Bruno Leoni

On a recent EconTalk, Michael Munger discussed the underrated economist, Bruno Leoni.  Leoni held that law should emerge in a manner similar to a market.  The current system of topdown legislation is just as backwards as central planning for an economy.  As an example, Munger suggested that rather than paving paths between buildings on a college campus, builders should wait a year and see where the muddy paths emerge.  That is where you pave.  Of course, we have all seen cases where the builders paved first only to find trails blazed through the grass thereafter.  By this system, law would emerge through judicial rulings: case law.  I have long disliked case law as creating bad precedents (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson, Rowe v. Wade, etc.), but those eventually fell away by the same process that brought them into being.  Could this be a reasonable means of enacting law?

Bruno Leoni was an Italian economist who was unfortunately murdered at the age of 54.  However, such economists as James Buchanan and Friedrich Hayek - both Nobel Prize winners - credit Leoni for influencing their work.  Had Leoni lived longer, his works might be as well-known as theirs.

The idea of law emerging like a market seems backwards, but it does harken back to how it was done in earlier days.  There was a time when people would bring their disputes to the ruler and ask him to decide.  His decision became law.  As societies grew larger, this method became impractical.  Or did it?  Let the law emerge through judicial rulings.  Other judges may adopt the reasoning of a deciding judge or overrule it.  Over time, those muddy paths that persist will be paved while those that don't will see the grass return.

Seeing where legislatures have brought us, it looks like Leoni has a point.  A legislator is there to legislate.  That we already have far too many laws is beside the point.  If you are a hammer, all you see is nails.  If you are a legislator, you need to make laws.  It might be that the US had hit the perfect number and balance of laws in 1972 and everything since has just been busywork for bored lawmakers.  On the other hand, a judge exists to rule on the law.  The judge could give the same ruling scores of times, further paving that well-tread path.  The judge only needs to rule on those issues that are presented in court by plaintiffs, not write law suggested by lobbyists.  Leoni is onto something here.

Outstanding episode and highly recommended.

Not a Vaccine!

The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that the "COVID vaccine" is not a vaccine.  A vaccine is something that prevents the spread of a disease, which this did not do.  In fact, it was admitted that it was merely a treatment to lessen the severity of symptoms.  Yeah, tell me something I didn't already know.  Okay, the "vaccine" was given legal protection from lawsuits as a vaccine, not a treatment.  Though there is judicial history approving forced vaccination for the benefit of all, there is no such history requiring a certain treatment for one's own benefit.  Ergo, the legal protections against lawsuits has just collapsed.  At least, until the Supreme Court weighs in on the question.  Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, et al. may be in serious legal jeopardy if this ruling holds.

In any case, the next 'pandemic' will not see the populace quite so willing to follow the 'experts' recommendations.  In a recent podcast (EconTalk), Vinay Prasad - UC San Francisco Epidemiologist - explained how the overhyping of the mRNA 'vaccines' has negatively impacted faith in medical professionals to the degree that vaccination rates in general have fallen.  The mishandling of Covid has sown distrust that will take many years to undo.  This is the boy who cried pandemic and now no one will believe when the real pandemic arrives unless bodies start piling up in the streets.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Abraham Lincoln

Russ Roberts on Education

"The ideal education is less of a focus on information, and more on open inquiry; less worry about the right answers, and more concern for asking the right questions."

Russ Roberts

Russ Roberts, President of Shalem College in Jerusalem, was interviewed by Alex Aragona of The Curious Task podcast on the topic of education.  It was made available on EconTalk as well.  Where most of EconTalk is a back and forth discussion, this was question and answer.  Russ provides thoughtful answers and in-depth analysis regarding his views on education.  Too often in the modern world, education is somewhat passive as the student sits through a lecture and then takes a test.  He notably asks, "...of all the things you know, how many of them came from school?"  He admits that all his knowledge of calculus came from school, but most of what he knows has come from other sources, notably conversations.  Another interesting point was that a liberal education provides self-examination.

