Russell Roberts's Blog, page 1516

No More Bullying, Part II

Here's a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

Jack Kinstlinger alleges that Tea Partiers are motivated by "greed and selfishness" and "reject what is fundamental to our religious teachings – that it is our duty to help those less fortunate and that we cannot live in isolation but are part of a larger community" (Letters, Oct. 23).

I have no idea what motivates the typical Tea Partier, but I do know that opposition to a heavy-handed government is not evidence of "greed" or of the absurd belief that human beings are not "part of a larger community."

There's a long tradition of classical liberalism – boasting names such as Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Madison, Jefferson, Tocqueville, Macaulay, Gladstone, Cobden, Mencken, and Hayek – based on the understanding that forced "charity" is not generosity; that no agency better serves the narrow and anti-social goals of the truly greedy than does the state; and that individuals left to regulate their own affairs with a minimum of interference from government will create extensive and deep patterns of social cooperation that are far more effective at meeting human needs than will any bureaucracy or program imposed by the state.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

No More Bullying

Here's an e-mail, in full, from Nathaniel Clarkson (posted here with permission):

via tweet from the president:

Each of us deserves the freedom to pursue our own version of happiness. No one deserves to be bullied. #itgetsbetter http://j.mp/dfubAY

I agree.  Why not extend the same courtesy to people who use "illegal" drugs or enter voluntary contracts with others?  The list goes on, of course.

Nathaniel

Some Links

Mario Rizzo, over at ThinkMarkets, writes eloquently on the state of modern macroeconomics.

Reason's Shikha Dalmia, writing at Forbes.com, explains why China-bashing is for losers – and, I would add, also for those who have no principles that politics will not trump.

Jonah Goldberg offers reasons (and evidence) for why Americans should resist moving toward becoming a European-style "Progressive" country.

My GMU Econ colleague Charles Rowley has a new book, Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste, in which he critically evaluates the firest 18 months of the Obama administration.

Carpe Diem's Mark Perry offers solid facts that should calm the fears of those who fret about income 'inequality.'

I love Sally Satel.

Wrenches for Wenches!

Here's a letter to the New York Times:

You report that economist Barbara Bergmann is "calling for 'a revival of affirmative action to get women into the better-paying blue-collar jobs'" ("White House Promotes Economic Efforts for Women," Oct. 22).  Prof. Bergmann's rationale, in her own words, is that "Most of the advances women have made have been in the professions and business management."

This is a problem, what with women getting all those professional jobs and not as many opportunities to toil in factories and in mines.  But it's a problem also for men: over the past several decades, most of the new jobs created for men – as for women – have been in the professions and business management.

Clearly, these facts are disturbing evidence that American manufacturers are biased against human beings.  Because the bulk of blue-collar work in the recent past has gone disproportionately to inanimate machines, only one conclusion is possible: U.S. manufacturing firms are run by bigoted executives with an irrational fear and hatred of people.

Something must be done.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

(HT to Greg Staff for the title of this post)

Holland Tunnel Vision

Here's a letter sent last night to news-radio station WTOP:

A Politico pundit, during the 10pm hour on your station today, favorably quoted President Obama's recent remark – from the Oct. 17th edition of the New York Times Magazine – that "Infrastructure has the benefit of for every dollar you spend on infrastructure, you get a dollar and a half in stimulus because there are ripple effects from building roads or bridges or sewer lines."

History counsels caution before accepting such an assertion.  First, in the cradle of the industrial revolution, Great Britain, infrastructure was funded and managed largely by private sources rather than by the state.  Second – and more to the point – is this sobering conclusion from economic historian John Wallis: "There were many reasons why the eighteenth-century Dutch economy failed to become a full-blown industrial economy, but one of them was the fiscal burden of maintaining the infrastructure investment that had fueled the growth in the first place."*

Had the 17th-century Dutch relied as heavily as did the 18th-century British on private entrepreneurs to fund, build, and manage their infrastructure, perhaps Manhattan would still be New Amsterdam and we'd all be celebrating, in Dutch, The Netherlands rather than England as the first industrial nation.

Either way, history shows that today's stimulating infrastructure expenditures by government can be tomorrow's debilitating national burden.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

* John J. Wallis, "Government Growth, Income Growth, and Economic Growth," Chapter 13 in Capitalism in Context: Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of R. M. Hartwell, John A. James & Mark Thomas, eds., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), p. 283.

But Joseph Stiglitz Has a Theory that Disputes this Fact

I just re-read John Wallis's 1994 paper "Government Growth, Income Growth, and Economic Growth" (which is Chapter 13 in this collection).  It's a fine read.  One take-away point occurs in John's discussion of theories of economic growth:

Any growth theory where government investment plays a critical role in stimulating growth immediately runs afoul of the historical record, however.  The first countries to industrialize did not require extensive government involvement to make these investments.  In England, it was apparent that neither early capital accumulation nor social overhead investments depended heavily on the public sector [p. 282].

But Joseph Stiglitz's Has a Theory that Disputes this Fact

I just re-read John Wallis's 1994 paper "Government Growth, Income Growth, and Economic Growth" (which is Chapter 13 in this collection).  It's a fine read.  One take-away point occurs in John's discussion of theories of economic growth:

Any growth theory where government investment plays a critical role in stimulating growth immediately runs afoul of the historical record, however.  The first countries to industrialize did not require extensive government involvement to make these investments.  In England, it was apparent that neither early capital accumulation nor social overhead investments depended heavily on the public sector [p. 282].

Give Me a Cigarette

Here's a letter to the Los Angeles Times:

Jonathan Fielding and Paul Simon praise New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg for "Incentivizing healthy eating" (Oct. 20).  Never mind that the mayor's idea of an incentive is a ban – as in his ban on trans fats in NYC restaurants.  Also ignore the fact that it's none of Messrs. Fielding's, Simon's, or Bloomberg's business what I or anyone else eats.  If I choose to stuff my face with bacon-wrapped Twinkies fried in lard and slathered with salted butter, that's my business.

Instead, focus on the fact that there are already in place natural incentives to eat a healthy diet.  Most significantly, people who eat a poor diet reduce their life-expectancy.  They also become less physically attractive and, hence, less competitive in the market for appealing mates.  If these incentives aren't sufficient to persuade someone to forego an unhealthy diet, decency and civility require that we respect that person's choice.  The life in question belongs to that person and not to society or the state.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

Some Links

This is David Harsanyi at his best – which is very good indeed.

And this is Bob "Boris" Higgs at his ghoulish best – which is wickedly funny and smack-on.

Slaughterhouse

Here's a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

Walter Russell Mead rightly deplores the illegal-drug industry and its "violence and the culture of violence that wreaks such terrible havoc in urban areas all around the world" ("Notable & Quotable," Oct. 20).  It's important to recognize, though, that this violence results not from the "drug" part of the industry but from the "illegal" part.  After all, the likes of Merck and Novartis don't compete for market share by routinely sending out their employees to shoot each other.

Or look at the matter this way: imagine the consequences if government outlawed meat.  Right or wrong, people have a hefty demand to consume beef, chicken, pork, lamb, venison, and other types of animal flesh.  Outlawing the sale and consumption of meat would bankrupt operations such as Perdue and Hillshire Farms, but more-grisly suppliers would soon arise to satisfy the market demand.  The resulting illegal meat industry would be run by meat lords – vicious gangsters who, you can bet your Butterball turkey, would compete for territory and settle their accounts with all the violence and cruelty now associated with the illegal drug industry.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux