Bryan Caplan's Blog, page 68

Capitalism vs. Socialism Debate Video, by Bryan Caplan

You've read the opening statements.  You've read my point-by-point and big picture replies.  Now here's the full video of the Caplan-Bruenig debate.  Thanks to IHS for putting this all together.  Enjoy!



(2 COMMENTS)

Me at Trinity, by Bryan Caplan

I'm discussing education at Trinity College with Columbia's Miguel Urquiola on Thursday.  Details here.  Hope to see you there!

(0 COMMENTS)

Steelmanning the Iraq War, by Bryan Caplan

The Iraq War started 15 years ago today.  I always opposed it, for my standard pacifist reasons.  But here is a case for the Iraq War that would have intellectually and morally impressed me at the time.  To be clear: Though I'm the author, I strongly disagree with this speech.  Still, I'd enjoy talking to someone who sincerely believed it.

You can treat what follows as a steelmanning exercise.  (It's not really an Ideological Turing Test because as far as I know, no prominent advocate of the Iraq War would agree with it).  Alternately, you can treat it as mirror: Actual war-makers are blameworthy insofar as they fall short of the standards it exemplifies.

My fellow Americans,

In World War II, over 400,000 American soldiers lost their lives over the course of four years.  It was a tremendous and tragic loss.  But it was absolutely worth it.  The sacrifice of the fallen is the foundation of the amazingly peaceful and prosperous world in which we live.  Yes, we take their achievement for granted.  But the achievement was so great that it would have been worth paying a far steeper price.
 
Now our nation and the civilized world face another grave challenge.  We saw it plainly in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  But those attacks are only a symptom of a festering threat to the peace and prosperity of the world.  What is that threat?  Though I fear to alienate possible allies, the best name for that threat is: Muslim tyranny.  Whether Sunni, Shiites, or "secular," the Muslim world is almost entirely ruled by governments that have little respect for democracy, and even less for human rights.  After years of study - and careful analysis of DARPA-sponsored prediction markets - I conclude with heavy heart that Muslim tyranny will not fix itself.  Indeed, its theory and practice is spreading and intensifying, threatening Central Asia, Africa, and even Europe.

For now, I freely admit, Muslim tyranny poses little military threat to the civilized world.  But the same was once true for Communism and fascism.  These threats could and should have been removed in their infancy, sparing mankind countless horrors.  While we cannot undo the mistakes of the past, we can avoid repeating them.  As your leader, I say we must.

Make no mistake about it: Our mission will be painful and long.  If you are not prepared to lose a million American lives to achieve lasting victory, we should not go to war.  If you are not prepared for a hundred-year occupation, we should not go to war.  If you are not prepared for a thousand domestic retaliatory terrorist attacks, we should not go to war.  If you are not prepared for the war to spread far beyond the borders of Iraq, we should not go to war. 

I do not seek enthusiastic but short-lived support; indeed, fickle support is more dangerous than thoughtful opposition.  Instead, I ask each of you to visualize the immense and lasting suffering our country and the world are going to endure if we follow my lead.  Indeed, I ask you to visualize the vast numbers of innocent lives our war will destroy.  Think of all the children the United States and its allies burned to cinders in World War II.  To win, we will have to do the same.  Nothing can justify such atrocities - except a high probability of making Muslim tyranny history. 

Why start with Iraq?  By the standards of the region, Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime is "secular."  But it is a ghastly tyranny, and its Islamic roots insulate it from the life-giving ideas of human rights and democracy.  Furthermore, it is extremely diplomatically isolated.  Militarily, we can defeat them with ease - and turn Iraq into a model for the rest of the Muslim world.

It would be criminal to invade Iraq without meticulously describing our model in advance.  So let me share it.  While our goal is to bring human rights and democracy to Iraq, human rights will come first.  Democracy will only come when human rights in Iraq are democratically sustainable.  This distinction is crucial, because Muslim tyranny has deep cultural roots.  Saddam Hussein is not personally popular Iraq, but he's a lot more popular than the ideals of liberty.

