Russell Roberts's Blog, page 360
October 24, 2020
Specifically, Leave Us Be
Here’s a response to a recent comment by Thomas Hutchison:
Mr. Hutchison:
Commenting on a blog post in which I link to several essays that argue against covid-19 lockdowns, you write “All have good points, but all seem to fall short in not being specific enough about what to have done/to do instead.”
With respect, to oppose the lockdowns is to endorse leaving individuals free to choose their own levels of prevention, both for themselves and their loved ones. Individuals differ in their risk preferences, in their and their loved-ones’ vulnerabilities, and in many other personal and family circumstances that require the making of trade-offs – trade-offs that will and should be made differently by differently situated people. Therefore, to criticize those who oppose government-imposed lockdowns for not specifying “what to have done/to do instead” is to miss the point entirely.
There is no one set of specific actions to be done. There is, instead, a range of different responses that is as wide and open-ended as is the vast range of differences among individuals. Or, put differently, there is one specific thing for government to do: get the hell out of the way of individual choice and initiative. Immediately end the lockdowns, grand and petit, as well as all threats and prospects of such. This course of action is the one that the authors of the pieces to which I linked call for wisely – and specifically.
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
Bonus Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 275 of the late Werner Troesken’s 2002 Review of Austrian Economics article, “The Letters of John Sherman and the Origins of Antitrust“:
Sherman’s letters reveal that he was more concerned with protecting the interests of small and inefficient businesses than with protecting the interests of consumers.
DBx: Indeed. Antitrust policy was born as a scam to suppress competition in favor of politically influential producers and other rent-seekers, it has always been used in this noxious manner, and it continues to be such a scam.
“There is simply no excuse for imprisoning the population”
Indeed there is not, as explained here by pathologist John Lee. (HT Sheldon Richman)
DBx: Again I put this question to my classical-liberal and libertarian friends who think the lockdowns justified: Why do you trust with the awesome power to obstruct everyday life – work, school, worship, leisure (including family gatherings) – the same individuals (politicians), operating in the same institution (government), who you do not trust with the power to impose tariffs, grant subsidies, and mandate occupational licenses? Why do you suppose that these same political individuals who haven’t the courage, prudence, or long-term vision to balance governments’ budgets during booming economic times are acting courageously, prudently, and with a long-term vision in response to covid-19?
And why do you suppose that the mainstream media – which you recognize are consistently wrong regarding policies such as the minimum wage, trade, government budgeting, “price-gouging,” and welfare – are reporting on covid-19 with sufficient accuracy to give to you, to politicians, and to the general public a reasonably objective, complete, and clear picture of covid-19? Why would the same reporters and pundits who, say, explain price hikes following natural disasters as being the result of “greed” – who so often write and talk as if it’s an established fact that income inequality in market economies is evidence of “the rich” gaining at the expense of the non-rich – who treat as gospel truth a self-righteous Swedish teenager’s warning of a coming environmental calamity – who never look past that which is seen to report and opine on that which is unseen – get the account of covid-19 correct?
That the likes of Paul Krugman, New York Times’s editorialists, writers for The Nation, and other Progressive intellectuals, along with leftist politicians, support lockdowns is unsurprising. These people trust government, deeply, and distrust freedom. Long before covid-19, such people regularly revealed their belief that ordinary persons left free to act without the detailed supervision of government officials will cause chaos and calamity. These intellectuals and politicians routinely write and speak as if the almighty state possesses miraculous powers to design and enforce order – order that is the only alternative to chaos and calamity. And so these Progressive intellectuals are consistent in their support for the covid lockdowns.
But classical-liberals and libertarians??? Why? What’s the deal with those of you who support, or even tolerate, the covid lockdowns?
Some Covid-19 Links
Lockdown policies are not only “regressive,” with their disparate impact on the poor and minorities; they reflect, Dr. Bhattacharya says, a “sort of monomania.” The world “panicked in March, and the focus came to just be on Covid control and nothing else.” People saw pictures from Wuhan, China, and Bergamo, Italy, and concluded that they had to do “something very, very drastic in order to address this drastic thing that’s happening.” There was “an action bias that led to the adoption of lockdowns as a form of contagion itself.” (There is an academic paper that models the lockdown-contagion idea, titled “Explaining the homogenous diffusion of Covid-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions across heterogeneous countries.”)
