Russell Roberts's Blog, page 1558

Two guys to watch

Christie. Barofsky. I have a feeling we're going to be hearing some interesting stuff from both of them over the next few months.

The fundamental question

James DeLong asks the right question. What has the financial sector contributed that justifies this:

[image error]DeLong writes:

So what do the bankers really claim as the business model that enabled them over the past decade to collect such a huge portion of all corporate profits? There are several possibilities, none of them flattering to the industry:

• That bankers actually did nothing and had no expertise, but clients thought, albeit wrongly, that they were getting something (no doing of the banks, of...

Some Links

Bill Easterly and Laura Freschi highlight the important work of Karol Boudreaux on the splendid results of the freeing-up of Rwanda's coffee industry.

George Will exposes the ugly, debt-infected underbelly of crony capitalism.

This brief video vividly explains the awful consequences of excessive government spending.  (HT Dan Mitchell)

Radley Balko chimes in on the pet-shooting drug raiders – pointing out that the only thing unusual about this disgusting episode is that it was captured on video.

Milton Friedman, Immigration, and the Welfare State

In my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review I undertake a risky task: to disagree with Milton Friedman.  But Friedman was one of history's greatest scholars – and great scholars never accept arguments exclusively, or even chiefly, on authority.  Specifically, I here challenge Friedman's argument that the existence of America's welfare-state makes it unwise to return to the more-open immigration regime that America had until the 1920s.

Anticipating one objection – namely, that...

Milton Friedman, the Welfare State, and Immigration

In my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review I undertake a risky task: to disagree with Milton Friedman.  But Friedman was one of history's greatest scholars – and great scholars never accept arguments exclusively, or even chiefly, on authority.  Specifically, I here challenge Friedman's argument that the existence of America's welfare-state makes it unwise to return to the more-open immigration regime that America had until the 1920s.

Anticipating one objection – namely, that...

Or Just Get a Dog

Here's a letter to the New York Times:

Today on your Blogginghheads, Daniel Schultz and Mark Kleiman debate "whether President Obama is a great moral leader."  A much more interesting question – one likely to probe, not facile disagreements over political strategy, but genuinely interesting phenomena such as human irrationality – is "Why on earth does anyone look to the President of the United States for moral leadership?"

Barack Obama is a full-time politician.  Like every member of this...

Leamer

Ed Leamer is both smart and wise. In the latest EconTalk, he talks about the challenges of doing empirical social science. Perhaps my favorite moment is when he says that economic theorists are novelists and econometricians are like journalists. His work is underappreciated. His taking the'con' out of econometrics paper is timeless, alas. We discuss its timelessness and the habits of empirical economists.

Some Immigration Links

The Boston Globe's great columnist, Jeff Jacoby – who, it's important to say in this context, is more accurately described as a free-market conservative than as a libertarian – again writes wisely about immigration.  Here's a key passage:

I have never understood the anti-immigrant hysterics. Industrious self-starters who come to the United States to find work, create new wealth, and improve their lives are not a menace or a threat. They are an asset. No state seeks to drive out hard-working...

Some Trade Links

Cato's remarkably talented Sallie James argues against Uncle Sam using his trade-negotiation powers for any purposes other than to promote freer trade.

At The Economist, the great Jagdish Bhagwati debates Ngaire Woods on the fairness of free trade.

Fancies are Not Facts

Here's a letter to the New York Times:

Paul Krugman blames the BP oil spill on interest groups and an "antigovernment ideology" that combined together to thwart government's ability to perform effectively ("Sex & Drugs & the Spill," May 10).

Let's grant, for argument's sake, that under ideal circumstances all of the many tasks that Mr. Krugman wants government to do can be better performed by government than by the private sector.  It nevertheless doesn't follow that these tasks should be...