"If you don't study history and you don't study culture and you don't study literature and you don't study ideas, you won't understand how you came to be who you are."

This is an important insight.  A person is more than their genes.  Parents, country, culture, religion, and so forth have a profound impact on what you can achieve.  Not surprisingly, he quotes Socrates famous line, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Here is a deep dive into what it means to be educated and why it's important.  This covers some of the same ground as a recent discussion with Pano Kanelos, which makes a good companion for this episode.

A Primer on Inflation

John Taylor of Stanford was a guest on Econtalk.  Unique among most economists, Taylor has a widely-known rule named for him.  The Taylor rule provides guidelines on how to handle inflation.  He developed the rule in the midst of the Stagflation of the late 70s and early 80s.  Basically, Taylor proposes that the federal funds rate - which is set by the Federal Reserve - should rise with inflation (that is a gross simplification for which I apologize).  Oftentimes, there is guesswork to try to keep the rate low enough to encourage borrowing - which provides capital for investments - and high enough to tame inflation.  Taylor holds that the Fed has done an excellent job with the interest rate for most of the last 40 years.  However, the current rate of near 0% is entirely out of step with the inflation rate.

Much of the discussion is just a primer on what is inflation, how do you measure inflation (consumer price index), what are the causes of inflation, what are ways of countering inflation, and what are the consequences of not countering inflation.  Runaway inflation leads to barter economies.  Taylor was conservative on his estimates of the inflation rate and proposed that the Federal Reserve should be raising the nominal interest rate to fight inflation.  He proposed that they should have taken action in summer of 2020.  Russ asked about fiscal policy, but Taylor did not delve into that subject beyond saying that big deficits are not ideal.  It is better to have smaller deficits.  Way to take a stand.  He is a monetary economist and more interested in interest rates.

It reminds me of lectures from college. Recommended.

A Liberal Education

Russ interviewed Pano Kanelos, the President of St. John's College, notably about the future of education and why a liberal education is important.  Russ has recently moved to Israel to become President of Shalem College.  The two discuss why a liberal education has fallen in esteem in recent decades and why they think it is perhaps the most important aspect of education.  St. John's, which is one of the oldest colleges in the United States (established 1696), bases its curriculum on the Great Books.  Too much of modern education is providing technical skills of a particular field (engineering, computer science, etc.), which is more in line with practical trades rather than higher learning.  Both Roberts and Kanelos hold that education should produce thoughtful people rather than a barcoded product with specific knowledge on narrow subjects.  Kanelos says that "education is not the acquisition of knowledge.  It's the acquisition of wisdom."  Precisely.

An excellent discussion with thoughts on why the humanities have been in decline for decades and how that trend might be reversed.  As one who pursued a liberal education, I wish them luck.

Averting Climate Change

Robert Pindyck has a new book, Climate Future: Averting and Adapting to Climate Change, and he appeared on EconTalk to discuss his findings.  He admits out the gate that the situation is uncertain, and we cannot know what the future holds.  Perhaps carbon pollution will lead to catastrophe or maybe it will have little noticeable impact.  However, he likened the situation to having insurance.  You don't know if your house will burn down, so it is a good idea to have insurance just in case.  Good point, but that doesn't quite work.  If the worst does happen, what will my insurance money buy me?  Nothing.  The government will - in the best circumstance - spend it to mitigate climate change.  More likely, it will spend it on pet projects that have nothing to do with climate change.  Though I am highly skeptical of the climate change issue, it is certainly reasonable to take some actions.  It was proposed that the government stop subsidizing people to build houses on the beach or in flood plains.  Proposing a carbon tax to decrease the use of fossil fuels is a classic proposal, but it will have little impact unless China, India, and other parts of the developing world agree.  Not going to happen.  To show how urgent the situation is, Pindyck noted that it will be 30 to 40 years before the current CO2 emissions have their full impact on the global temperature.  Stop all CO2 tomorrow and the future is still bleak.  Great.  With that in mind, adaptations were suggested.  Russ was more willing to consider adapting to change, while Pindyck was eager to enact his carbon tax.  I did like the mention that an electric car is often a coal-powered car under our current method of power generation.  In the end, there are no easy answers, though we should take precautions.  I'll agree with that.

