Yet Another Drug War Failure by Ted Galen Carpenter, antiwar.com, April 23, 2024. Excerpt: Despite such spectacular policy failures, drug warriors in the United States and other countries cling to hard-line strategies and refuse to face an inconvenient economic truth.  Governments are not able to dictate whether people use mind-altering substances.  Such vices have been part of human culture throughout history.  Governments can determine only whether reputable businesses or violent criminal gangs are the suppliers.  A prohibition strategy guarantees that it will be the latter – with all the accompanying violence and corruption.  The ongoing bloody struggles among rival cartels to control the lucrative trafficking routes to the United States merely confirm that historical pattern. And a great last line: Ecuador is just the most recent proof.  Prohibition is akin to expecting long-term victory in a game of Wack-a-Mole. I’m a little picky about language. I would have said “Ecuador is just the most recent evidence.”   The Jones Act: Consequences of a Destructive Industrial Policy by Timothy Taylor, Conversable Economist, April 24, 2024. Excerpt: The United States has had an industrial policy aimed at boosting its domestic shipbuilding industry since the passage of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act. Whatever the arguments for the passage of the bill a century ago, it has over time been a disaster for the US maritime industry, and continues to impose significant costs on other parts of the US economy. Colin Grabow goes through the arguments in “Protectionism on Steroids: The Scandal of the Jones Act” (Milken Institute Review, Second Quarter 2024, pp. 44-53). And: 2) The higher costs of Jones-Act-compliant US shipping naturally impose heavy costs on places like Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. Weird consequences result, and Grabow provides a number of examples. Puerto Rico gets its liquified natural gas from Nigeria, because there are no Jones-Act-compliant US ships to transport natural gas within the United States. US lumber producers complain that they have a disadvantage vs. Canadian firms, because the US lumber producers must use higher-cost Jones Act ships to send their products to US destinations, while Canadian lumber producers can use cheaper international shipping companies.   It’s Time to Take a Hard Look at Public Libraries by Marc Joffe. Cato at Liberty, April 25, 2024. Excerpt: Like mom and apple pie, the public library seems so intrinsically good that it should be beyond criticism. But like any institution that consumes millions of tax dollars, public libraries should not be free from scrutiny. And the facts are that neighborhood libraries have largely outlived their usefulness and no longer provide value for the public money spent on them. Consider the situation in Northern California, for example. In this fiscal year, four Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) are collectively spending $270 million to operate their library systems, with some cities chipping in extra to finance extended operating hours. Contra Costa County is spending $20 million of state and county funds to build a new library in Bay Point, and El Cerrito voters may see a sales tax measure on the November ballot, part of which will go to building a new library as part of a transit‐​oriented development near a Bay Area Rapid Transit station. The public library’s historical functions of lending physical books and enabling patrons to view reference materials are being made obsolete by digital technology. An increasing proportion of adults are consuming e‑books and audiobooks in addition to or instead of printed books, with younger adults more likely to use these alternative formats.   There’s a kind of racism embedded in DEI by Erec Smith, Boston Globe, April 19, 2024. Unlike traditional racism — the belief that particular races are, in some way, inherently inferior to others — prescriptive racism dictates how a person should behave. That is, an identity type is prescribed to a group of people, and any individual who skirts that prescription is deemed inauthentic or even defective. President Biden displayed prescriptive racism when he said “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, you ain’t Black,” a statement that implicitly prescribes how Black voters should think. “Prescriptive racism” is probably a new term for most readers, but it’s not exactly a novel concept. It has a historical analogue: the concept of the “uppity Negro,” a Black person who dared to act like an equal to whites. One of this term’s most famous usages is attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson, who apparently said: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.” Clearly, “uppity” was meant to describe people of color who exercised “agentic” power — that is, they were competent and did not need a white person’s heroism. These “uppity” Black people were forgetting their scripted lines, as it were.       (0 COMMENTS)

Pierre Lemieux’s excellent post on The Economist‘s dismissal of an argument against gun control reminded me of a line from, I think, one of Robert MacNeil’s books. He said, “It has always been axiomatic to me that easy access to firearms would lead to more crime, in particular, homicide.” See the problem? It’s not axiomatic. It might be true, but it’s not axiomatic. MacNeil’s claim has to be researched. I remember, when I read that years ago, being so disappointed that a person who made his early living as a reporter would regard such a claim as axiomatic. And because he did, he probably never pursued the evidence. (0 COMMENTS)

