Steve Horowitz channels Hayek and Sowell in his posting over on the NPR blog. The ASET book club is reading Knowledge and Decisions and I see echoes of Sowell's thesis throughout Horowitz.
Sowell compares and contrasts informal decision making processes (marriage) with formal decision making process (the draft. His point, I believe is not to judge the desired ends or even the process, but to evaluate the process in terms of costs and benefits. And, he takes the Hayekian stance that individual agents, voluntarily and independently acting will typically select the process that aligns both with value in society and with wealth creation, while a centralized, hierarchial, tops down selection will typically result in decisions withe perverse and unintended consequences that are, clearly unintended by the man or woman at the top making the decision.
I am excited to be reading this book and looking forward to our discussion.
Weaknesses remain in fiscal freedom and government size. Total government spending equals more than a third of GDP. Corporate and personal taxes are high and increasingly uncompetitive. In 2008, the sub-prime mortgage crisis had far-reaching effects, and the government's unprecedented interventionist measures could severely undermine economic freedom in the future.
Featuring the author, Tom G. Palmer, General Director, Atlas Global Initiative for Free Trade, Peace, and Prosperity, and Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; with comments by Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics, George Mason University, and General Director, Mercatus Center.
On the whole, illegal immigrants are just the sort of newcomers Americans should embrace: self-motivated risk-takers, strivers determined to improve themselves, hard-working men and women willing to take the meanest jobs if it will give them a shot at building their own American dream.
November 18, 2009, 9:00 AM What Makes a Nation Rich? One Economist's Big Answer
Say you're a world leader and you want your country's economy to prosper. According to this Clark Medal winner from MIT, there's a simple solution: start with free elections.
Boyes speculates, over on Liberty, on the underlying causes for what appears to be a shift in the general attitude toward capitalism and freedom.
In part, he wonders what influence the institution of higher education plays in shaping the underlying belief system of the general population. Dan Klein has analysis that plays into this discussion - http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/klein_stern.pdf. He concludes that instructors in the social sciences at the college level are overwhelmingly consist in their selection of government driven policies over market driven policies.
Klein in other work, describes the process by which ideologies govern hiring decisions in colleges, that is faculty who serve on hiring committees tend to select colleagues from institutions similar those attended by the incumbent faculty. This would imply that the newly hired faculty have shared beliefs.
This begs the question of the level of impact or influence that college faculty exert over undergraduates. That is, do the beliefs and attitudes of faculty (who in social sciences at least) appear to be heavily weighted toward pro government/interventionist policies and hostile to market policies driven by liberty and freedom have an impact upon undergraduates? This is an important question and the data that Boyes cites suggests that there is in fact a relationship at work that extends the incumbent ideology to students.
So, to the extent that this relationship exists, a part of the explanation may lie with higher education.
I wonder to what extent the institution of the media plays a role in the pro interventionist ideology that seems to be evolving in the US today? That is, can the various channels of the media be seen to have a predominant ideology in regard to freedom, liberty and choice and, if so, is that ideology pro or anti free market?
Another institution that would seem to play a part in the evolution of attitude is religion. Economic freedom and the resulting growth and expansion of choice and standard of living have been limited to a very few countries. The recent discussion over on CATO regarding modernity points out the central role played by institutions and the apparent change in America in attitude toward capitalism naturally raises the question has there been a change in the institution of religion that may have simulated or supported this change?
The intersection of the two above institutions can be seen here:
Boyes motivates us to consider what factors that have lead to an important change in the informal belief systems in the US that directly and indirectly impact liberty and freedom.
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan, 'Press on,' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." —Calvin Coolidge Sobel's biography
Arthur Brooks writes about the current reaction to health care changes
Rather, public resistance stems from the sense that the proposed reforms do violence to three core values of America's free enterprise culture: individual choice, personal accountability, and rewards for ambition.
The recent ASET book club discussion and Boyes posting on the challenge of engaging in civil discourse with statists continues to nag at me.
Jonathan J. Bean's post over on Liberty and Power and the recent posting at Mises confirm the importance of both civil discourse and the continuing frustration that advocates of liberty encounter - both in and out of the academy.
Higher education, as Daniel Klein and others have pointed out, is characterized by a lack of intellectual diversity - the overwhelming majority of those who teach hold statist ideology, what Sowell calls the unconstrained vision.
Bean's comments might lead one to conclude that once the current generation of liberty advocates pass on, that the conversation dies. I am not that pessimistic, I work with a few younger faculty and have encountered younger colleagues at Liberty Fund colloquia who are persuasive advocates of liberty.
That said, the current popular and scholarly debate certainly seems framed in such a manner as to generate loud and abrasive attack rather than civil discourse. I wonder to what extent the economic climate has influenced this climate. I am thinking of Benjamin Friedman's thesis in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth that tolerance, openness and engagement are cyclical qualities.