What does all this mean in practice?  Let me be blunt.  We will give Iraq full democracy once gay couples can walk the streets of Baghdad holding hands.  We will give Iraq full democracy once ex-Muslims can sleep soundly in Mosul after publicly preaching atheism on Iraqi television.  We will give Iraq full democracy once violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq is as common as violence between Catholic and Protestant in the U.S.  And not before. 

As in post-war Germany and Japan, we will hold elections.  But only candidates who embrace our model will be allowed to run - and any elected official who refuses full cooperation with the American military occupation will be summarily removed.  Our enemies will no doubt call this "imperialism."  I say this is bigotry on their part; if American rule is the only credible way to protect human rights in Iraq, people of all nations should support American rule.

Many advised me not to use the phrase "Muslim tyranny."  But I honestly couldn't think of a better one.  All of the major religions have, at one point, provided an ideological foundation for tyranny.  But Islam is the only major religion that continues to serve this function.  We're going to end that once and for all.  Freedom of religion is a basic human right - but imposing your religion on others is not.

I'm sure many of you are thinking, "He's asking a lot."  You're right.  To repeat, Iraq is only the beginning.  In the best-case scenario, the many surrounding Muslim tyrannies will see that we mean business, and earnestly launch domestic reforms.  I welcome such developments with open arms, but we should not count on anything of the sort.  Instead, we should expect Muslim tyranny to get worse before its gets better.  Fortunately, to repeat, they are militarily no match for us.  Our only scarce resource is resolve.  As long as we are willing to lose a million American lives over the next century, we will do for the Muslim world what we did for Germany and Japan: bring human rights to their people and security to the world.

I know that our enemies will selectively quote this speech to make me seem like a monster.  And I know that my predecessors gave little heed to the innocent foreign lives they took in pursuit of victory.  Shame on them!  So let me say this: If I could end Muslim tyranny without killing a single person, I would gladly do it.  Any leader who wishes to spare his people the horrors of war can do so by immediately unconditionally surrendering to us.  If that prospect frightens you, look how we treated the people of Germany and Japan when World War II ended.  For us, there is no victory until we turn our most wretched enemies into flourishing friends.  I fondly look forward to the day when Disneyland is packed with Iraqi tourists.

In the darkest days of World War II, Winston Churchill told the British people, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."  I admire these sentiments, but I know that our enemy is not yet at the gate.  There is a far worse course than doing nothing: Invading Iraq in anger, then abandoning it in frustration.  But our best option is to excise Muslim tyranny now when it's weak, instead of waiting for this political cancer to spread.  My fellow Americans, are you with me?

(7 COMMENTS)

Happy Open Borders Day!, by Bryan Caplan

Today is Open Borders Day.  To celebrate, I'm pleased to announce that All Roads Lead to Open Borders , my graphic novel with Zach Weinersmith, will be published in 2019.  For now, here's a draft page.

(Click here for full-sized version).


(12 COMMENTS)

Me on C-SPAN, by Bryan Caplan

My full-hour interview airs on C-SPAN this weekend... twice!

#AfterWords this Saturday at 10pm and Sunday at 9pm ET economics professor Bryan Caplan @bryan_caplan argues that higher education has become more about educational credentials and less about ensuring that students are prepared with skills for the job market @PrincetonUPress pic.twitter.com/80H3zo1KF8

-- BookTV on C-SPAN2 (@BookTV) March 13, 2018

(1 COMMENTS)

Priors and the Death Penalty, by Bryan Caplan

I have long favored the legalization of drugs - and the "opioid crisis" has done nothing to change my mind.  The right to do what you want with your own body is not absolute, but it sacred nonetheless.  Since I oppose any legal punishment for consenting adults who use or sell drugs, I obviously oppose the death penalty for drug offenses.  Still, I was perplexed by Adam Minter's recent piece on the failure of this maximally punitive approach. 