I mentioned in a previous post that The Economist appears to lose all rationality when one specific topic is broached. The writer of the magazine’s April 20 newsletter “The World in Brief” gave another illustration: he could not mention the 25th anniversary of the horrible Columbine school massacre without doing the rhetorical equivalent of a child hiding behind the couch to stop watching a horror movie—which is the horror of guns in the hands of peaceful citizens: Gun-rights supporters often say, nonsensically, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It is not the only way, but often the most efficient. This is why cops are armed (more and more apparently even in the UK) and why mass murderers never attack shooting ranges or gun club meetings. It is a simple matter of incentives. Even if you want to die while killing people, you still want to do the killing. The efficiency of guns against violent criminals comes not only from their deterrent effects but also from their usefulness in self-defense when deterrence has not worked perfectly. “Nonsensically”? We know of many documented cases where an armed ordinary citizen saved his own life and the lives of others. The FBI publishes an annual report on events where “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Many of these cases fit the federal definition of mass shootings. The latest of those reports covers 2022 and the 50 cases that occurred during that year, with 313 injured or killed victims. (People who count hundreds of mass shootings per year in the United States include many other sorts of gun incidents.) Three or 6% of the 50 cases documented by the FBI were stopped by an armed ordinary citizen. In two of those cases (4% of the total), a mass murderer was fatally shot by an ordinary citizen, compared with seven cases (14%) by law enforcement. The two cases are summarized as follows in the FBI report (p. 11): In one incident [Charleston, West Virginia], an armed bystander engaged the shooter, killing him, after the shooter fired into a crowd attending a party outside an apartment complex. In one incident [Greenwood, Indiana], an armed citizen killed the shooter as he began firing in a mall food court. In this last incident, 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken had just come to the mall with his girlfriend when a mass shooting started. Three people had already been killed and two wounded. Dicken drew his pistol and exchanged fire with the mass murderer, whom he fatally shot. Greenwood’s police chief declared that “many more people would have died if not for a responsible armed citizen that took action very quickly” (“Elisjsha Dicken Stops a Mass Shooting,” Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2022). Reported cases of armed self-defense in individual aggressions are more numerous. Note that all school shootings have occurred in places where teachers or staff were banned from having a gun under penalty of felony. We also know, by following murder cases and their investigations in the press, that in at least some of them, peaceful individuals who were murdered could conceivably have stopped their murderers if they had been armed. We can suspect that in many cases, the victim’s last thought must have been “If only I had a gun.” There are real, identifiable individuals who lose their lives or are severely injured and who were forbidden by their own benevolent governments to carry means of protection. One intuitive objection claims that, even if armed self-defense works, the greater availability of guns on which it is predicated will lead to more murders or aggressions with firearms. Historical and other empirical evidence exists against this objection, but assume for a moment that the latter is valid. Consider what it amounts to claiming: that it is morally acceptable to forbid a peaceful and innocent person to defend himself or herself against a violent aggressor in order to reduce the probability that some unknown person in the future will be the victim of a criminal armed with a gun. It is analogous to a policy that would jail all young men between the age of 17 and 24 in order to prevent 39% of murders (see my post “A Simplistic Model of Public Policy”; see also “The Purpose of a Gun is Not to Kill.”) ****************************** Hiding behind the couch not to see the non-horror movie (2 COMMENTS)

Hardly a day goes by without further evidence that the world is moving toward Viktor Orban-style authoritarian nationalism. Here’s the latest piece of evidence, from the WSJ: A small group of the former president’s allies—whose work is so secretive that even some prominent former Trump economic aides weren’t aware of it—has produced a roughly 10-page document outlining a policy vision for the central bank, according to people familiar with the matter. . . .  Several people who have spoken with Trump about the Fed said he appears to want someone in charge of the institution who will, in effect, treat the president as an ex officio member of the central bank’s rate-setting committee. Under such an approach, the chair would regularly seek Trump’s views on interest-rate policy and then negotiate with the committee to steer policy on the president’s behalf. Some of the former president’s advisers have discussed requiring that candidates for Fed chair privately agree to consult informally with Trump on the central bank’s decisions, the people familiar with the matter said.  