Mr. Kulldorff says the Covid-19 restrictions violate two cardinal principles of public health. First, “you can’t just look at Covid, you have to look holistically at health and consider the collateral damage.” Among the damage: a worsening incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer and an alarming decline in immunization. “People aren’t going to the doctor,” he says. Dr. Bhattacharya also points to the suspension of tuberculosis programs in India and of malaria-eradication programs elsewhere.
Mr. Kulldorff’s second principle: “You can’t just look short-term.” Dr. Bhattacharya says we will “be counting the health harms from these lockdowns for a very long time.” He says anti-Covid efforts are sowing the seeds of other epidemics: “Pertussis—whooping cough—will come back. Polio will come back because of the cessation of vaccination campaigns. All these diseases that we’ve made substantial progress in will start to come back.”
The “Focused Protection” plan in the Great Barrington Declaration would minimize both COVID-19 mortality and lockdown-induced collateral damage on other health outcomes. In line with pre-2020 pandemic preparedness plans, the declaration calls for better protecting the old and other high-risk groups, for whom COVID-19 is more dangerous than influenza.
By contrast, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than influenza. Children and low-risk young adults should be allowed to live near normal lives as they face greater medical, psychological and economic harms from lockdowns than from COVID-19. Immunity among low-risk young adults could also shorten the length of the pandemic, making it easier for older people to protect themselves.
And here’s an FAQ about the Great Barrington Declaration.
Barry Brownstein is correct: tyranny is fueled by mindlessness. (Nothing in America during in my lifetime has been as mindless as has the response to covid-19.) A slice:
Importantly, those who want to turn over responsibility to experts often deny the freedom of others to choose. When others make different decisions and stay healthy, they are reminded they have a choice. Since they don’t want to know they have a choice, they will insist that government violently force you to follow their way. And to justify their support for coercive actions, they will mindlessly dehumanize those who don’t follow the instructions.
David Henderson writes on managing – and mismanaging – covid-19 shock.
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 119 of Frank Easterbrook’s brilliant 1989 paper “Ignorance and Antitrust,” which first appeared in published form in Thomas M. Jorde and David J. Teece, eds., Antitrust, Innovation, and Competitiveness (1992) (footnote deleted):
The hallmark of the Chicago approach to antitrust is skepticism. Doubt that we know the optimal organization of industries and markets. Doubt that government could use that knowledge, if it existed, to improve things, given the ubiquitous private adjustments that so often defeat public plans, so that by the time knowledge had been put to use the world has moved on. Efforts to improve markets through law aim at a moving target, with a paradox: if an economic institution survives long enough to be studied by scholars and stamped out by law, it probably should be left alone, and if an economic institution ought to be stamped out, it is apt to vanish by the time the enforcers get there.
DBx: What is most lacking in intellectuals and in politicians is humility. The great majority of them mistake their own impressions and theories of reality as sufficient reason to justify the state using force to mold this inconceivably complex reality into the comparably childlike-simple shapes fancied by intellectuals and politicians. All such people play god. That the god they play poses as benevolent does nothing to make this overwhelming hubris acceptable.
October 23, 2020
Leave Google Alone
Mr. Lewis e-mailed me twice in the past 24 hours, each time to express his “relief” that I’m not an economist working for the DOJ or FTC. (This fact is a relief also to me!)
Mr. Lewis:
You correctly infer that I oppose antitrust action against Google, but you incorrectly think that my opposition comes from “simpleminded econ 101 theories with zero friction and perfect information.” And contrary to your suggestion, I’m aware that “Google’s customers can’t switch to alternatives without sustaining significant costs.”
If you read my blog you’ll discover that I’m among the last people on earth to assume zero friction and perfect information. In fact, my understanding of markets requires the existence of friction and imperfect information. These apparent bugs in markets are, in a real way, features, for each friction and imperfection presents a profit opportunity to be seized by creative entrepreneurs. In our non-nirvana reality, this seizing of profit opportunities is never perfect or complete. But if you study economic history you’ll learn that it does occur and that it forms an on-going process – a market process – of steady improvement. Such a process is the best that we mortals can hope for.
