With apologies to the heirs and memory of the late, great Colonel Harland Sanders, I sent this letter today to the Wall Street Journal:
Whenever this economist
reads campaign advertisements masquerading as opinion pieces in
respectable newspapers – such as Hillary Clinton’s "My Plan for Shared
Prosperity" in your edition today – I feel like I imagine Julia Child
must have felt whenever she heard Colonel Sanders brag about his
"secret recipe." No matter how many primitive taste buds his recipe
satisfies at first bite, in the end it produces only uninteresting junk
food that’s hazardous to human health.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Of course, the good Colonel never forced anyone to eat his deep-fried delicacies.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 28 comments }
Yeah never eat deep-fried anything, bad for the health. Eat baked, non-breaded chicken!
I'd rather have Ron Paul, but we seem likely to get Hillary, because Bushniks have delivered her to us on a silver platter. Whatever she cooks up, it's tough to imagine a meal worse than the one Bush stuffs down my throat now.
"Shared prosperity" = 21st century socialism. 'nuff said.
Hey, I'm fine with the basic sentiment here, but if you want to choose an analogy that picks on KFC at least don't bring Julia Child into it.
I distinctly remember reading an interview decades ago in which Child copped to a fondness for McDonalds french fries, though she did complain that the Big Mac has "too much bread."
Bottom line: She was no food snob.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -Karl Marx.
You tell me how that doesn't apply to Hillary's WSJ article? Hillary is a communist in wolves clothing. Or if that doesn't sit right on your palate, you can go with Brock's comment that it is 21st century socialism; repackaged.
Don Boudreaux says in an analogy to Hillary’s campaign offerings “No matter how many primitive taste buds his recipe(Colonel Sanders) satisfies at first bite, in the end it produces only uninteresting junk food that's hazardous to human health.”
This Café Hayek has a great capacity to confuse me. The market has favored Colonel Sanders more than it has favored Julia Child, and that’s about it. Are we now complaining on the markets lack of taste and health concerns? Is Don suggesting some kind of tax on hazardous to human health junk food?
Should we not instead go out and offer the market a better alternative and sell it with some good creative advertising? Should Don Boudreaux for instance groom his children or students so that they could offer the market an alternative to Hillary, that could be more to his liking?
Since he talks about someone bragging why does Don not write us a piece here that shows us how he would suggest to enamor the electorate? … and let us judge the result.
Who knows, Don could be a great candidate…at least he has, though being a tenured professor, shown some quite interesting anti-establishment impulses.
Bravo!
I was sure this post was headed in the direction of the new Hillary Clinton meal at KFC: two large thighs, two small breasts, and a left wing.
"No matter how many primitive taste buds his recipe satisfies at first bite, in the end it produces only uninteresting junk food that's hazardous to human health."
It seems that being a university professor requires a certain amount of snobbery; pity, I somehow expected better.
I think there may be a colonel of truth to what you say . . .
"Of course, the good Colonel never forced anyone to eat his deep-fried delicacies."
He didn't have to! (And please don't pick on KFC again, at least not with respect to its secret recipe.)
"in the end it produces only uninteresting junk food that's hazardous to human health."
Certainly the Colonel's product must be uninteresting when compared to the common Cajun and Creole meals available to those of us fortunate enough to be raised in south Louisiana.
I wonder, though, if deep-fried chicken was hazardous for the customers to whom Harlan Sanders originally marketed it in the 1940's and 1950's. I think most jobs were physically demanding, and workers of those decades burned up many more calories than do workers of "modern" times. Would the fat in deep-fried chicken have been converted to needed energy for our laboring grandfathers?
Harlan Sanders sold his business in 1964, but continued to be featured in advertising. The colonel did object to some of the bland side dishes KFC marketed under his name.
"Who knows, Don could be a great candidate…at least he has, though being a tenured professor, shown some quite interesting anti-establishment impulses."
How is being a tenured professor related to criticizing government?
There is an immense, immense difference between (private) academia and government. Trying to lump them together as "establishment," and saying you can't criticize one without the other, is simple-minded and completely unfounded.
Could you point out some cases where Dr. Boudreaux criticizes tenured professors in general?
