Water Subsides Are a Drain on California and on Economies in General

California has been dealing with drought for quite some time. I'm not going to go as far and say that it hasn't been this bad since the Great Depression, but it's still bad. The water situation in the country is bad enough where the population has doubled, yet the water consumption has tripled. There are those on the Left who would like to blame the drought on climate change because obviously, any climatological phenomenon is caused by our carbon output, right? Although record low rainfalls are not helping, you know what is making it worse? Ill-informed government policies, specifically in the form of water and irrigation subsidies.

The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) oversees water management, particularly in the West. Even thought the USBR has multiple reclamation projects, it can be summarized by saying that the USBR sells water to farmers for a fraction of the cost. In economic terms, this subsidy is artificially depressing water prices (see below).

It wouldn't be the first time that subsidies caused unintended consequences (see here, here, and here). Unsurprisingly, these subsidies create a deadweight loss. More importantly, by keeping prices low, it increases the quantity of the water consumed, which leads to shortages. The underpricing, which does not factor in the real-life costs of storing, pumping, and diverting water via dams, leads to inefficient usage and overuse, which is unfortunate considering how rare of a commodity water is. These subsidies also harm developing countries. Developing countries are more reliant on their agricultural output than developed countries. By distorting the markets to make American agricultural goods artificially cheap, developing countries lose out on agricultural output that a more liberalized market would have offered, which makes it more difficult for developing countries to climb out of poverty. This is not mere theoretical griping. In addition to California, this is also adversely affecting places such as Egypt, India, and Las Vegas.

One can argue for better-targeted subsidies, which I'm sure some would, but I feel more than my fair share of skepticism of allowing for a water allocation system that is based on political whims, not on who needs the water the most. Instead of having the government subsidize and allocate water, let's create water markets. With a water market, we can remove distortions so this rare resource can be used more efficiently, we can conserve a rare resource, and we can make water rights well-defined, enforceable, and transferable because market prices are a successful mechanism to determine supply and demand of resources. Although there is some government regulation, allowing water markets in such places as Chile and Australia works (Grafton et al, 2010).

Proponents of these subsidies would argue that agricultural markets would take a hit. So what if food prices go up a bit? Those prices should not have been that low in the first place. It does not do much good if the subsidies deplete the water while lining the pockets of Big Agriculture. If you're worried about low-income households, provide tax credits, but let's not throw more money at the problem thinking that will help because that's how California got itself in this mess in the first place. Are water markets the silver bullet to California's water woes? A silver bullet in public policy is more theory than anything else. Nevertheless, water markets can be the mechanism implemented in concert with other policy alternatives to mitigate California's water shortage.

4-8-2015: The people over at Vox wrote a good piece on water markets. Also, the Public Policy Institute of California put out a policy analysis on the drought of California, which includes policy alternatives, including strengthened water markets.

Parsha Tazria: Doing More Than Paying Lip Service to Opposing Lashon Hara

"The pen is mightier than the sword." This cliché exists for a reason: words have power. This is why Judaism realizes the importance of words, hence the emphasis on speech ethics. This emphasis also play a role in this week's Torah portion. Much of this week's portion discusses צרעת, which is commonly translated as "leprosy." Jewish tradition teaches that this leprosy is brought about by לשון הרע (lashon hara; literally meaning "evil tongue," refers to gossip and other forms of bad speech ethics). This lesion makes an appearance in a later Torah portion when Miriam speaks against her brother (Numbers 12), as well as when Moses spoke lashon hara about himself (Exodus 4:6). In the former appearance, Moses singles it out as the single most important lesson for the next generation to learn (Deuteronomy 24:8-9).

In spite of what Moses heeded, Jewish religious establishments, particularly Orthodox ones, put more emphasis on keeping kosher and Shabbat. Why? For one, it's easier to keep kosher and Shabbat, especially when you're in a community that observes it. Second, it's easier to regulate kashrut and Shabbat than it is what comes out of one's mouth. Even so, I wish that observant Jews were as meticulous about avoiding lashon hara as they were about keeping kosher or Shabbat. And it's not limited to Orthodoxy. I don't see non-Orthodox movements actively campaigning against lashon hara as a form of tikkun olam. Why am I so gung-ho about the idea of cracking down on lashon hara?

Looking at the description of צרעת in this week's Torah portion can help give us a foundation for my ardor. I found three facets of the description of צרעת of particular interest.

