An Inauguration Day Thought

Why vidyohsgoose? If someone wanted to beat you up, you wouldn't just let them, you'd fight back wouldn't you? If someone wanted to put you in chains, you wouldn't hold out your hands wound you? If someone had kidnapped you and tried to force you to work on their farm you would take every opportunity to escape wouldn't you? Hell! You most certainly wouldn't ask for the kidnapper to voluntarily release you because you'd argue your freedom is not his property, would you? Hence you could easily argue in these situation you were always free because you seek freedom for yourself without anyone's permission. On the other hand, if people work dutily on a plantation forever hoping their master will grant them freedom one day then they enslaved themselves because they have given the property of their freedom to the plantation owner.

If it is said "you can't cheat an honest man" then it could also be said "you can't enslave a free man".

Gilduck,

Now you've gone and exceeded yourself. This is perhaps as confused a post as I have ever seen on any blog, anywhere, and at anytime:

"Well Ken I have asked others here: what actually constitutes slavery from crappy employment? I have also asserted there's no such thing as slavery - there's just criminal-initiated-employment versus ordinary employment. The way slaves in Rome could have a lot of responsibility and have a high standard of living meant they weren't really slaves rather they were servants. Likewise free workers could have a crappy working environment to the point they could get seriously hurt or killed however the rejoinder was "if you take the job, you take responsibility for the conditions of the job". Besides what of those who are 'enslaved' because they have to repay a huge debt or invaders being forced by the defenders to work and rebuid what they destroyed?

Posted by: Gil | Jan 21, 2009 1:14:02 AM"

muirduck, take that, you just lost your crown, go ahead twist in envy of Gilduck.

Great post! Unfortunately, I don't think many people share the "less power" sentiment, especially when celebrities are encouraging others to follow their suit and pledge service to President Obama.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified"

Muirgeo, this is simply empty. The notion that a government is too big already implies that he is bigger thant its optimal size. Coase sugested that a lot of government actions doesn't work well because the government is beyond its optimal size. You see, it's not that government shouldn't do certain new things, but its actual size will affect the efficacy of those efforts. In fact, I don't see how anyone who advocates government action can oppose government reduction.

". . . it's a matter of choice, not comfort"

In other words, not much really. It's more of an emotive term to get people attention. E.g.: 'tax slavery','wage slavery', 'debt slavery', etc.

Gil: Howz about "if your neighbours have no intentions of giving sanctuary to runaway slaves or would actually capture the slaves for themselves"? Last time I looked the ending of slavery was forced on slave owners and not given in voluntarily.

There were a few proposals by the federal government pre-1861 which involved manumission with compensation to the owners, but the war intervened(and the war wasn't even really about slavery until late 1862).

Besides the texts of the major world religions support (or at least fail to denounce) slavery.

Well Ken I have asked others here: what actually constitutes slavery from crappy employment?

The distinction between free employees in a "crappy" job ,and slaves, is rather obvious. The free worker can look for a new job in the next town if he doesn't like his current employment. The slave doesn't have that option.

The difference between free work and slavery of course has nothing to do with the working conditions, and never has. It's a matter of choice, not comfort.

Last time I looked the ending of slavery was forced on slave owners and not given in voluntarily.

Of course this was after the USSC endorsed slavery by calling slaves chattel, and let us recall the fugitive slave acts, a federal boon to slave owners.

Well Ken I have asked others here: what actually constitutes slavery from crappy employment? I have also asserted there's no such thing as slavery - there's just criminal-initiated-employment versus ordinary employment. The way slaves in Rome could have a lot of responsibility and have a high standard of living meant they weren't really slaves rather they were servants. Likewise free workers could have a crappy working environment to the point they could get seriously hurt or killed however the rejoinder was "if you take the job, you take responsibility for the conditions of the job". Besides what of those who are 'enslaved' because they have to repay a huge debt or invaders being forced by the defenders to work and rebuid what they destroyed?

Gil,

That's why I mentioned culture. I think that if all antislavery laws were repealed in the US, slavery would still not exist here. Possibly in a few isolated pockets, but there would be many on this country who would do what they could to stop it.

For this reason I think that without antislavery laws in this country any slave trading that would exist would be as underground as the cuurent black market for slaves.

Noon,

I'm not sure where to start either and I'm not sure what definitions need to be made. I'm also not just thinking of coups; I'm thinking of riots or violence occuring against one group of people from another due to the political rearrangement in handing out favors due to administration changes. Nothing comes to mind as an example, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Can anyone think of any examples? For the most part I think the US is pretty stable. Very different administrations have been in power with no violence that I can think of during the transition of power.

I was just interested to see if anyone had done any research on the topic I listed above.

"Without the government to enforce the property rights of slavery, the institution of slavery then depends on the culture of your neighbors, i.e., their willingness to get your runaway slaves back to you."

Howz about "if your neighbours have no intentions of giving sanctuary to runaway slaves or would actually capture the slaves for themselves"? Last time I looked the ending of slavery was forced on slave owners and not given in voluntarily. Besides the texts of the major world religions support (or at least fail to denounce) slavery.

ken: I think that the more powerful a central government is the more likely it is that the transfer of power will result in bloodshed if for no other reason than so much is at stake. If a central government did not have much power, there doesn't seem to be much incentive to fight over it.

I think we would have to add a bit of definition to that question before we could answer it. What would constitute a change in power? In my mind, a change such as the current inauguration, where one relatively upper-class fellow changes seats with another relatively upper-class fellow during which there is virtually zero change within the actual governance structure or bureaucratic/militaristic operations of the government (with the exception of departmental figureheads and various upper-level administrative capacities), it's most likely not going to be all that bloody. Similar to changes of power in the old Soviet Union...if I recall, there was little bloodshed during central government leadership transitions during the cold war (but I'm a bit young to remember those).