These things don’t tend to end well.  (Recall the Nixon/Burns Fed of the early 1970s.) Here’s Patrick Horan (who was my colleague at the Mercatus Center) in the National Review: Some of Donald Trump’s economic advisers are reportedly discussing ways to devalue the U.S. dollar should the former president be elected again this year. Chief among these advisers is Robert Lighthizer, who spearheaded the Trump administration’s trade war with China and could be Treasury secretary in a second administration. Proponents of the idea argue that making the dollar weaker against other currencies would make U.S. exports relatively cheaper, which would lead to a reduction in the trade deficit. They might wish to check with some Latin American economists to see how the “devalue your way to prosperity” approach worked in that region of the world. Reporters often engage in reasoning from a price change, but Horan does a nice job of avoiding that mistake.  He points out that any analysis of the impact of devaluation must begin with the question of how it is to be achieved: To start, let’s consider a critical concept in international economics: the “impossible trinity.” According to this principle, a country cannot have all three of the following at the same time: a fixed exchange rate, free movement of capital or investment, and monetary sovereignty (the ability to conduct monetary policy independently). It can only pick a maximum of two. Since 1971, the United States has chosen free capital flows and monetary sovereignty while letting exchange rates float based on market fundamentals. This choice is the norm among large, developed economies. To weaken the dollar to some desired rate vis-à-vis other currencies means fixing the exchange rate. That means either free movement of capital or monetary sovereignty will have to go. He then discusses the implications of the various ways in which the dollar might be devalued.  Read the whole thing.   PS.  In the long run, the only really effective way of devaluing the real exchange rate is with higher domestic saving.  And yet populists are allergic to almost any public policy proposal that would boost national saving rates, such as deficit reduction.  Populism aims at making people feel better today, whereas higher savings rates imply sacrificing today for more growth in the future.  Big current account surpluses tend to occur in thrifty countries like Singapore, Japan and Germany.   (0 COMMENTS)

“Follow the money” is a phrase used in many detective shows and political thrillers. Look for how the villain spent money on or received money from, and there is your culprit. The same is true when examining economic and political decision-making. In today’s world, it is common to talk about rent seeking behavior on the part of businesses. That is, it is economically rational for firms to spend their next dollar to gain profit (rents) from political privilege rather than a risky R&D project with an uncertain return. The interest group theory is pervasive in the study of modern economics and politics. We are quick to accuse “Big Business” of all the world’s troubles by cozying up to the government. However, for all of its understanding of behavioral symmetry, public choice theory often fails to overlook an obvious interest group, the government itself. Economists Robert Tollison and Robert McCormick wrote a volume in 1981 to examine this issue in detail. We understand politicians are willing to accept votes and contributions to their campaigns in exchange for some political privilege. At the same time, what if we start by considering the government as an interest group itself? Extracting rents from businesses, constituents, and other policymakers to provide political benefits happens more often than we think.  Fred McChesney wrote about what he referred to as “milker bills.” When proposed legislation would be to the disadvantage of the constituents in a political district, the political official explains to the constituent or interest group that will bear the greatest costs that their opponents want to pass this bill. Still, maybe they can prevent it from being passed. Contributions then flow to the political official; the bill does not see the light of day. The issue is not that the interest group contributions made the legislation go away, although that is an essential part of the story. We can also ask how the legislation creates the need for these contributions. The legislators can “milk” the special interests with the threat of legislation passing.  Why focus on this? I have been thinking about my research agenda recently and realize I have a very broad one. I have claimed that I am a public choice economist, and that is true, but that is just an area of study. I also claim that much of my research attempts to bring the public choice or political economy lens to various economic issues. Again, this is true, but it is not a robust research agenda. As I look closer at my work, I realize the influence of Robert Tollison on my work and remind myself to ask how the politician or government benefits. I often examine fiscal policy issues and think about the political benefit of expanding the deficit at the federal or state level. Yes, special interest groups lobby for political privilege, but politicians create the institutions and incentives that elicit rent seeking. They are exploring ways to extract rents from interest groups in a mutually beneficial way that imposes significant external costs on the public.  