My big issue with the climate change debate is that the earth has been much warmer, so warm that the poles had no ice.  That was millions of years ago.  A thousand years ago, it was warmer than today, which is why the Vikings thought it would be a good idea to colonize Greenland.  This was the Medieval Warm Period.  I've never heard a climate scientist explain this based on the current modeling.  The earth today is in an interglacial period of an ongoing ice age.  Yes, this is an interglacial period of the current ice age, the Quaternary glaciation.

Master and Man

Today on Econtalk, a physician and an economist discuss Tolstoy.  That seems a strange topic for a podcast called Econtalk, but it proves entertaining.  In 1895, Tolstoy wrote the short story Master and Man.  It tells the tale of Vasili Brekhunov and his peasant, Nikita, who set out in a blizzard to purchase a forest.  Vasili is a well-to-do landowner, who has dramatically expanded the family holdings since his father's time.  He is a tough negotiator, who uses tricks and schemes to make sure he gains the best deal.  From his thoughts, he is a fair man and a benefactor to his peasants.  From Nikita's thoughts, Vasili uses his position to cheat peasants like him.  During the trip through the blizzard, the pair repeatedly get lost and find themselves in the wrong village.  Despite offers that they spend the night, Vasili is single-minded in his determination to beat any competitors to purchase a valuable forest.  It is not until they are hopelessly lost that he reconsiders his quest for profit.

Russ Roberts, host of Econtalk, and Richard Gunderman, MD, PhD, Professor at Indiana University, discuss the story from the perspective of both Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes.  Yes, this is one of those academic discussions.  The pair dissect the story and consider the motives of the main characters, what Tolstoy is trying to say.  There is also the question of what Adam Smith would think, more from the perspective of his Theory of Moral Sentiments than his Wealth of Nations.  Roberts finds commonality between Hobbes and Smith's views in this situation while Gunderman looks to Hobbes as saying man must be protected from the brutality of man vs. Smith seeing men working in self-interest, but also working cooperatively.

Both held the story in high regard, though I found it less impressive.  As a parable, it is passable.  However, it was hard to overlook Vasili's blindness to the dangers he faced.  After twice getting lost in the blizzard, he set out again as it was growing dark.  The previous two efforts, he had lost his way on account of not being able to see the markers, buried by the snow.  How did such a fool survive this long?  However, Nikita is a wonderful character, the fatalistic but good-natured Russian.

Not the best EconTalk, but certainly worth a listen.  Of course, definitely read the short story first.  It is available for free here.

Solve Poverty by Giving Cash

EconTalk had Michael Faye and Paul Niehaus of GiveDirectly.  They have been giving cash - no strings attached - to people in poverty.  Their argument is that the recipient, not the donor, is better suited to determine where best to spend the money.  One example was that many recipients in Africa would buy a tin roof.  Though this seemed like an extravagance, it was a cost-saving and quality of life decision.  Tin rooves are more costly but last much longer than a thatch roof, don't get infested with mosquitos, and are less likely to leak.  The other benefit of cash is that it doesn't undercut local industry.  For example, sending excess food to be distributed has the effect of bankrupting native farmers whereas cash will allow recipients to purchase more from local farmers and create local prosperity.

Russ offered the argument that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.   He modified it a bit for our modern age.  Of course, cash gifts will raise the recipients' standard of living while the money is flowing, but once it stops, they will revert to poverty.  The goal must be to improve productivity.  The counter was that programs that sought to 'teach a man to fish' or whatever other skill have not proven effective.  Faye observed that a cash transfer in the United States showed that the children of recipients lived longer, had higher incomes, and attained greater education than the children of those who had not received cash transfers.  This was tracked over a 50-year span.  The pair argued that extreme poverty could be resolved through such grants at a cost of 1% of US and European GDP.