The first is that one's clothes are torn (בגדיו יהיו פרמים; Leviticus 13:45). I found this to be interesting because the tearing of one's clothing (קריעה) is done as a sign of mourning of a loved one. When we speak lashon hara, what should we be mourning? Judaism considers lashon hara to be akin to murder because just as blood is drained in murder, so is the blood drained from one's face when embarrassed in public (Bava Metzia 59a). Gossip is actually a triple murder threat because it harms the person who speaks it, the person about whom it is spoken, and the person who hears it. The Jerusalem Talmud (Peah 1:1) likens lashon hara to an arrow because it can slay those from afar, as well those who are near.

The second facet is that the leper has to call out "impure" (טמא!) to those around him (Leviticus 13:45). One thought is that the outcry is a plea to elicit compassion and prayers on one's behalf (Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 5a). In a similar vein, this outcry can be a  projection of one's failures (Talmud, Kiddushin 70a). In order to get help, the first step is to admit it. The fact that a commandment to do so is implied makes us realize just how difficult it can be to admit our problems. When we verbalize them, it brings us closer to recovery.

The third sign is that when one has the lesion, one has to isolate themselves from the rest of the community (Leviticus 13:46). This is to remind us that when we speak badly, our words disconnect ourselves from others. Speaking badly about other erodes trust in others, which causes distance from those who habitually speak lashon hara. Why is lashon hara so distancing, I mean, aside from the fact it causes harm? When an individual steals or murders, the motive is to typically gain something for oneself. With someone who speaks lashon hara, it's worse in this case because the motive is entirely negative. The individual is knocking down another individual without gaining tangible benefit for oneself because there generally is no motive or reason. It is evil for its own sake (R. Joseph Telushkin, You Shall Be Holy, p. 341-342). 

It is not just the Torah that teaches how we blemish ourselves with improper speech, but the entirety of Jewish tradition. Here's but one example:

The destruction of the First Temple was caused by the sins of murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality, which are the three sins for which one is to martyr themselves (Sanhedrin 74a). That exile only took place for about seventy years before the Second Temple was constructed. The Second Temple was destroyed because of lashon hara (Yoma 9b, Rashi's commentary), and we still don't have a Third Temple. What does that tell you? The sin of lashon hara has so much gravitas that it outweighs murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality (Erchin 15b).

The Chofetz Chayim points out that by speaking lashon hara, one violates up to 31 mitzvahs. He went far as saying that a significant curtailing of lashon hara would herald Moshiach. If Jews were half as gung-ho about stopping lashon hara as they were in the observance of Shabbat or keeping kosher, we very well could bring about the Messianic Era.

Is Russia's Bark Worse Than Its Bite?: A Concise Look at Russia's International Clout

Between the recent hosting of the Olympics in Sochi and Russian troops lining up on the Crimean border, Russia has been making the news. Even so, there is still the question of how much of a role Russia plays in the international sphere. Granted, Russia is not the power that was competing with the United States for world hegemony after World War II. Russia has at least enough resilience and power to not be sucked into the European Union (EU) and to not have foreign influences sway domestic policy, but is that enough? This is not a question of whether Russia has any sway in the international community, but rather determining just how much.

One of the largest factors that makes Russia a world player is its nuclear arsenal. Russia has the capability of taking out the United States within the blink of an eye. If there is any hope of making sure there is no nuclear war or if to proliferate nuclear disarmament (e.g., START), Russia is going to be a key player.

In addition to the Chechen Wars and the Russo-Georgian War, Russia recently decided to militarily intervene in Ukraine because of the civil strife going on there. The European Union (EU) is not thrilled with Russia's actions, which is why they imposed sanctions on Russia. It's nice to see the EU take some action, but I have skepticism as to the impact that economic sanctions will have. Russia also has permanent veto power on the United Nations Security Council, which it threatened to use for sanctions on Syria. Russia is even trying to strengthen its rapport with Latin America to expand its military influence, as well as buddy up with China. Nevertheless, there have generally been less international conflicts since the end of the Cold War, so it should not be a surprise that Russia is not exerting as excessive of military might as one would expect.