Government employees have radically better benefits and pensions than private sector workers. “When wages and benefits are combined, federal civilian workers averaged $119,982 in 2008, twice the amount of $59,909 which workers in the private sector averaged for wages/benefits. The value of benefits for federal civilian workers averaged $40,000/year, four times the value of benefits that the average private sector employee receives. Only 12% of retirees from the private sector have defined benefit pensions to supplement Social Security. Their average annual pension is $13,083, and they are not eligible for full Social Security benefits until their late 60s. But the majority of public sector workers have pension plans that allow them to retire 10-25 years earlier with benefits many times the retirement payout that Social Security would provide.
Over at Freeman, Sheldon Richman makes an important link between the current policy debate over health and liberty. His blog post reflects on the discussion ASET book club recently engaged in over Stealing from Each Other and a posting by Boyes and Pratt on the challenges of civil discourse.
Richman captures the consequence of statist ideology that I have been attempting to articulate and his analysis provides some insight into Boyes' concern and frustration with an seeming inability of statists to engage with empirical or data driven arguments.
Richman writes:
This irresponsible mindset, which is similar to a not very inquisitive child’s, is what at least two generations of government intervention in health care — and the welfare state in general — have produced in the American people. Thus the welfare state retards moral and intellectual development. We expect the State — our surrogate parent — to make it all right. The demagogues we call politicians are happy to feed this attitude because it provides occasions for the expansion and exercise of raw power while seeming, like Santa Claus, to give away free goods. Of such things long political careers are made.
So the Welfare State, in addition motivating stealing acts to retard our moral development. I really think Richman does a fine job of outlining this argument.
The answer is less insurance, not more, and private insurance, not public. In the long run, those health savings accounts are probably the best solution. In the interim, the single most effective way to cut health care costs in a hurry would be to eliminate the tax deduction for employer supplied health insurance. That deduction leads to immense overuse of health care resources, especially by rich people. That’s one good reason to eliminate the deduction, and here’s another: People would start shopping for insurance on their own instead of taking whatever their employers offer, which would make the insurance companies more responsive to consumer demands.
It saddens me that support for universal coverage and a public option has become, in many circles, a sort of litmus test for compassion and caring about the poor. It particularly saddens me to hear the president say that “What we face is a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles.” It’s the details of policy that change people’s lives. The moral imperative is to get them right.
On Monday, Sept 28, Michael Moore spoke at George Washington University about his new film, Capitalism: A Love Story. One of the leaders of the GWU Liberty Society, Chad Swarthout (who is an active member of Students For Liberty, formerly a leader in the London School of Economics Hayek Society while studying abroad, leader in the DC Forum for Freedom, and all around great guy), managed to get up and question Michael Moore.
According to new research, firms that simply say sorry to disgruntled customers fare better than those that offer financial compensation. The ploy works even though the recipient of the apology seldom gets it from the person who made it necessary in the first place.
The push for universal coverage is based on the appealing premise that everyone should have access to the best health care possible whenever they need it. That soft-hearted aspiration, however, runs into the hardheaded reality that state-of-the-art health care is increasingly expensive. At some point, someone in the system has to say there are some things we will not pay for. The big question is, who? The government? Insurance companies? Or consumers themselves? And should the answer necessarily be the same for everyone?
Inequality in economic resources is a natural but not altogether attractive feature of a free society. As health care becomes an ever larger share of the economy, we will have no choice but to struggle with the questions of how far we should allow such inequality to extend and what restrictions on our liberty we should endure in the name of fairness.
Thinking about Boyes' post of Oct. 13th I would recommend a read of Bob Higgs posting over on HNN. Higgs is really getting at the importance of rhetoric in the "discourse" about the role of liberty and freedom in society. Samuel Gregg argues that civil discourse is a natural outcome of a commercial society, while Higgs implies that as the state expands in scope and scale in society civility is a casualty.
Both of these complimentary views are key to an appreciation of the importance of the media in the economic change of society. This change, to paraphrase North, is gradual and incremental and both formal and informal institutions shape this change. The institution of information diffusion is a key one as it shapes informal norms and beliefs and is shaped by these informal norms and beliefs.
I am thinking of a conversation with my brother, who considers himself a believer in liberty. I had given him Higg's classic - Crisis and Leviathan, my brother read the book and said that Higgs was a nut job. I had a similar conversation with a brother in law during the last election - he said that Ron Paul was a nut job.
Why does this happen? I think part of the answer might be in rhetorical choices by advocates of liberty. Higgs and, to a lesser extent Paul, seem to be to be reasonable, civil and accurate in their articulation of the importance of liberty and the consequences of its loss. However, an audience that is not convinced of these two issues (in my limited sample) finds them to be extremists. Oddly enough, one of these relatives applauds Michael Moore's latest film while the other condemns it.
In a previous post, I mentioned my reading of Samuel Gregg's The Commercial Society in which he models civil discourse. Perhaps advocates of liberty would benefit from a consideration of Gregg's rhetoric.
Posts