And even if he did criticize tenured professors in general (which, although he doesn't in my experience, plenty of professors do), would that make him a hypocrite? If a carpenter complains something like "Most carpenters have a very poor understanding of proper sanding techniques," would you comment "This carpenter has very interesting anti-carpenting views, despite his being a carpenter himself…"
Yeah, leave the Colonel out of it next time. He is interesting enough for most people.
Martin,
If you are ambivalent or hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, the right to choose your own medical care, or the right to be secure in your own home (i.e. Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Elian Gonzales) then I guess I can see why you'd think Clinton redux won't be any different than the current administration.
I think the meal Hillary's cooking up is coming right out of Karl Marx's cookbook.
brotio,
It is worth remembering that what politicians say and what politicians do, are quite different. The purpose to both what they say and what they do are to gain and maintain power, but the incentives acting on each are not one and the same.
If you take everything which politicians say at face value, then you would expect each administration to be radically different from its predecessor, but this is rarely the case. The rhetoric changes, of course, but the actual policies change very little.
There is a strange tendency in political discourse, particularly in the mainstream media, to treat each electoral candidate as a potential King or Queen, who would yield a royal prerogative to override and implement any policy they might want on a whim.
Thankfully, the reality of political office is quite different to such a fantasy world, implicit in the rhetoric of the electoral race, a reality of institutions and incentives that will be almost identical for whoever wins, and produce very similar results.
David,
There is a strange habit which people have to assume that every member of a class, whether that class is defined by income, race, occupation, upbringing, religion or whatever, shares the same goals, and to criticise that class is to somehow undermine your own self-interest.
It is as though there is some strange psychic connection which binds these classes of people, so that despite physical distance and individual circumstance, lack of knowledge and conflicting beliefs, each member will work in concert with the others toward a common end, an end which is usually assumed to be wealth and power.
I would blame Marx, but I think it goes deeper than that, unfortunately.
I never anywhere suggest that Clinton redux won't be any different than the current administration. A repeat of the current administration is definitely not what I advocate, and I expect to support Ron Paul right through the general election.
I think that's just more mindless politics.
I have no idea what Hillaryism portends, but Clinton I was a far leaner administration than Bush II as a matter of historical fact. Dubya was worse than Lyndon Johnson.
Lee Kelly,
It is worth keeping in mind that Hillary has a 12 year plus proven track record of supporting social engineering, starting with her "It takes a village to raise a child." It would also be worth keeping in mind that this article wasn't a case of some journalist misrepresenting Mrs. Clinton this is Mrs. Clinton at her finest. Also, though while you are correct to point out that institutions create incentives (A more accurate description would be that rules create winners and loosers.) The institutional aproach is just one model for explaining and predicting political outcomes. There are several other viable paradigms that suggest that the individual in the seat of power does matter. There are also several historical examples that demonstrate the same thing. I.E Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wouldn't try to suggest that Clinton will be the victim (or limited by) merciless government bureaucracy and won't be able to push through any of her programs. Though you could also try to say that with Hillary in office there it is highly probable that you will see the Republican's form back into a true opposistion party. So, in a Hillary presidency you're more likely to find the breaks on Capital Hill than anywhere else.
-I could go on and on about this.
Kem,
I do not doubt that an individual in a seat of power would matter, perhaps greatly, such as a King residing upon his throne. The point is that there is no seat of power, but rather many seats of power, some more powerful than others, each pushing and pulling against every other, and in a constant cycle of fleeting allegiences and duplicitous backstabbing.
That said, I do not doubt that the individuals which occupy these seats of power matter, particularly the individual who occupies the most powerful of those seats, and may on occassion even find themselves free of the usual constraints and able to wield greater influence. That is why the last words in my last comment were "very similar results".
My point was that you should be careful not to fall into the trap of taking politicians at their word, especially when they are currently running a campaign for political office. It was really nothing more than a reminder, really.
To put another spin on it. The businessman can do an incredible amount of good for society, without being well intentioned, or even a good person, concerned with nothing other than his bank balance. The same principle applies to the politician, assuming the traditions and institutions provide the correct incentives.
Alright, I'll make one last stab at this. Hopefully by the time I'm done you'll learn something.
The seat of power comment… you ran in the wrong direction with that. As far as seats of power go the chair I'm in right now may as well be a seat of power. -nuff said.