Minter begins:

Unlike in the West, where addiction has long been treated as a
medical condition, Asian governments have typically viewed any drug use
as a criminal issue. China, for example, has focused on imprisonment and
executions since the 1950s. Others followed the same path. Starting in
the 1970s, countries ranging from Singapore to Vietnam created criminal
codes with low thresholds for executing traffickers, dealers and users.
Yet, even as the region's drug enforcement apparatus developed, so did
drug addiction. By the early 1990s, 40 years after Mao's eradication
campaigns, Chinese officials were forced to concede that entire villages were once again addicted to opiates arriving from Myanmar.

Rather
than question their focus on harsh punishments, China and Southeast
Asian nations, including Malaysia and Singapore, doubled down through
the mid-2000s.

Then Minter makes a series of odd claims:

Yet, evidence that executions serve to deter drug use or crimes in Asia (or anywhere else) is virtually nonexistent. For example, the Chinese government reported that the number of registered Chinese drug addicts increased 6.8 percent in 2016, to 2.51 million (the government concedes such numbers are massive undercounts), up from 901,000 in 2001. The growth has been fueled by new synthetic drugs like methamphetamine, seizures of which surged 106 percent in 2016.

In Singapore, 3,089 "drug abusers" were arrested in 2016 (40 percent of whom were identified as new abusers), compared with 1,127
arrested in 2006. In Malaysia, the number of newly registered drug
addicts rose from 10,301 in 2012 to 22,923 in 2016. And in Indonesia,
which has unapologetically executed local and foreign drug traffickers
in recent years, the number of addicts increased from 3.6 million in
2011 to 5.9 million in 2015, according to the government.

What's so odd here?

First, Minter totally ignores common sense.  In the absence of any specific evidence, we should have extremely high confidence that credibly threatening death for X would sharply reduce X.  Why?  Because almost everyone has a strong desire to stay alive.  If you think that alcohol taxes significantly cut alcohol consumption, how can you not expect the death penalty for drugs to significantly cut drug use?  Yes, it's an empirical question.  But if you don't start with a strong Bayesian prior in favor of the efficacy of the death penalty, you lack good judgment.

Second, the evidence Minter cites is utterly irrelevant.  Suppose the death penalty cut drug use by 90% at every point in time.  We could easily still see enormous shifts in drug use.  Both demand and supply move in response to many factors besides drug policy.  Indeed, you could use exactly the same specious reasoning to argue that treatment programs don't work: "If treatment works, I dare you to explain the doubling of addiction rates."  The reply is straightforward: "If we abolished treatment programs, addiction rates could grow even more."

Minter then makes a slightly better argument:

The most compelling evidence that executions have failed as an anti-drug
strategy is the fact that many Asian governments have begun to retreat
from them. The trend can take modest form, such as Singapore's 2012 decision to reduce the number of drug crimes eligible for mandatory executions, or China's quiet, decade-long effort to open methadone clinics and voluntary rehabilitation facilities.

Question: If Asian governments were sharply ramping up executions, that would be "compelling evidence" that execution does deter?  Hardly.  If there's any tendency for governments to move toward more effective policies, it's weak.  Politicians often don't know what works.  Without careful social experiments, definitive answers are hard to come by.  More importantly, politicians often don't care what works.  If they seek popularity - and what leader doesn't? - they just have to pander to public opinion.  If the most effective policies horrify the public, leaders will avoid them despite their efficacy.  To quote the murderous Octavian in HBO's Rome, "Agrippa
has a point. We should proceed more slowly. We do not want to appear butchers."

To repeat, I'm not advocating the death penalty for drug offenses.  In fact, I consider drug prohibition to be a heinous crime against humanity.  But in the absence of overwhelming contrary evidence, we should still believe that the death penalty heavily deters drug use.  And the contrary evidence that Minter presents is underwhelming indeed.

(9 COMMENTS)

Socialization Via Videogames, by Bryan Caplan

When people argue that school is great for teaching socialization, I've often casually remarked, "Compared to what?  School is a lot better for socialization than staying home alone playing videogames, but that's a really low bar."  But EconLog reader Joe Munson interestingly argues that I'm underrating videogames.  Reprinted with his permission:

Hey Bryan,



As a long time reader of your blog, and fellow strange person, I really
enjoyed your book, though I can't help but notice that you often say in
interviews school might help socialization more than video games, but I must
respectfully disagree, especially now with the new online cooperation intensive
games. Overwatch and StarCraft 2 are the most prominent examples, but there are
more. I've always thought video games were under-respected, and as someone who
couldn't get off high school to attend video games tournaments, and was
prevented (or at least unnecessarily hampered) from transitioning from semi-pro
to pro player.  



