined with Brave New Economy opportunities and efficiency. I reject the notion that we must choose either/or because it least appears to my eyes that a number of other places (New Zealand? Ireland? Canada?) are rejecting this false choice to their great benefit.

“British School Kids Shun Healthy Foods” thunders this AP headline picked up by The NY Times:

Please sir, we don’t want any more! Naked Chef Jamie Oliver’s push for healthier foods to replace greasy french fries, chicken nuggets and turkey twizzlers on British school menus is in a twist. Apparently, the students aren’t anxious to try it. The celebrity chef has led a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of food served in schools, demanding more money for meals and a ban on junk food. His TV series ”Jamie’s School Dinners” exposed how cafeteria menus relied on prepared foods like chicken nuggets or the turkey twizzler — a corkscrew of mainly reconstituted turkey scraps and preservatives. Such meals, usually served with piles of fatty french fries, could cost as little as 66 cents. Spurred to action, the government set up the School Food Trust in 2005 to help schools improve the quality of their food. Sample menus for the new program included vegetarian quiche, lentil burgers and mushroom tagliatelle. But more than 424,000 students opted out of their school meal plans in the first two years of the program, according to government figures obtained by the opposition Liberal Democrats and released Monday.

You mean to tell me that a government’s efforts to get a group of people to eat healthily is being trumped by homo sapien’s five million year evolutionary history — you know, the one that favored the survival of those who love to eat fatty, carb-laden, calorie-rich foods to better ward off the next episode of famine?

I’m shocked, I tell you, simply shocked!

A more accessible and in many ways a more mainstream film than the previous year’s Capote, Infamous (2006) also happens to be the better and more entertaining of the two pictures. It offers the viewer a much richer, fascinating depiction of the Manhattan social scene at the end of the 1950s, and also features a good deal of genuine humor — there are some truly hilarious scenes in the film’s first half. And yet the early jokes only serve to make the picture’s sombre denouement all the more harrowing.

As for the performances, well, some will say Toby Jones doesn’t quite possess the acting chops of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, but I think it’s more the case that he simply doesn’t overact in the same manner as Hoffman (of whom I’m a big fan, for what it’s worth). In retrospect I’d have to say the usually superb P.S. Hoffman was rather miscast in Capote. But this is most definitely not the case with British character actor Toby Jones’s rendition of the famous writer. Mr. Jones’s light touch is given an especially strong foundation in the role by his startling physical resemblance to the real Truman Capote, as well as his dead-on accent and speech patterns.

There is also a delightful, understated, Oscar-worthy performance from Sandra Bullock as Capote’s longtime friend Harper Lee, and a dark, ferocious and equally award-deserving Daniel Craig as the death row inmate Perry Smith.

Some times less is more. But there are times, too, when more is more. Infamous — with its more traditional Hollywood treatment including lavish sets, over-the-top humor gags and a stable of big budget stars — is a slick, effective, and highly entertaining movie about Truman Capote and the writing of “In Cold Blood.”