Though obviously some people will spend wisely and improve themselves while receiving grants, it is questionable if most will.  Big lottery winners almost always descend back to their pre-lottery lifestyle when the money is all spent.  Interesting and worth a listen.

The Price of Everything

There has been an earthquake and power is spotty in the bay area of California.  Ramon and Amy head to Home Depot to buy a flashlight and perhaps other items.  Home Depot is sold out.  They decide to try Big Box, a Walmart-like store. but the prices have shot up.  The woman in line in front of them cannot afford baby formula.  Ramon helps her afford her purchase while grumbling that Big Box has raised its prices during this emergency.  And so begins Ramon's economic awakening.

Ramon Fernandez is a Cuban-American who happens to be a top tennis player in his senior year at Stanford.  On account of his tennis fame, he has considerable recognition and decides to speak out against Big Box for gouging in the wake of the earthquake.  However, Amy is taking an economics course with Professor Ruth Lieber, who evangelizes for the power of prices to organize the market.  Before long, Ramon finds himself talking to Ruth about capitalism, fairness, gouging, and other such topics.  Initially, he disagrees with her and speaks at a rally against Big Box.  He has hardly finished when the crowd breaks windows on the campus.  It was not what he had wanted but he was the face of it.  The organizers had used him.  Even so, he still opposes Big Box and doesn't like the idea of the company making a huge donation to the campus.  Ramon can't help but notice that Ruth had warned him that it wouldn't go as he hoped.  Now hooked, he spends a lot of time conversing the Ruth and she with him.  He is slated to give a speech at commencement and he thinks she is just trying to get him not to denounce Big Box, but he can't figure her angle.  She does make some provocative points on how prices guide resources to where they are most valuable, but it's still unfair.

This is a book about economics that is embedded in the tale of students in their final year at Stanford.  It is a long lecture that is broken into different scenes in the lives of the characters.  Much of what is here has been repeated multiple times in EconTalk.  It is a great economics book presented in an entertaining narrative form.  Lots to digest.

Recommended.

When Police Kill

Franklin Zimring, criminologist and law professor at UC Berkley, was a guest on EconTalk and they discussed his 2017 book, When Police Kill.  He posited that police are far too willing to resort to deadly force.  Far more people are killed by police than are executed after a conviction.  To resolve this, he suggested specific rules for police officers so as to reduce the number of civilian deaths.  For example, a suspect armed with a gun is a truly lethal threat but a knife or a bat is virtually never lethal according to the statistics.  Therefore, rules should be established for not shooting given certain circumstances.  If the officer does shoot, sanctions can be imposed and the police department can be sued.  Many civilians die because police continue to shoot.  If struck by one bullet, survival odds are good.  With each additional bullet, the odds of death go up.  Zimring proposes a stop shooting rule.  Zimring observed that NYC was a model to follow as the civilian deaths had fallen from 70+ a year in the 1970s to less than 10.  However, he doesn't detail what NYC did to improve the numbers.  Did NYPD institute his new rules?

Overall, I found his proposals to be mostly ludicrous.  The reason that bats and knives are rarely lethal to police officers is because the assailant brought a knife/bat to a gunfight.  If police must match threat level, the lethality of knives and bats will go up.  He puts most of the onus on the police to prevent civilian deaths but none on the assailants.  Gee, if you didn't rush the officer, fight with the officer, refuse to follow instructions, you would be just fine in 99% of the cases.  On the EconTalk webpage, the comments were almost all in opposition to Zimring's arguments.

Though the topic is clearly an important and timely one, Zimring is the wrong person to address it.  He came across as anti-police rather than someone out to improve policing.  His primary method of modifying police behavior was to expose them to substantial fines.  Police departments already get sued and it is the taxpayer who pays.

Generally, not an episode I would suggest.  I was mostly annoyed by it.  As mentioned, the commentary was almost entirely anti-Zimring and often more thoughtful than Zimring.  I got a better understanding of police shootings based on the commentary than from the podcast.