These days, it's more about soft power than flexing one's muscles by starting proxy wars throughout the world. Russia is the world's largest producer of petroleum and the second largest producer of natural gas. Russia likes to use the carrot-and-stick method on former Soviet bloc members to get them to behave properly (Congressional Research Service, p. 41). The United States could export natural gas in retaliation to loosen Russia's grip, but that will depend on how much Obama wants to play hardball with Putin.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) points out in its recently published Article IV Consultation that Russia's economic growth is stagnating (p. 4-5), the cost of doing business there is high (p. 6), and Russia's financial sector is inefficient (p. 14). In spite of these problems, Russia is experiencing declining inflation, more flexible exchange rates, and an expansion of retail lending. Let's also not forget that Russia is a member of both the G-20 and G-8, as well as its recent ascension to the World Trade Organization. Russia might be dealing with economic issues, but it's still an economic powerhouse.

Although this is very condensed and by no means a complete analysis, what does this mean in the context of international affairs? Although Putin is attempting to revive the vestigial prestige of Mother Russia during the Cold War, odds are that he won't succeed. That ship has sailed, and the probability of Russia becoming a world superpower on par with America is next to nil. I think China would have a better chance of doing so. Nevertheless, Russia has enough militaristic and economic clout that Russia cannot be ignored. The fact that Russia can roll into Ukraine without any significant, adverse consequences should say something right there. Russia is a regional hegemony that exerts supraregional influence. Russia might not be the powerful nation it once was, but Russia's role as a sizable international player is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Pirkei Avot 3:13: Jewish Ethics > Jewish Rituals

Judaism has a reputation for being a religion of nuance and complexity. Looking at Jewish texts such as the Talmud or Shulchan Aruch, you can see nitpicking and attention to the smallest detail. That can help explain the adage of "two Jews, three opinions." With a religion that can be as complicated as Judaism, one would think that succinctly summarizing the essence of Judaism would be difficult. Some of the rabbis of yore have tried. Hillel summarized Judaism on one foot by saying "Do not do others as you would have done unto yourself. The rest is commentary (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)." Rabbi Akiva (Sanhedrin 38a) used the positive dictum of "love your neighbor as your love yourself (Leviticus 19:18)" as the guiding principle of Judaism. In a similar vein, this mishnah reaffirms this underlying message:

כל שרוח הבריות נוחה הימנו רוח המקום נוחה הימנו. 

וכל שאין רוח הבריות נוחה הימנו אין רוח המקום נוחה הימנו.

If the spirit of one's fellow is pleased with him, the spirit of the Omnipresent is pleased with him; but if the spirit of one's fellows is not pleased with him, the spirit of the Omnipresent is not pleased with him. -Pirke Avot 3:13

What R. Chanina ben Dosa was illustrating here is the importance of making an impact on the light of another. The ethical, interpersonal mitzvot are a directive from G-d to take care of His children. This would extend to all of His children, not just His Jewish ones, hence the usage of the word בריות. I also found it interesting to see what was not listed, and that is the more ritualistic aspects of Judaism, such as Shabbat or keeping kosher.

This is not to say that ritual does not have a role in Judaism. Rituals are a way in which Jews connect to G-d. Rituals are actions that define the particularistic aspect of Judaism. Rituals are supposed to invoke something in us and help us connect to G-d. However, as I've argued before, rituals are the means to a more spiritual life; rituals are not performed for their own sake. If rituals are meant for us to get closer to G-d, then much like parents who is most proud when their children get along with another, the best form of knowing that we're doing a good job is G-d being pleased about how His children treat their fellow human beings.

But if mitzvahs between G-d and men (בין אדם למקום), as well as mitzvahs between man and man (בין אדם לחברו), are both directives from G-d, why would the latter be the one that causes G-d to be pleased with us?

While both are directives of G-d, when an interpersonal mitzvah is violated, it's a double violation. With interpersonal mitzvahs, it's a proverbial smack in G-d's face [because a directive has been violated] and it harms another individual, and that individual is created in G-d's image. Interpersonal mitzvahs are the way that one can be both good in the eyes of G-d and man (Proverbs 3:4). Look at how atonement on Yom Kippur works (Chavot Yair). To atone for one's sins that are בין אדם למקום, one has to recite Kol Nidre. For sins that are בין אדם לחברו, however, G-d will only forgive those sins if the individual seeks forgiveness from the one that has been wronged. The way that we make teshuvah for our sins in Jewish practice should tell us plenty about which one is more important in G-d's eyes.

