Russell Roberts's Blog, page 342

Out of Our Minds Is Caused by Out of Context

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

Here’s a letter to a Café Hayek commenter:

Sir:

Commenting on this blog post, you write:

Deaths aren’t the only outcome that could merit a cost-benefit analysis. The popular media treats so-called long-haul effects of Covid as reality. I can’t find hard data, but Nature at least has [an] individual report that 10% (of positive test results, or symptomatic cases, maybe) will suffer beyond the typical viral infection period. That seems significant enough for me to alter my own behavior, despite my lack of concern about death as a middle ager.

The question is “Compared to what?” The media and many politicians write and speak of Covid-19 as if it’s the only illness or ailment that has long-term consequences for those whom it doesn’t kill.

Consider that seasonal flu – which, remember, is more lethal to children than is Covid – has potential long-term consequences. According to WebMD, “[t]he flu can worsen long-term medical conditions, like congestive heart failure, asthma, or diabetes.” In 2017 Nature reported that “Patients who survive influenza A (H7N9) virus infection are at risk of physical and psychological complications of lung injury and multi-organ dysfunction.” Yet no one proposes to disrupt society with tyrannical restrictions – such as those imposed yesterday in my home state of Virginia – simply because many survivors of the flu suffer lasting ill-consequences.

Automobile accidents in the U.S. annually claim the lives of around 35,000 persons. Yet the number of persons who each year suffer permanent injuries in such accidents is about two million. Does anyone propose that this unfortunate reality justifies the lowering of speed limits to 10 MPH?

Many workplace injuries have lasting ill-consequences. The National Safety Council found that “An additional 33,000,000 [work] days were lost in 2018 due to permanently disabling injuries that occurred in prior years.” Does anyone propose that this unfortunate reality justifies locking down workplaces, or requiring that all workers be clad in fireproof bubble-wrap and remain at least six-feet apart from each other?

The hysteria over Covid is largely the result of a disgraceful failure by the media and our dictators (a.k.a. “leaders”) to put this disease’s risks in context.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

Professor of Economics

and

Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center

George Mason University

Fairfax, VA 22030

…..

For helping with this letter I thank Lyle Albaugh.

Quotation of the Day…

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

… is from page 516 of George Will’s excellent 2019 book, The Conservative Sensibility:

The Founders bequeathed to posterity a republic that throve under a limited government that provided social space for the creativity of society’s spontaneous order.

DBx: This space is shrunken by government intervention into the economy, and few interventions shrink it as much as does antitrust legislation.

From its start a policy of penalizing or preying upon successful companies – typically for the benefit of these companies’ less-successful rivals – antitrust interventions upend the results of competitive market processes. The pretensions of bureaucrats and judges disturb the unfathomably complex processes that give rise to today’s market ‘outcomes.’ (I put ‘outcomes’ in scare-quotes because genuine market processes never really have outcomes in the sense of final, equilibrium arrangements. In markets, that which is popular and successful and even ‘dominant’ today will tomorrow or the next day be superseded by something else, typically something else that is new and that is today non-existent and perhaps even unimagined.)

As is true of so many interventions, antitrust thrives, intellectually, on the mistaken notion that spontaneous orders are stupid and random and that human intelligence can improve upon their operation. Also as is true of so many interventions, antitrust thrives, politically, because this naive faith in intervention provides intellectual cover for rent-seekers to use the interventions for their own venal purposes.

Bonus Quotation of the Day…

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

… is from page 207 of the late Hans Rosling’s deeply insightful 2018 book, Factfulness:

The blame instinct makes us exaggerate the importance of individuals or of particular groups. This instinct to find a guilty party derails our ability to develop a true, fact-based understanding of the world: it steals our focus as we obsess about someone to blame, then blocks our learning because one we have decided who to punch in the face we stop looking for explanations elsewhere.

On the Reaction to Covid-19

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

Here’s a letter to a new correspondent:

Ms. Tolbert:

I did indeed see my friend and former colleague Omar Al-Ubaydli’s recent op-ed decrying what he believes to be humanity’s under-estimation of the seriousness of Covid-19. Omar’s essay prompts you to wonder why I – presumably because I oppose the extreme measures taken in the name of fighting this disease – am “not compassionate like Dr. Al-Ubaydli.”

I’ll not dare to compare my compassion to that of Omar, who I know to possess much of it. But I will make two points in response to your e-mail.

First, as I read the evidence, it tells me three things: (1) lockdowns do not work to reduce Covid deaths; (2) lockdowns fuel other health problems, including ones that are fatal; (3) lockdowns create enormous economic hardships for hundreds of millions of people.

If lockdowns actually reduce Covid deaths, we could discuss how to trade-off the benefits of lockdowns against their costs, keeping in mind that Covid victims are not the only persons who suffer and deserve compassion. But because lockdowns don’t even achieve their stated purpose, I simply don’t see how protesting these draconian measures reveals a lack of compassion.