I now happily sell various financial products for a fortune 500 company, and
will soon be happily teaching English as a foreign language, but I'll always be
a bit annoyed at the school system that prevented me from practicing for the
job I really wanted: gaming.



Since these types of jobs are highly competitive and short-lived, I suppose its
possible school saved me from disappointment, but it certainly didn't improve
my social skills, as I communicated (via speaking and typing) more during my
video game sessions than during school! 



I don't even recall one high school group project that didn't turn into the guy
who cares most does all the work project. 

(6 COMMENTS)

No Kid of Mine is Going to Major in Archaeology!, by Bryan Caplan

Suppose a college student you personally know wants to major in a low-paying, impractical major - like Fine Arts or Archaeology.  How would people in your social circle react if his parents, though willing to pay for college in general, refused to pay for their kid to pursue such a major?

(15 COMMENTS)

Inside the MBA, by Bryan Caplan

Email from a reader.  Reprinted anonymously with his permission.

Hi Bryan,

I have enjoyed your books & EconLog posts (thank you for
all you write!), and have an anecdote that might interest you re: Case Against
Education.

I'm an engineer working in industry and currently about
halfway through a top-ranked online MBA program. I went into it aware of (and in
agreement with) your theory that signaling and ability bias explain most of
observed MBA wage premiums, consciously expecting to learn little, but hoping
it would nonetheless help me receive a management-level promotion in the medium
term.

I believe the signal actually paid off before I even started
the degree. I took the GMAT and got admitted to a top school, and roughly
concurrently I requested & received funding approval for the degree from my
employer (I want an MBA, I'm applying to schools, will you pay...). A few
months after this, and a few months before I actually started the degree, a
management position came open and they bent over backwards to give it to me
despite the fact that I didn't have half the years-of-experience requirement
for the job. I think the fact that I had just credibly committed to getting an
MBA was a major factor in this decision. Forward guidance matters. 

Now I'm in an odd position: I'm doing an MBA that is not
teaching me much, in significant part to follow through on a signal, even
though I've already received the main benefit from it. (I think fade-out of the
benefit is likely to occur if I remain within my current organization
long-term--perhaps less so if I change jobs.) And my employer is reimbursing
80% of this exercise. 

Anyway, it's a funny world, and I think you're explaining it
correctly. You're welcome to use this story--just don't include my name, as my
employer might not be impressed by my cynicism.

Thanks,

[redacted]

(2 COMMENTS)

Capitalism vs. Socialism: General Thoughts on Bruenig, by Bryan Caplan

Yesterday I critiqued Elizabeth Bruenig's opening statement point-by-point.  Today, I cover broader issues.

1. Bruenig builds her case on quotes from famous, pre-modern philosophers, interspersed with philosophical jargon.  She references virtually no facts from the last two hundred years.  When people who agree with me make arguments like this, I cringe.  How can anyone expect to figure out anything about the real world using this fruitless method?

2. What's the alternative?  (a) Focus on arguments, not authorities.  If an argument is good, it doesn't matter if Socrates is the source.  (b) Use jargon only if no simple English words capture your meaning.  If alienation isn't the same as "disliking your job," what is it?  (c) Build on the basic facts of the last two hundred years, especially the massive progress in living standards, science, tolerance, numeracy, and the horrors of totalitarianism.

3. I make a real effort not to tar my opponent with the mind-boggling crimes of actually existing socialism.  I'm puzzled that she made no such effort on her own behalf.  Does she not know?  Not care?  Deny or minimize the crimes?  Plenty of apologists for modern Venezuela, for example, would sound like Bruenig.  And victims of such regimes (quite of few of whom personally attend SfL) have good reason to picture blood, hunger, and chains when they hear such words.  Why not at least try to ease their fears?