One example that is a common thread in my research is the impact of state economic development incentives. The subsidies and tax abatements that state and local governments usually provide large firms to locate in their area to “create jobs.” Most citizens, at least in the relevant region, see this as a massive benefit to them and their state. However, the economics literature has shown over and over that the economic gains do not materialize. What is realized is that the politicians have created a war of all against all in which each locale competes to get the business. If there is no economic benefit, what’s in it for them? Sure, they could be economically naïve and believe they are doing some good, and there is no doubt that some people will benefit. The chosen businesses clearly benefit from the incentive package and are willing to invest real resources to acquire it. But I have always thought about the political benefits of these incentives. Politicians have created this game, hanging out a sign to businesses that reads “privilege for sale.” And yet the politicians become the story’s hero, cutting ribbons and claiming they “created jobs.” Incumbent politicians receive contributions and votes from businesses. With what goal in mind? These policies only move pieces around the chess board without necessarily creating real wealth.  We should follow the money, but when we ask what special interest group will benefit from the proposed legislation, we should consider government officials in the mix. Government officials can find ways to promote the need for rent seeking behavior. We should ask if government officials are the special interest group driving the process, not just providing rents but finding ways to extract rents.   Peter Calcagno is a Professor of Economics at the College of Charleston and director of the Center for Public Choice & Market Process, Public Choice and Public Policy Project Fellow with AIER. He is the Treasurer of the Public Choice Society, a Voting Member of AIER, a Board Member of the Classical Liberals in the Carolinas, and has served on the board of APEE. His areas of research are applied microeconomics, public choice, and political economy. He is the author of dozens of journal articles and book chapters, and the editor of Unleashing Capitalism: A Prescription for Economic Prosperity in South Carolina. (0 COMMENTS)

In recent years, there has been increasing pressure to isolate the US from any sort of contact with the Chinese economy. The latest sector to be affected is healthcare, where there is a proposal to ban US drugmakers from contracting out various tasks to Chinese firms. Here’s The Economist: The knock-on effects for the Chinese firms’ American customers are also likely to be profound. Start with the contract manufacturer-researchers. WuXi is to big pharma what Foxconn, the Taiwanese assembler of iPhones, is to Apple—a high-quality supplier entrusted with sensitive ip. It says its clients include the world’s 20 biggest drugmakers. Dozens of American pharma firms have notified investors that, should the BIOSECURE bill pass, they may be unable to meet demand for their products or to complete clinical trials on schedule. . . .  Jefferies, an investment bank, reckons that replacing Chinese capacity would take big Western drug firms at least five years and almost certainly end up costing more. For biotech startups, which tend to rely on Chinese partners with proven records to save time and money on research and manufacturing, the BIOSECURE bill could be an existential threat. According to a survey conducted in March by BioCentury, a consultancy, biotech bosses and their investors expect a slowdown in drug development in the event of its passage. It is difficult to evaluate “national security” arguments because almost anything might conceivably have some sort of indirect link to that amorphous concept.  Thus does weakening China make war less likely, because our adversary is less powerful?  Or does it make war more likely because rich countries have more to lose from fighting?   One thing seems clear.  The track record of nationalism is much less promising than the track record of internationalism.   (0 COMMENTS)

One of the ideas that economists are most sure of is that when the price of something rises, other than due to something that shifts the whole demand curve, the quantity demanded falls. Conversely, when the price of something falls, the quantity demanded increases. This is not controversial in economics. Moreover, it’s so clear that it is part of our mutual understanding, even for non-economists. When you hear that Macy’s is having a sale, you don’t say, “Oh, I’d better not shop at Macy’s during the sale because the prices are temporarily higher.” No. You understand that Macy’s is having a sale in order to sell more and that the way to sell more is to lower their prices. Or consider what we all know to be true when strawberries are out of season: their price will be higher than when they’re in season. In other words, a reduction in supply, all else equal, will lead to a higher price; the way to sell the lower amount and have all demanders satisfied is to increase the price. This is the opening paragraph of my latest Hoover article, “High Minimum Wage Laws Hurt