If we want to connect to G-d, one of the best ways to do so would be to do that which makes Him happy, and that is because a sound metric of a relationship's success, whether that relationship is with family, friends, or G-d, can be measured by the extent to which one is pleased with the other in the relationship. From what we have here, how we treat fellow beings is more important than ritual, and if G-d is pleased when we act ethically, that should give us pause as to how we should view our Judaism.    

Fred Phelps: A Man Who Ironically Helped the Gay Rights Movement

Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church fame recently passed away. He won't be a man who will be remembered as the civil rights activist who started a law firm to help take down the Jim Crow establishment. He will be remembered as the kooky, hate-mongering, anti-gay pastor who indignantly protested military funerals and other locations. It's safe to say that the vast majority of people are not going to miss him, myself included.

As nice as it is to see one less bigot on this planet, he still did some good, even if it wasn't his intention. For one, his picketing tested the limits of the First Amendment (Snyder v. Phelps), which shows just how much free speech is valued in this country. What is more interesting is how he affected the gay rights movement.

Phelps thought that the 9-11 attacks, the roadside bombings during the Iraq War, and Hurricane Katrina, amongst other tragedies, were G-d's way of punishing America of being so tolerant of the LGBT community. I'll set aside the fact that this country has a while to go before reaching LGBT equality, but even so, how does a man who virulently hates homosexuals become such a help to the gay rights movement?

Phelps wanted Americans to have absolutely no respect for LGBT rights, but the more he picketed, the more supportive people became of same-sex marriage. This is not to say that Fred Phelps was the single most important factor in the progression of LGBT rights because there were other factors that played a significantly larger role. Nevertheless, Phelps became the embodiment of all that is anti-gay. He made the people over at the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council look like moderates. This was more than showing the dangers of religious fundamentalism. Phelps showed Americans just how much hate one has to harbor in order to be anti-gay. Being anti-gay and/or against gay marriage went from being commonplace to an opinion of hate and bigotry. Not only did he fail at his goal of spreading his anti-gay message across the country, but he helped propel the gay rights movement forward while putting a good number of Christians on the defensive about this issue. His legacy of hate helped more and more churchgoers become loving and accepting of their gay co-religionists. Phelps inadvertently framed the issue not in terms of "traditional marriage versus marriage equality," but in terms of "hatred versus acceptance." Phelps didn't expect acceptance to defeat hatred, but his hatred was such a turn-off that people realized the ugly side of being anti-gay.

As tempting as it would be to judge Phelps, I will leave that up to G-d. Phelps is no longer with us, and the fact that he failed in his fear-mongering is all the more pronounced by the progress made by the gay rights movement. Phelps should slip into obscurity and become a mere footnote in history. At this point, I will simply delight in the fact that people are becoming more and more accepting of LGBT individuals and realize that everyone, gay or straight, deserves the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Parsha Shemini: There's Something Fishy Going On

Thinking up a blog entry for this week's Torah portion wasn't as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, but I was able to come up with this. I was reading this week's Torah portion and was looking at the part about kosher animals. I came across the section on fish (Leviticus 11:9-12), and I started pondering as to why fish required fins and scales to be kosher. Since every fish with scales has fins (Talmud, Niddah 51b), why say סנפיר וקשקשת ("fins and scales")? Isn't that a bit redundant? And what is about fins and scales that G-d wants us to notice or recognize?

The Gerre Rebbe points out that by mentioning both fins and scales, one can fulfill two divine directives while eating fish, which further honors the Torah. Although it makes for a nice d'var, let's think of fins and scales in terms of their functionality and how that can be interpreted.

So here's what I came up with:

Scales protect fish from harm. Much like a fish's durability, G-d wants us to develop a sense of resilience and adaptability to one's surroundings when life seems dark or decides to throw you a curve ball. Life is not meant to be all sunshine and good times. When life knocks us down, He wants us to get up. One of the reasons that the Jewish people still exists is because of resilience. As King Solomon once said, "for a righteous man falls seven times and gets up again (Proverbs 24:16)."

This is the moment where I point out that the fins are not a redundancy at all. Why? Because to analogize us to the fish, when we decide to get back up, the fins are there to propel us forward. Fins are the mechanism that allow fish to swim and actualize their potential.  Much like fish, G-d wants us to explore the depths of the ocean and actualize our potential. He wants us to marvel at the wonders around us and appreciate what we have. 