A final point. Perhaps it’s true that Google’s customers, while they can switch, must incur significant costs to do so. But doesn’t this fact testify to Google’s excellence rather than evilness? To me it appears that the reason such switching isn’t ‘easy’ is that Google is so very superior to any of its rivals. For this offense you wish to sink into Google the fangs of antitrust?!
Please study the history of antitrust. It’s a sleazy parade of economic ignorance and lawyerly arrogance marching alongside rent-seekers grasping for protection from competition. The DOJ’s current action against Google is part of this parade.
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
Some Links
Nick Gillespie talks with the great t.v. and documentary producer Bob Chitester.
Should we infer, then, that the War on COVID is prudent after all? Hardly. Sure, non-linearity makes sense when you raise a high risk. But approximate linearity still makes sense when you raise a low risk. If you disvalue a 1% risk of death at $100,000, would you really require far more than $110,000 for a 1.1% risk? Would you really require far less than $90,000 for a .9% risk? Remember, non-linearity is symmetric: If X increases faster than linearly, X should also fall faster than linearly.
Remember, moreover, that you face a long list of risks. They add up to a scary sum, but taken individually, even broad risks (e.g. “all accidents” or “all contagious disease”) are typically modest. So while it might be wise to take great efforts to halve your total risk, taking great efforts to halve any specific risk remains foolish.
Ethan Yang decries the inconsistent messages coming from pro-lockdowners. A slice:
The burden of proof is on those who wish to continue what seems to be a failed experiment with lockdowns. However, the rhetoric of those critical of the Great Barrington Declaration has shown a concerning amount of inconsistency. We are told that lockdowns are only temporary, but also we need to hunker down for the long haul. Lockdowns are only to relieve hospital capacity but also we need to stay locked down until cases are lower. We shouldn’t reopen society but also society is already reopening so the Great Barrington Declaration is baseless. Don’t politicize Covid-19 but also we should be wary of the Great Barrington Declaration because Libertarians like it.
Also writing intelligently on the antitrust harassment of Google is Elizabeth Nolan Brown. A slice:
“They know they have an uphill battle,” said the Mercatus Center’s Brent Skorup. “Most of Google’s services are offered for free to consumers, so authorities will need compelling evidence of anticompetitive agreements or harm to consumers.”
The Amazing (James) Randi has died. (I met him at a party in northern Virginia about seven or eight years ago and relished my conversation with him.)
Quotation of the Day…
… is from page 69 of Roger Koppl’s important – and today especially relevant – 2018 book, Expert Failure; within this passage Roger quotes Bill Easterly (reference removed; link added):
Free development leverages epistemic diversity to find solutions to human problems. The “tyranny of experts,” by contrast, has very little epistemic diversity and limits feedback from the people to the expert. Expert schemes imposed on the people don’t allow for the heterogeneity naturally emergent from free development. It is usually one size fits all. Nor do they entail the ceaseless local searching and experimentation of free development. Top-down planning cannot equal “the vast search and matching process” of free development. Thus, Easterly views experts as fundamentally unreliable.
DBx: Yes.
Pictured above is the “expert” Neil Ferguson.
October 22, 2020
Unreal Assumptions
Here’s another letter to this student of economics:
Mr. Mendoza:
Thanks for your e-mail.
You write that it’s “extremely uninformed” of me “to compare today’s sophisticated justifications of protectionism with the disproven Ptolemaic theory of our solar system.” “There are,” you insist, “sound and proven theoretical exceptions to free trade.”
I disagree.
There are logically coherent tales of how raising tariffs here and subsidizing exports there can, under certain circumstances, cause national income to rise. But these tales are irrelevant to reality. They work only on white boards. To work as advertised in reality, such tariffs and subsidies would have to be administered by government officials who are both apolitical and in possession of superhuman amounts of knowledge. The belief, or assumption, that such creatures exist strikes me as every bit as disproven – as every bit as unrealistic – as are Ptolemy’s crystalline spheres.
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
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “Inflation 101”
In my column for the February 16th, 2011, edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review I wrote about inflation. You can read my column beneath the fold.
Russell Roberts's Blog
- Russell Roberts's profile
- 39 followers