Many Workers,” Defining Ideas, April 25, 2024. In it, I discuss the effects, some of which have happened already, of the April 1 increase in the minimum wage for fast-food workers in California to $20 an hour. After quoting a news writer named Jack Birle suggesting that the higher minimum wage will make it harder for school cafeterias to compete for labor, I write: Give Birle a little credit. As least he understood that school districts are competing with fast-food employers. But then he forgot to follow through on what the minimum wage increase is doing to job opportunities in the fast-food industry: it’s reducing them. So the minimum wage increase will make it easier, not harder, for school districts to find employees. There will be a reshuffling of workers. Higher-productivity workers will find it more attractive to work in the fast-food industry. They will displace some less-productive workers who are not producing enough to make it worthwhile for fast-food employers to hire them. But the overall net effect will be fewer jobs in the fast-food industry and, therefore, more workers looking for work in other industries. I excerpted different parts of my article on my Substack. But if you want to read the whole thing, which is only about 1,800 words, go here.   (0 COMMENTS)

There have been some interesting developments with NPR recently. A long time veteran of the organization, Uri Berliner, wrote an essay lamenting that the organization has gone from and admittingly left-leaning but still rigorous and fair journalistic enterprise to a politically driven monoculture that lets ideology drive its reporting. NPR, he says, no longer facilitates viewpoint diversity or permits any dissenting voices – leading NPR in turn to suspend Berliner after he voiced his dissent. Berliner resigned shortly thereafter.  Naturally this got a lot of attention, and people have recently started highlighting a TED talk given by Katherine Maher, NPR’s new CEO and former CEO of the WikiMedia Foundation – the parent organization for Wikipedia. In her TED talk Maher made the following comment: For our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done. Now, there’s obviously reason to be concerned when someone heading a major journalistic organization is worried that holding an excessive respect for what’s true is an obstacle to getting things done. But that aside, I think she’s got things exactly wrong here. Seeking the truth, and holding a reverence for truth, is the best chance we have to find common ground. Indeed, it may be the only way to do so.  An opposite worldview to the one she espouses was described in a fun video on the Veritasium YouTube channel, outlining the history of how mathematicians calculated values for pi and how Issac Newton revolutionized this process. (Well, I think it’s a fun video anyway – your mileage may vary!) At one point, the discussion turns to Pascal’s Triangle and Derek Muller, the host of the channel, mentions how Pascal’s Triangle was independently discovered by multiple mathematicians at different times and from very disparate locations. Discussing this with math professor Alex Kontorovich led to the following exchange at the six minute and twenty-five second mark: Muller: The thing that fascinated me when I started looking at those old documents was how even though I don’t speak those languages and I don’t know those number systems it is obvious, it is clear as day, that they are all writing down the same thing, which today in the Western world we call Pascal’s Triangle.  Kontorovich: That’s the beauty of mathematics! It transcends culture, it transcends time, it transcends humanity. It’s going to be around well after we’re gone, and ancient civilizations and alien civilizations will all know Pascal’s Triangle.  All these mathematicians were able to converge on common ground despite different cultures and being separated by thousands of miles and centuries of time because they were all dedicated to working out what was true. Now, admittedly I’ve made things easy on myself by using an example from mathematics. Things are much harder when moving to more ideologically and emotionally charged issues such as religion or political ideology. But I agree with G.E. Moore that the difference is merely a matter of difficulty and not a matter of kind. Comparing errors in moral reasoning to errors of mathematical reasoning, Moore wrote: If we find a gross and palpable error in the calculations, we are not surprised or troubled that the person who made this mistake has reached a different result from ours. We think that he will admit that his result is wrong, if his mistake is pointed out to him. For instance, if a man has to add up 5 + 7 + 9, we should not wonder that he has made the result to be 34, if he started by making 5 + 7 = 25. And so in Ethics, if we find, as we did, that “desirable” is confused with “desired”, or that “end” is confused with “means”, we need not be disconcerted that those who have committed these mistakes do not agree with us. The only difference is that in Ethics, owing to the intricacy of its subject-matter, it is far more difficult to persuade anyone either that he has made a mistake or that that mistake affects his result. But this additional difficulty does not mean that we ought to abandon our attempts to seek the truth, or that reverence for the truth is a counterproductive distraction. It means we need to heavily emphasize a reverence for the truth as a