We are what we eat. G-d wants us to learn something from this precept, and that is to be able to live our lives to the fullest, even when the turbulence of the ocean knocks us around more than a few times.

How Much Proof Does One Need to Lower the Drinking Age?

Yesterday was the Jewish holiday of Purim, and today is St. Patrick's Day. Two holidays that entail a good amount of drinking is certainly nothing to whine about. These holidays got me thinking: should we lower the drinking age? Prior to the federal government threatening to yank federal highway funding to the states if they didn't raise the drinking age to 21, plenty of states had a lower minimum legal drinking age (MLDA).

I found one study showing that American MLDA laws do not do much to impact teen drinking (Miron and Tetelbaum, 2007), one on the lack of impact on college students (Hughes and Dodder, 1992), and a meta-study showing that an increased MLDA does not affect suicide, homicide, or vandalism rates (Vagenaar and Toomey, 2002). I also found that in general terms, per-mile traffic fatalities were already decreasing prior to the increase of the MLDA in 1984 (see below), which would diminish an argument of causation. If I had to take a shot as to what caused the prior decrease, I would argue such factors as seat belt laws, zero-tolerance laws, greater public awareness, air bag implementation, and other technological developments played a larger role. More specifically to the 18-20 year old age demographic, per traffic-mile fatality rates were already decreasing prior to raising the MLDA to 21.

However, a recent meta-study (De Jong and Blanchette, 2014) that is seemingly thorough makes me wonder whether we should keep the MLDA at 21. The meta-study points out that an MLDA of 21 has saved an approximate 900 individuals per annum. Let's assume that De Jong and Blanchette are correct in saying that there is a small, negative effect (as opposed to a negligible or non-existent one). Much like I argued with trans fats, this is a matter of dealing with certain tradeoffs.

One tradeoff is the health benefits of alcohol. The neo-prohibitionists over at Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are not going to want to admit this, but unlike many of the illicit drugs out there, alcohol can be good for you when drunk in moderation. This is a point that cannot be emphasized enough. Our European counterparts learn to drink alcohol in a safe environment, usually as part of a meal, and are more prone to learn to drink alcohol with moderation and restraint. The typical American is exposed to alcohol at a high school party or at college, both of which are more underground, create a taboo for young adults entering college or the workforce (e.g., reactance theory), and help to perpetuate the binge culture. Much like responsible eating, sex, or other life choices, parents should teach their children the idea of responsible drinking, which is what parents in other countries do.

The other tradeoff is the freedom of being able to make choices, much like any other adult. Eighteen-year-olds are trusted to vote, buy cigarettes, get married, and risk their lives by serving in the military, but why doesn't the recognition of adulthood encompass alcohol consumption? We legally treat eighteen-year-olds like adults in just about every facet, except this one. This inconsistency, not to mention the relatively large gap between legal adulthood and the MLDA, develops similar disrespect for the law that Prohibition did. Not to say that nobody ever binge drank prior to, but should it be a surprise that a culture of binge drinking has become a staple of American culture since the enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (Title 23, §158)? Even with this law enacted, about half of Americans age 18-20 still drink at least once a month (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Figure 3.1).

I would argue for that the states should not have to kowtow to the federal government lest they lose federal highway funds. States should be able to determine the MLDA by analyzing their own unique demographics, much like Morris Chafetz thought. Conversely, I think the American political atmosphere can make us prone to thinking in terms of the "either legalize at 18 or 21" dichotomy, which means that more middle-ground solutions are not typically considered. I was talking with a friend and colleague prior to writing this blog entry, and he provided me with a policy alternative. Since we have different political ideologies, he knows it's not easy to convince me in a polemic context, but he managed to do so last evening. His idea? Lower the drinking age to 19. Why have an MLDA of 19?

I found this policy alternative to be appealing on a theoretical level. At the age of 18, there would still be high schoolers who legally had access to alcohol. The 18-year-olds would be able to provide younger high school students with alcohol. This policy alternative would be beneficial for the college level because at age 19, freshmen would only have to wait a few months, as opposed to a couple years. This smaller time gap would bring the drinking of those of the age of 19-20 to more regulated and supervised locales. This alternative would address both the binge drinking at the collegiate level and what it legally means to be an adult.

Unless there is a change in public opinion that leads to outcry, this is more of a exercise in public policy theory than anything else. In the meantime, one can only hope there is an ailment to this weak policy.