The point I'm trying to make to you is that there are multiple models or methods of analysis for understanding how policy is formed. Now, this is a little bit outside my realm of expertise since I tend to focus on Foreign Affairs and IR, not domestic politics. For example though: You have the rational actor model, institutionalism (which I tried to touch upon earlier), organizational behavior model, and governmental politics model. These are models for analysis. Then you also have varying theories such as majoritarianism, pluralism, and elitism. All of which tend to fall under two paradigm's, Realism and Liberalism. However, there are also fringe critiques such as post-modernism and feminism. If your looking for a unique perspective on politics you can always turn to something like mass culture theory. The point I was trying to make is that there is room for the individual to influence outcomes and that your original comment:
"the reality of political office is quite different to such a fantasy world, implicit in the rhetoric of the electoral race, a reality of institutions and incentives that will be almost identical for whoever wins, and produce very similar results."
-Lee Kelly
Was not entirely accurate.
Their is a distinct difference between the way politics, the way political analysis is really conducted, and your understanding of the situation. That difference is something I like to call reality. Speaking from experience after having worked in the field, political matters don't play out like an episode of the west wing.
Also your Adam Smith reference at the end was sort of an ecological fallacy. Where as the business man is serving his self interest when society benefits from his services. It is the sole purpose of the elected official in a Republic to represent his fellow man, to be well intentioned, and to act in the common good of his fellow man. You're really comparing apples and oranges at this point.
Better luck next time.
Martin,
You said, "Whatever she cooks up, it's tough to imagine a meal worse than the one Bush stuffs down my throat now."
My point was that I CAN.
"I think that's just more mindless politics."
You're free to think what you wish. I think she's a Marxist at heart, and her quotes about taking the profits from eeeevil oil companies, and forcing us to buy insurance whether we want it or not are just two indications to me that she's a lot closer to Marx than to Madison.
"If you take everything which politicians say at face value, then you would expect each administration to be radically different from its predecessor, but this is rarely the case." – Lee Kelly
Lee,
Good points, but when the candidate in question has consistently espoused an ideology that's completely contrary to mine, I will take them at their word that they intend to implement their programs whether I like them or not.
kem,
I would be interested to know what you expect me to have learned from your last comment, because I enjoy learning. However, all you actually said was (a) there are many alternative theories and models which attempt to explain the political process, (b) political reality is not like an episode of The West Wing, and (c) that politicians good well-intentioned people.
I would like politicians to be good people with good intentions, too. My point is that politicians who are not can still be responsible for implementing good policies, and politicians who are can be responsible for implementing bad policies. I think that it primarily depends on the institutional arrangements, and not on the individual. Moreover, I would rather have good policies over good intentions, and so the importance of the individual candidate is diminished.
In regard to the alternative theories and models which attempt to explain the political process. Frankly, I am confused. Of course there are alternatives, did I indicate otherwise? The mere fact that there are alternatives is irrelevent to my argument, which can be taken to imply that one of those "paradigms" is true, or closer to the truth than its competitors, or more useful for the problem at hand.
Finally, I have never seen The West Wing, or presumed that political office was anything like it.
Correction:
"(c)" should read: "and (c) that politicians should be good well-intentioned people."
The point about the viability or insight from other models was in my original post, with my comment on Kennedy. I didn't want to repeat myself. I have a streak of laziness and I don't see a need to write an anthology here. Read the two together and it should come out sounding like I'm making a point, which is you shouldn't underestimate the role of the individual. I'm not trying to argue that one theory is better than another. This isn't a zero sum game.
I wasn't suggesting that politicians are inherently good, just that your analogy isn't spot on. Though you did a much better job of presenting it this time.
Can we get back on track about the freedom to eat junk food? I say let people eat unlimited cheesy fries, but deny them quadruple bypass surgery. Is that fair?
I don't think we have to worry about Hillary doing and saying different things. I fully remember when in the early 90's she tried to stuff national health care down our throats. Her agenda has always been socialist and her actions have always been socialist.
The bigger difference in doing and saying is not the leftist democrats but the republicans. I just love it when Bush says that he wants to "give people back some of their money (tax rebates)". Translation: give people who don't pay taxes the taxes I paid. I pay a higher tax rate, but I don't meet the income requirements to get any of my money back. Socialist wealth transfer in presented as smaller government. As far as I'm concerned, that's my charity donation for the year, since I'm sure my taxes will go up to raise cash for all that government spending that didn't go away with this little check writing scheme to "stimulate" everybody.