Free Market Health Care

Anesthesiologist Kevin Smith was a guest on Econtalk.  He established the Surgery Center of Oklahoma in the late 90s.  The goal of the center was to offer posted prices for various surgical procedures.  Amazingly, by removing insurance and providing cash-only procedures, the surgery center costs a fraction of what it does under the predominant system. The repeated example during the discussion was a back surgery that was listed at $100,000 on the hospital bill. The insurance company 'negotiated' a payment of $13,000. Wow, that sounds like they did a great job. The surgery center provides the same procedure for $10,000. That is a tenth of the 'supposed' price and even 30% below the 'negotiated' price. How does any of this make sense?

According to Kevin, insurance companies take the 'savings' to their customers and then ask for a percentage. Thus, in the case of the back surgery, they 'saved' the client $87,000 and request 10% of the savings, $8,700. The client is still only paying $22,700 for a $100,000 procedure. It's still a deal, right? On the other side, the hospital can report $87,000 of uncompensated care to get money from government funding. An inflated list price benefits both the hospital and the insurance company.

Also noteworthy was the number of Canadians who travel to Oklahoma and pay for a surgery despite the fact that they have full coverage under the Canadian system. What's up with that? It turns out that a single payer system leads to long wait times. You can wait 3 months in Canada or come to Oklahoma.

Our health care cost structure is intentionally indecipherable because the complexity benefits insurance companies and some in the health care industry. Smith has no trouble luring surgeons to his center on a piecework basis; cash work pays better than the headache of Medicare, Medicaid, insurance submissions, etc. Smith holds that a movement toward free market health care is underway and will transform the health care industry.

Faster, please!

The Virtue of Nationalism

Yoram Hazony was a guest on EconTalk and discussed his recent book that argues in favor of nationalism.  He contrasts nationalism with imperialism.  Before the Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended the 30 Years War, empires were the standard.  This was a culmination of earlier hints of national self-determinism such as Henry VIII enacting the first Brexit when he founded the Anglican Church to escape the supremacy of Rome.  Empires seek a one size fits all approach to governance and culture.  Nationalism provides a people with a shared history and culture to rule themselves.   He has an idealistic vision of nationalism as a sort of global federalism, which he links to American federalism of the Constitution.

 

Among his more shocking claims are that freedom can only exist as a byproduct of ingrained mutual loyalty.  He declares John Locke's ideas clearly false and mostly idealistic.  In fact, he places Hobbes and Rousseau in the same ideological boat of liberals in the more classical sense of that word.  They approached politics like mathematicians, positing axioms that do not describe any government that had existed or currently exists.  Their ideas are aspirational rather than historical.  Yes, it would be ideal if civil society was based on the consent of each person but it isn't.  No one chooses their family or the country in which they are born.  Considerable loyalty to one's family, clan, tribe, and nation is developed long before one can engage in thoughtful consent.

 

Hazony argues that the current push toward globalism and borderless nations is founded on the benefits of economic freedom.  The fewer barriers to trade, the wealthier all societies become.  However, what works for economic theory does not work for political theory.  Nations built on mutual loyalty are better and healthier than diverse peoples bound together under an imperial authority.  So says Yoram Hazony.

 

It is a fascinating discussion and worth a look.  I may have to buy the book.

Generational Attitudes toward Government

On a recent EconTalk, Russ Roberts interviewed Tyler Cowan.  Cowan's latest book is The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream.  He posits that a slow down in social change, a diminishing mobility, and a growing aversion to risk is causing the US to become less innovative and productive.  It is a really fascinating discussion and recommended.

 

What really got me thinking was a comment he made about how Millennials have a very different cultural view of government:

 

So, whereas I grew up with the space program, which put a man on the moon, maybe they grew up with the second Iraq War or the Financial Crisis.

 

This is a significant observation that deserves deeper consideration.  The government won praise for its successes and was trusted with more tasks based on those successes.  However, a string of failures is what has followed and yet the government wants to be trusted to do even more.  It cannot accomplish the basic tasks of government (e.g. maintain the borders, balance the budget, win wars, etc.) but still wants more money and authority to do even more.  Where are the great successes to justify more responsibility?  Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans but the end result is continued failures and poor governance which is always explained away by intransigence by the other party.  BS!  Based on performance, the scope of the federal government should be severely curtailed.

 

The greatest success of the Obama years was his neglect of NASA.  At first, I was aghast even though the dynamism of NASA from the 1960s has ossified into a bureaucracy that hasn't been able to put an astronaut in space since 2011.  But I didn't see other options.  Then SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin started launching rockets and developing new technologies.  Spacecraft haven't been this exciting since the Apollo Program.  More of government would benefit from the NASA treatment.

Thinking BIG

Michael Munger, PhD Economist of Duke, was on EconTalk to propose a transition toward a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG).  Basically, the government provides a minimum income to all citizens.  He argues in favor for two reasons.  First, some people - through no fault of their own - will find themselves displaced.  For example, if self-driving cars take over, lots of truck drives and cabbies will find themselves without jobs.  Second, we already have a very inefficient BIG program that is distributed through multiple programs (e.g. CHIP, TANF, SNAP, WIC, Public Housing, etc.) which could be streamlined into a BIG.  I am unclear on whether Social Security and Medicare are likewise to be streamlined; I would think so.  Of course, many of the programs that would be abolished are means tested while the BIG would be universal.  Munger proposed a $15,000 a year BIG which would be conferred along the lines of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

This idea has been around for a while but this is the most in depth discussion I have encountered so far.  Generally, it looks like a bad idea.  A guaranteed income will be a disincentive to work.  People on the dole tend to have lower self-esteem and little purpose in their lives.  However, Munger thinks jobs might become scarce with the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), thus his example of self-driving cars.  It is likely that many would work 'off the books' to get extra income while still benefiting from the full BIG.  That currently happens, so maybe that isn't really a mark against it.  It reminds me of the Roman Bread and Circuses, where Rome provided food and entertainment to the masses.  As Rome's affluence grew, the civic-mindedness of the people at the empire's core rotted away.  The Emperors kept them fat and happy, which also made them useless.

However, the AI argument does sound convincing.  Of course, we have had such waves of creative destruction before.  Think of the thousands of telephone operators who lost there jobs thanks to technology.  No mass unemployment.  What of the farmers who were replaced by tractors?  What of the 'computers' like those in Hidden Figures who were replaced by calculators and computers?  There has long been the belief that technology will eventually make humans obsolete but it has repeatedly not come to pass.  Is AI the silver bullet that will really dramatically reduce the need for human labor?  If so, the BIG may become a necessity.

Here is the transcript and there is a link to the podcast available too.

Earnings vs. Compensation

Mark Warshawsky was the guest on EconTalk recently and discussed what he claimed was a mistaken impression of increasing income inequality, the idea that the rich are getting richer and the poor are static.  If one looks at earnings, the conclusion that high paid workers are seeing greater increases than lower paid workers is absolutely correct.  However, that doesn't take into account employer-provided benefits.  Thus, income + benefits = compensation.  For example, Nancy the Office Manager at Mega Corp might take home $40,000 in salary but healthcare, 401K matching, etc. might add an additional $5,000.  Thus, her earnings are $40K but her compensation is $45K.  Rachel the Chief Financial Officer might be paid $100,000 in salary and her benefits are not much more costly than Nancy's, adding $6,000.  Her compensation is $106K.  Mega Corp finds that healthcare costs are skyrocketing.  Warshawsky reports that they tripled from 1992 to 2010, having doubled from 1999 to 2006.  So, going back to the Mega Corp example, healthcare costs double.  Nancy finds that her income is stagnant, not budging from the $40K.  However, her benefits package is now worth $10,000.  Her earnings are flat but her compensation has risen 11%.  Meanwhile, Rachel's benefits also doubled, now worth $12,000 and her earnings have increased to $105K.  Therefore, she has seen a 5% increase in earnings but only a 10% increase in compensation.  Based on earnings, income inequality is getting worse but based on total compensation, it is getting better.  I love economics!

 

Here is the podcast and here is the working paper.

Benefits of Being Messy

EconTalk had Tim Harford on to discuss his book about the benefits of being messy.  Though we have an inclination to be neat and orderly, messy and disorderly provides a better foundation for creativity.  Being uncomfortable while trying to solve a problem often results in better solutions.  For example, a group of friends who decided to start an investing club were less successful than a group that included a stranger.  The stranger has no qualms about hurting feelings and must be more actively sold on a stock than would a friend.  His best example was jazz musician Keith Jarrett.  Jarrett had agreed to perform in Germany but arrived to find a substandard piano that needed tuning and maintenance.  Altering his style to make the best of what the piano offered, he produced his best selling album before or since.  People who have a neat desk will often have filing cabinets full of papers that should have gone in the trash.  His suggestion was to have a pile of papers on the desk but always put the last one touched on top.  After a while, flip through the ones on the bottom and you will discover they can be filed in the trash.  Wow, who knew my creative bent comes from my sloppy habits.  Nice to have my messy desk validated.

Listen to the podcast.

Topsy-Turvy History

Russ Roberts of EconTalk hosted Bruce Bueno de Mesquita recently and offered some views on revered presidents that were the opposite of what one might expect.  He starts with the general idea that presidents are rated in esteem depending on how many people were killed while they were in charge.  Harding's brief presidency saw no war and virtually no death yet he is ranked among the worst presidents.  Lincoln saw over half a million Americans die in the Civil War and is rated among the best presidents.  How does that work?

Mesquita argues that presidents are mostly going to make decisions that will benefit themselves and their voters or increase their re-election chances.  He proposes that Washington was a land speculator in a region where King George had reserved for the Indians.  Great wealth beckoned via revolution.  He paints a picture of the Founders as the billionaires of their day who led a reluctant people to sever ties with England.  He further outlines this alternate history in which the colonies go along with the rest of the British Empire in abolishing slavery decades sooner and avoid a Civil War entirely.

 

Speaking of the Civil War, Lincoln is to blame.  His 1858 house divided speech was a brilliant ruse to split the Democratic Party in the 1860 election.  Sure enough, the Democrats were so fractured that Lincoln won with a mere 39.8% of the popular vote.  As the Republican Party was established to abolish slavery, Lincoln's election was essentially a declaration of war on slave states.  This was part of the plan.  With the South gone, amendments to abolish slavery could now pass in Congress.  Once the South was conquered, the new amendments were imposed.  Better yet, Lincoln was re-elected, which was also part of the plan.  Wow, Lincoln was pretty nefarious.

 

JFK risked nuclear war with Russia over Cuban missiles that made no real difference in the Cold War.  JFK thought a show of strength would be beneficial for re-election, even at the risk of nuclear war.  Self-interest outweighed the risk of WWIII.

 

Nor was he keen on Obama's handling of Iraq, Libya, and Syria.  Leaving Iraq was a good political decision for his re-election campaign (he had promised to get out of Iraq) but a disastrous foreign policy decision.  Mesquita even argues that Obama's failure to enforce his redline in Syria is what convinced Putin that he could annex the Crimea and eventually put forces in Syria to prop up Assad.

 

Of course, he was perfectly happy with LBJ.  Oh, he admitted that LBJ was ambitious and ruthless but he was really trying to do good.  RED FLAG!  After the thrashing he gave Lincoln and Washington, it is unthinkable that he could be so supportive of LBJ.

 

Much of this seemed like crazy talk but I am intrigued.  War presidents are usually well-regarded by historians and are almost always re-elected.  Perhaps when the book comes out in a more affordable paperback version, I'll check out the full story.

Terrorists have won?

I've read a couple of pundits announce that the terrorists have won on account of the nonsense that we now tolerate.  Who would have thought that Americans would submit to taking off shoes, belts, and even allow themselves to be frisked in order to board a plane?  Who'd have guessed we'd be so indifferent to massive data collection by the government?  It seems that the much ballyhooed right to privacy only applies to abortions but not email, phone calls, and internet searches.  The massive inconvenience of the modern security state only promises to get worse.  But are we safer?  Is it worth it?

I was listening to EconTalk not too long ago and the guest argued that all the expense was not justified, that we'd be better off just absorbing the occasional terrorist attack than creating Homeland Security and spending billions of dollars.  Wow, that was a heck of a thing to say.  But let's look at it in comparison to other issues.  The death toll from terrorism is miniscule when compared to heart disease, cancer, stoke, accidents, diabetes, influenza, or even suicide.  You are vastly more likely to kill yourself than die in a terrorist attack.  Can you imagine a Department of Suicide Prevention?  It would make more sense than Homeland Security based on the numbers.

Many would argue that we have stopped lots of plots thanks to the security state and that is probably why the death by terrorism numbers are so low.  I'd call that post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.  The terrorists had one really impressive attack on 9/11.  That attack cannot happen again, because passengers will never sit idly by again.  It was like the Trojan Horse; you can't pull that stunt a second time.  So, short of a nuclear bomb, mass casualties are virtually impossible.  Look at the Boston Marathon attack that killed 3.  That same day, approximately 1,600 Americans died from cancer, 350 died from strokes, and about a hundred committed suicide.  We are reacting to the threat based on fear, not rational choices.

 

I mentioned a nuclear bomb.  If Iran develops a nuke, all of a sudden the calculus changes.  A nuke could turn a city of millions into a smoking hole.  Nuclear proliferation would justify many of the expenses and inconveniences of the security state.  This scenario is becoming more likely every day as we twiddle our thumbs while Iran continues to enrich uranium.

 

I don't think the security state means the terrorist have won but it does pretty clearly indicate that they have instilled a lot of terror.  There needs to be an analysis of costs vs. benefits.  The money spent on Homeland Security, the TSA, the NSA, and so forth might save far more lives if it was spent elsewhere, preferably not by government.

The Political Tower of Babel

I was listening to EconTalk and the guest was Arnold Kling (PhD Economics).  Kling has recently written a book - more of a long essay since it is only 53 pages - titled The Three Languages of Politics.  He posits that Progressives/Liberals view the world as Oppressed vs. Oppressor, the Civil Rights movement being a classic example.  Conservatives see the world from a Civilization vs. Barbarism perspective, the War on Terror being a prime example.  Lastly, Libertarians look at the world based on Freedom vs. Coercion; government is coercion and should thus be used sparingly.

This three axis idea is surprisingly enlightening.  I've often found myself at odds with Conservatives on what seemed obvious questions.  I look at the Drug War as a needless exercise of government force whereas Conservatives look at drug use as a failure of civilization.  Liberals often look at the Drug War as oppressive against minorities.  What about immigration?  I am of two minds on the subject though Libertarian orthodoxy would argue against government using force to keep people within certain boundaries.  Conservatives look at uncontrolled immigration and see a forthcoming collapse of civilization - note how often tales of violent illegal immigrants are told.  Liberals see rich whites trying to keep poor people of color in squalor.  I've heard the arguments from each perspective hundreds of times and usually rejected those that didn't address Freedom vs. Coercion.

Kling proposes that one should try to argue on the axis of those you wish to convince.  Thus, if a Libertarian wants to debate a Conservative on the drug laws, he should frame his argument on the Civilization/Barbarism axis.  I can see how it would be difficult to argue that drug use is civilizing rather than a decent into barbarism.

 

Here is a link to the episode of EconTalk where Kling discusses this:

 

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/kling_on_the_th.html

 

And here is the link to Kling's book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Three-Languages-Politics-ebook/dp/B00CCGF81Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375062531&sr=8-1&keywords=kling