Second, I honestly cannot grasp what Omar has in mind when he complains that “the coronavirus pandemic has failed to produce a comparable emotional response to tragedies on a smaller scale.” Mask-wearing is now nearly universal. The media, screaming about rising Covid cases, incessantly predict a “grim” winter. And so in response, and most tellingly, the vast majority of people – frightened into believing that Covid is far more lethal than it really is, and apparently unaware that Covid is overwhelmingly a danger to the elderly – meekly obey the tyrannical lockdown orders and other restrictions.

These orders and restrictions, on a scale unprecedented in modern history, prove not only that people are taking Covid extremely seriously, but, indeed, that people are taking Covid with a seriousness far in excess of what is warranted by reality.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

Professor of Economics

and

Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center

George Mason University

Fairfax, VA 22030

[image error] [image error] [image error]
[image error]

Some Links

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

Here’s a short video showcasing the talent and insight of the late, great Walter Williams.

Orlando Watson remembers Walter Williams. A slice:

The more I studied Williams’ writings, the more I came to see a man who was willing to challenge conventional wisdom — not with over-the-top rhetoric, but with evidence, research, and insight. Years later, as I began a career in Republican politics, it was unsurprising to me that Williams’ rhetorical style, coupled with the weight of his work as an economist, would earn him a near-celebrity status within conservative and libertarian circles. Though there are several prominent black conservative voices, few outlined so clearly the link between government intervention and black participation in the economic life of the nation.

Also remembering Walter Williams is Walter Block, and William McBride, and Allan Brownfeld.

Mark Perry documents the degree to which ‘wokeness’ in the academy has become a spoof of its ridiculous self.

Ethan Yang is correct: Covid Derangement Syndrome (CDS-20) is destroying the rule of law; it’s unleashing widespread tyranny. A slice:

Politicians across the country are slowly, in some cases aggressively, unraveling the rule of law through unwarranted exercise of power and poorly justified actions. From the exercise of power prohibited by state and federal constitutions, to blatant hypocrisy, to confusing and arbitrary laws, our system of good government is ailing. Lockdowns are the disease.

Jeffrey Tucker is rightly appalled at the failure of so many pro-lockdowners to consider more fully the consequences of their support for this tyranny. A slice:

Finally, it’s tremendously gratifying that the last column of the mighty genius Walter Williams specifically named the Great Barrington Declaration as the answer:

What about the benefits and costs of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic? Much of the medical profession and politicians say that lockdowns, social distancing, and mask-wearing are the solutions. CDC data on death rates show if one is under 35, the chances of dying from COVID-19 is much lower than that of being in a bicycle accident. Should we lock down bicycles? Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University and an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist were the initiators of the Great Barrington Declaration. More than 50,000 scientists and doctors, as well as more than 682,000 ordinary people, have signed the Great Barrington Declaration opposing a second COVID-19 lockdown because they see it doing much more harm than good.

Jacob Sullum is alarmed by the detached-from-reality notion that Americans are insufficiently alarmed about Covid-19.

Wall Street Journal columnist Dan Henninger writes about the rising resistance, in blue states, to the tyranny unleashed by Covid Derangement Syndrome. Here’s his conclusion:

The new resistance to Covid mitigation policies isn’t rising in those [red] states. It is emerging almost entirely in the bluest states. These are the states in which acts of civil disobedience and defiance are occurring among people who don’t wear MAGA hats.

Their governors are called liberals. But perhaps liberalism’s meaning and its political support are undergoing a transition, as Covid redefines the everyday understanding of individual freedom.

Quotation of the Day…

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

… is from page 12 of Russ Roberts’s splendid 2014 book, How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life:

Unfortunately, what the media and the public expect of economists is what we are probably worst at – giving precise answers to questions that presume the economy is like some giant clock or machine whose innards can be mastered and then manipulated with some degree of precision.

Walter Williams’s Final Column

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

Contrary to earlier reports, Walter Williams’s final column is not the one that appeared just hours after his death on December 2nd. Walter’s final column came out today, and it is devoted largely to criticizing humanity’s irrational response to Covid-19. A slice:

What about the benefits and costs of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic? Much of the medical profession and politicians say that lockdowns, social distancing and mask-wearing are the solutions. CDC data on death rates show if one is under 35, the chances of dying from COVID-19 is much lower than that of being in a bicycle accident. Should we lockdown bicycles?

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, biostatistician and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University and an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist were the initiators of the Great Barrington Declaration. More than 50,000 scientists and doctors, as well as more than 682,000 ordinary people, have signed the Great Barrington Declaration opposing a second COVID-19 lockdown because they see it doing much more harm than good.

Efforts to keep very young from getting COVID-19, given most will not even realize they have it or will suffer only mild symptoms, may be counterproductive in that it delays the point where a country has herd immunity. According to the CDC, COVID-19 deaths in young people (from babies to college students) are almost nonexistent.

The first age group to provide a substantial contribution to the death toll is 45-54 years, who contribute nearly 5% of all coronavirus deaths. More than 80% of deaths occur in people aged 65 and over. That increases to over 92% if the 55-64 age group is included.

Thus, only a tiny number of people under age 25 die of COVID-19. Yet, schools have been closed, and tens of millions of schoolchildren have been denied in-class instruction. Mandating that 5-year-olds wear masks during their school day is beyond nonsense.