4. Could victims of relatively capitalist regimes reasonably have an analogous reaction to me?  I think not.  I explicitly acknowledge that actually existing capitalist societies fall far short of the capitalism ideal.  Shame on them for tarnishing the reputation of my noble ideals!  In any case, almost all of the major crimes committed by relatively capitalist societies have been done in the names of nationalism, religion, and the like.  "Don't tread on anyone!" is not a slogan that unites war criminals.

5. Bruenig takes deep moral offense at seemingly unobjectionable actions, like a profit-seeking business hiring a worker.  This strange mindset has three distinct consequences.  (a) Focusing moral ire on harmless and beneficial behavior.  (b) Rationalizing coercion against the innocent people engaged in harmless and beneficial behavior.  (c) Distracting moral attention away from enormous horrors that I hoped we could jointly condemn. 

6. Example: Socialists observe standard employment conditions with outrage.  This in turn leads them to pass onerous regulations on innocent employers, with the textbook collateral damage for workers.  But it also prevents socialists from decrying immigration regulations coercively deny most of the world's workers their best route out of poverty.  Verily, there are those who would strain out a gnat, yet swallow a camel.

7. Toward the end of the debate, Bruenig asked me about initial property acquisition.  How does someone come to own what they own?  My live answer was subpar, so I'll try again.

There are many clear-cut cases of righteous acquisition; once we understand them, we can use them to analyze fuzzier cases.  What are some clear-cut cases?  An individual living alone on an island grows some food, builds a house, carves a sculpture, or quarries some rock.  If someone else shows up on the island, the new arrival seems morally obligated to respect that property.*  This isn't just "seems to me" or "seems to libertarians"; it's "seems to almost everyone other than self-conscious socialist philosophers."  Other clear-cut cases: If two people mutually agree to pool their resources and effort, then split the rewards according to an explicit formula - whether 50/50, 90/10, or whatever.  Or: I pay you ten pounds of food to build me a new hut. 

If you flatly insist that a person who builds a hut on a desert island isn't morally entitled to exclude a new arrival from sharing it, there's little left for me to say.  Otherwise, we can build on these straightforward cases to credibly justify everything from real estate development to malls to multinational corporations.  Doesn't any big economic project in the modern world ultimately contain at least a small dose of theft?  (I.e., doesn't every skyscraper have at least one stolen brick in it?)  Very likely, but in the real world, this rarely turns out to be a serious moral problem.

8. Other than the word "socialism," what part of Bruenig's opening statement would a full-blown alt-right reactionary disagree with?  I seem the same glorification of an objectively horrific past, the same lack of appreciation of the ubiquitous wonders of modernity, the same misanthropy toward the bulk of humanity, and the same antipathy toward vast outgroups.

9. While I think it's obscurantist to equate self-control with freedom, I agree with Bruenig that self-control is a great virtue.  This is especially if you want to be a meritorious thinker.  Look at someone like Philip Tetlock, author of Expert Political Judgment and Superforecasting , among many other works.  He's spent decades actually measuring the accuracy of political judgments - and identifying paths to greater accuracy.  If you read his Twitter feed, you'll see he practices what he preaches.  He doesn't just eschew hyperbole.  He constantly searches for evidence from any discipline that goes against his expectations.  And he states in advance what would count as error on his part.  I won't claim to be at Tetlock's level, but he's a big inspiration for my public betting - and my current record is 17 wins, 0 losses.  I didn't get that record with wishful thinking.

When I look at Bruenig's intellectual method, in contrast, I see a deep lack of intellectual self-control.  She's trying to understand the world by reading long-dead thinkers she admires.  But her admiration lives in a vacuum; she doesn't test the accuracy of her favorite thinkers against broad historical facts, much less search energetically for distasteful disconfirmation.  And as I said, her talk is packed with hyperbole.  It feels good, but it's almost always false - and a strong symptom of intellectual self-indulgence.

* Presumptively.











(12 COMMENTS)