necessary counterweight to our personal flaws and biases in these matters. To see examples of this in the real world, consider the idea of adversarial collaborations. The idea has been promoted by Scott Alexander, such as his description of one particular instance of it working: Let’s go back to that Nyhan & Reifler study which found that fact-checking backfired. As I mentioned above, a replication attempt by Porter & Wood found the opposite. This could have been the setup for a nasty conflict, with both groups trying to convince academia and the public that they were right, or even accusing the other of scientific malpractice. Instead, something great happened. All four researchers decided to work together on an “adversarial collaboration” – a bigger, better study where they all had input into the methodology and they all checked the results independently. The collaboration found that fact-checking generally didn’t backfire in most cases. All four of them used their scientific clout to publicize the new result and launch further investigations into the role of different contexts and situations. Instead of treating disagreement as demonstrating a need to transmit their own opinion more effectively, they viewed it as demonstrating a need to collaborate to investigate the question together. And yeah, part of it was that they were all decent scientists who respected each other. But they didn’t have to be. If one team had been total morons, and the other team was secretly laughing at them the whole time, the collaboration still would have worked. All it required was an assumption of good faith. These researchers were able to find common ground precisely because of their desire to seek the truth and because of their reverence for the truth. And if combatting disinformation is among the things you want to get done, doing so effectively requires knowing things like whether fact-checking has a backfire effect. So, on both counts, Maher is wrong. Truth-seeking is what we all ought to be engaging in – journalists or otherwise.  (0 COMMENTS)

California has some of the strictest insurance regulations in the country. It is the only state where insurers are not allowed to base their rate hikes on catastrophe models — forward-looking calculations of risk — or the rising cost of reinsurance premiums, according to both Zimmerman and the Department of Insurance. Under current regulations, insurers are only allowed to use catastrophe models to calculate rates for earthquake insurance. One proposed change under the Sustainable Insurance Strategy would expand that to wildfire risk, as well as the risk of post-earthquake fires and terrorism. Another proposed regulation yet to be released would also allow insurers to incorporate reinsurance costs into rate hikes, the department previously announced. The above quote is from Megan Fan Munce, “Major California home insurer could resume writing new policies. Here’s what it would take,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 2024. In case you haven’t heard, price controls on home insurance are causing a number of insurers not to write new homeowners’ insurance policies and, in some cases, to quit the business in California. The two paragraphs above lay out one important way in which prices are controlled. Insurers are not allowed to base rates on expected risks. While my wife and I are lucky because State Farm has said it will renew our policy, I’m not so lucky in another role. I’m a limited partner who owns approximately 1% of a large apartment complex in Bakersfield. Our insurer has told the general partner that it will not renew our insurance and he has been unable to find any insurer that will. (0 COMMENTS)

Serious arguments, economic and moral, exist to justify the state (the central and sovereign apparatus of government). Serious objections to these arguments also exist. It is interesting to note that most people, including most economists, ignore both kinds. I thought about this when I read the funny factoid reported by the Wall Street Journal about the king’s horses running amok in London this morning (“King’s Horses Run Amok in London, Escaping Monarch’s Birthday-Parade Practice,” April 24, 2024): Several of the king’s horses and a few of his men sparked chaos on this capital’s streets Wednesday when members of the Household Cavalry lost their mounts, allowing the animals to gallop through rush-hour traffic, careering into cabs and double-decker buses while being pursued by police over several miles. … The news that equine members of the Household Cavalry—which styles itself as the “trusted guardians of the monarch”—had gone rogue soon lit up social media. “How could we have the king’s horses without the state?” would not be a serious argument, except perhaps as a recognition of the importance of traditions. It would certainly not be a decisive argument in favor of the monstrous states we now have. The king’s horses weigh little compared to, say, the strong arguments against the state developed by Anthony de Jasay—who was also a strong supporter of conventions and traditions. On de Jasay, see my post of this morning as well as my Econlib review of his Against Politics. ******************************* DALL-E has no information of the king’s horses galloping in London this morning. I thus asked ze to imagine such an event. I use one of zir responses as the featured image of this post. DALL-E imagines the king’s horses running amok in London (0 COMMENTS)