More Remembrances of the Late, Great Walter Williams

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

Also remembering Walter is Star Parker.

In this podcast, my intrepid Mercatus Center colleague Veronique de Rugy remembers Walter.

GMU Econ alum Caleb Fuller remembers Walter.

A few days ago I spoke about Walter with my friend Ross Kaminsky.

I remember Walter in this discussion that I had yesterday with Ben Shapiro.

More Principles of International Trade

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

In my latest column for AIER I discuss three more principles of international trade. A slice:

4. The Benefits of Trade are Found in Its Imports. Exports are Trade’s Costs.

That this truth must be spelled out is itself a sad remark on the widespread (mis)understanding of trade. Popular and political discussions of trade almost universally identify imports as costs and exports as benefits. The notion is that receiving imports is the price that we in the home country pay in order to enjoy the benefit of sending out our exports. In trade negotiations, when one government agrees to allow its citizens to import more, that government is said to grant to other governments a trade “concession.”

This notion is worse than false; it’s downright wacky.

Dan Ikenson reminds us that “Milton Friedman liked to point out that exports are things we produce but don’t get to consume, while imports are things we consume without having to produce.” Indeed so. Exports are a cost; imports are a benefit.

To say that exports are a cost is not to say that they’re undesirable. But the desirability of exports is found in the goods and services that they enable us to consume. If exports brought us no imports, they would be all cost and no benefit. Put differently, exports are a means; imports – that is, the goods and services that we receive because of our exports – are the end. That the means in this case are justified by the end does not transform the means into the end.

An easy way to distinguish means from ends, or costs from benefits, is to ask yourself this question: ‘If I must give up one side of a transaction and keep the other side, which side would I give up?’ The side you’d give up is the means – it’s the cost; the side you’d keep is the end – it’s the benefit.

So in the context of international trade, would you (if you live in America) prefer that Americans give up importing while continuing to export, or that Americans give up exporting while continuing to import? The answer should be obvious. If we Americans continue to export without importing, we’ll enrich foreigners as we impoverish ourselves. In contrast, if we continue to import without exporting, we’ll be enriched by goods and services received from foreigners for which we sacrifice nothing.

Experience informs me that some of you are as yet unconvinced. So modify the question modestly: Which of the following options would you prefer? Option 1: You, personally, give to a foreigner some valuable good that you own and in return receive nothing. Option 2: You, personally, receive some valuable good from a foreigner and in return give nothing?

Option 2 is obviously better for you than is option 1. And because all international trade is conducted by persons just like you, the benefit side of each international trading transaction is found in the goods or services that the trader receives in exchange for the goods or services that the trader gives up.

Some Links

(Don Boudreaux)

Tweet

Richard Rahn remembers the remarkable Walter Williams.

Also remembering Walter Williams is Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who does so in her appearance in this short video. And here’s the remembrance of Walter from the Hoover Institution.

Alberto Mingardi is rightly unimpressed with Pope Francis’s economic understanding.

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins exposes the lunacy that infects “the Nasdaq stock exchange’s decision to branch into social policy with its proposed requirement that listed companies meet Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman’s goals for diversity on their boards.” A slice:

Only two years ago, on being named to the job, Ms. Friedman literally pounded a table to insist her overriding goal would be to reduce the bureaucratic disincentives that make a public listing so unattractive to young companies. One wonders which prospect of an open Senate seat changed her priorities. (Leaping to mind is 77-year-old Ben Cardin’s in Maryland, where Ms. Friedman lives and her family has long been socially prominent.)

Because your cynicism is not yet complete, did I mention that she wants the Securities and Exchange Commission not only to approve her rule but apply it to other exchanges and even private companies so Nasdaq won’t be uniquely inconvenienced by its boss’s foray into identity-politics brand-building?

And one week ago, the Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board understandably opened their criticism of Nasdaq thusly: “The more we think about the new racial, gender and LGBTQ mandates for corporate directors that Nasdaq announced on Tuesday, the more absurd they seem.”

GMU Econ alum Alex Salter weighs in – also in the Wall Street Journal – on the dangers of so-called “stakeholder capitalism.” A slice:

Stakeholder capitalism is used as a way to obfuscate what counts as success in business. By focusing less on profits and more on vague social values, “enlightened” executives will find it easier to avoid accountability even as they squander business resources. While trying to make business about “social justice” is always concerning, the contemporary conjunction of stakeholder theory and woke capitalism makes for an especially dangerous and accountability-thwarting combination.

Better to avoid it. Since profits result from increasing revenue and cutting costs, businesses that put profits first have to work hard to give customers more while using less. In short, profits are an elegant and parsimonious way of promoting efficiency within a business as well as society at large.

Stakeholder capitalism ruptures this process.

Stacey Rudin wonders why so many state and local governments across the United States copied Beijing’s method of attempting to control Covid-19. A slice:

Politicians have proved the truth of Orwell’s astute observation, “No one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.” They are currently hand-picking which industries will die and which will survive. Technology and media are doing well — Zoom is now valued the same as Boeing. The same entities selling lockdown are benefitting from it.