The Evil of Giving?

We find that,

• Giving of gifts tends to make givers happy, even happier than spending money on themselves. [1].
• Gifts that are felt to be unearned tend to make people unhappy in the long run. For example lottery winners and such tend to in the long run do pretty badly in the long run.

Does this mean that giving gifts to individuals who don't deserve them is selfish and evil? Obviously this wouldn't apply to giving gifts to foundations/charities/etc, because those are not really gifts but they are the relationship of agency with the foundation. We give money to charities because we want them to do what they want to do with our money, so really they are just acting as our agents. However, this would apply to many forms of gifts to adult children, such as inheritance. Also, does this suggest that welfare payments would be worse than government mandated unemployment insurance (paid for by the workers)?


Notes:
For those who don't believe in "evil", replace instances of "evil" with "negative" or "harmful" or whatever similar word suits your fancy.
This talk is what got me thinking about this question.

1. Elizabeth W. Dunn, Lara B. Aknin, and Michael I. Norton (21 March 2008)
Science 319 (5870), 1687. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1150952]

The Same Problem Now as Then.

“The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the 
organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.”
–Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850

Federal Land grab

So, it seems the federal government is trying to take yet more state land. This land grab is unconstitutional. Article I of the constitution requires state permission to take land; the state should sue.


For your edification
The relevant clause in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; "

Do elected officials not read the constitution anymore?

Best analogy of why the republicans lost in 2006.

"The republicans are like a Knight in Shining Armor. They rode into town in 1994 and promised to sleigh the Dragon. They then proceeded to make a Deal with the Dragon that when Marauding the dragon would spare each farmhouse One Cow and One Building. Then the Knight is confused why the farmers are upset with him."

From JD

He is Us.

Freeman, you are wrong. He is coming. He is here. He is us. You and I and all of us are him. This shift is different than previous ones, before we have had some leader to lead us towards freedom, now its our turn to do it for ourselves.

New Age Healing and Prayer Therapy

Apparently the new health care bill it 'would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."'
This means that New Age healing, crystal therapy, and Christian Science 'prayer therapy' would be paid for under the new Democrat health plan.

hat tip: LA Times

Spending is the Problem.

"Do shocks to government spending raise or lower consumption and real wages? Standard VAR identification approaches show a rise in these variables, whereas the Ramey-Shapiro narrative identification approach finds a fall. I show that a key difference in the approaches is the timing. Both professional forecasts and the narrative approach shocks Granger-cause the VAR shocks, implying that the VAR shocks are missing the timing of the news. Simulations from a standard neoclassical model in which government spending is anticipated by several quarters demonstrate that VARs estimated with faulty timing can produce a rise in consumption even when it decreases in the model. Motivated by the importance of measuring anticipations, I construct two new variables that measure anticipations. The first is based on narrative evidence that is much richer than the Ramey-Shapiro military dates and covers 1939 to 2008. The second is from the Survey of Professional Forecasters, and covers the period 1969 to 2008. All news measures suggest that most components of consumption fall after a positive shock to government spending. The implied government spending multipliers range from 0.6 to 1.1. " (emphasis mine)

This means that at best government spending is more or less a net wash, and at worst it causes actual damage to the economy. I've said it before, elsewhere, government spending crowds out individual spending.

Hat tip: Kids Prefer Cheese

Here is the actual paper.