An alternative scenario, where--for example--a tyrannical dictator and his entire entourage are deposed for a democratically elected party, could be quite bloody. I suppose we'd just have to make sure we're comparing apples to apples before we made any conclusion regarding the bloodiness of a specific economic system.

To be completely frank, when comparing the USA, former USSR, and other gigantic western governments against other less-developed countries in the world, one could be forgiven for initially concluding that leadership transitions in countries with gigantic governments are inherently less bloody then those in countries with smaller, more condensed seats of power. I'm not saying I believe that, but it's certainly not an out-of-place conclusion.

Randy: Because I have seen that RIFs actually work, I am all for a starve the beast approach. The problem is that eventually the "no such thing as a bad regulation" types resume control. These can always find an instance where the failure to accomplish some little detail cost somebody a few pennies, thus justifying the rehiring of a $50/yr overseer to make sure those pennies never get lost again.

Indeed, I could not agree more. I have seen such approaches implemented in government before, and scorched-earth practices tend to lead to exactly the outcome that you've indicated: broad cost-cutting measures, followed by some inevitably minor but publicly-distasteful outcome, resulting in replacement of the service by an equal or larger program by a subsequent government.

I guess my question would be that instead of taking a purely 'starve the beast' approach could we accomplish the same outcome if we put a bit more effort into utilizing economic tools toward evaluating potential outcomes. Perhaps systems such as Business Process Management, which have proven relatively successful in the private sector, could be somehow incorporated into this process. I really need to revisit Buchanan et al. to brush up on my Public Choice, as from my foggy recollection they did have some frameworks to guide such an endeavour. If you're aware of anyone who has put significant thought into applying this type of private-sector thinking to public institutions and could point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful.

And if you think I'm overstating the case then you've never worked for the government.

I work with government, but not for it. If anything you're understating the case. Don't get me wrong, I know good number of highly capable, intelligent, and industrious people who work for government, and at this point I'm not so arrogant as to assume they instantly become mindless automatons as soon as they become a cog in the machine. However--in my dealings with them--it is impossible to ignore the sheer volume of inherent inefficiencies built into the bureaucratic process which neuters their effectiveness.

The basic problem is in the idea that public service has inherent and infinite value. If I could destroy that idea I would. And I am trying.

To that assessment I would add that many I talk with forget government intervention also carries significant cost, which is often exacerbated in the marketplace by the outcome of their actions. I've appreciated the contributions of Coase in this regard. Best of luck with your efforts, sincerely.

Don,

What's the weakest government that has enough power to end slavery?

What do you think about slave owners being compelled to pay taxes to a government that will free their slaves with or without compensation?

Posted by: T L Holaday | Jan 20, 2009 2:08:56 PM

That's an interesting question, but the right answer is how strong does a government need to be for slavery to be effective as a sustainable institution? With a weak government, all that's needed for slavery to start to crack is a neighbor to not think slavery is a good idea and not return your slaves when they run off. Without the government to enforce the property rights of slavery, the institution of slavery then depends on the culture of your neighbors, i.e., their willingness to get your runaway slaves back to you.

On a broader note, more relevant to what Don wrote, what is the correlation between government authority and bloodiness of power transfer? Does anyone know? Has there been any study of this particular relationship? I think that the more powerful a central government is the more likely it is that the transfer of power will result in bloodshed if for no other reason than so much is at stake. If a central government did not have much power, there doesn't seem to be much incentive to fight over it.

Noob Goldberg,

Because I have seen that RIFs actually work, I am all for a starve the beast approach. The problem is that eventually the "no such thing as a bad regulation" types resume control. These can always find an instance where the failure to accomplish some little detail cost somebody a few pennies, thus justifying the rehiring of a $50/yr overseer to make sure those pennies never get lost again. And if you think I'm overstating the case then you've never worked for the government. The basic problem is in the idea that public service has inherent and infinite value. If I could destroy that idea I would. And I am trying.

Leftist idiots today:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Someone who fought leftist idiocy:

"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."

Randy: What needs to be done is what you get yelled at for not doing, and what does not need to be done is what you don't get yelled at for not doing.

That sounds like my company: work until you stop getting yelled at. And I agree, it's amazing how much chaff exists, both privately and in public institutions.

So I would agree that we can expect a certain level of self-direction to take over; hence the need for a higher proportion of cuts at the upper levels. Something that would need to occur simultaneously, in my mind, would be to address the actual role of the public department in question. For example, what does the DoT actually need to be doing? For changes in workload to occur, which regulations would need to be repealed? What process would need to be followed to remove such regulations...could a presidential order work or does some other procedure need to be followed?

Am I making any sense?

I didn't make any statements as to what constitutes pollution. I have no comments regarding Ron Coase, because I have not read his work.

"gratuitous ad hominem" is extreme hyperbole. yes, I did refer to him as Armpit. But regular readers know, Armpit produces a regular streak of acerbic vituperation.

Noob Goldberg,

"...what would be the effect of a 20% reduction in the salary budget for the administration of, for example, the Department of Transportation."

This one I know - from being in a very similar circumstance. What happens is that the remaining rank and file (post RIF) decide for themselves what still needs to be done and what does not. The decision making process is both simple and effective. What needs to be done is what you get yelled at for not doing, and what does not need to be done is what you don't get yelled at for not doing. I'm not joking - it really works - because in any government activity there is an amazing amount of things that don't need to be done.

Dave:Stating that the government should have less power is an idea that appeals to me and many of your readers. But a more useful conversation is: how do we get from A to B?

I think every economist needs to be asking themselves this question about every policy prescription. I find myself most frustrated when I need to talk to young people about specific issues; many pound their fists on the table when it comes to identifying problems, but during the inevitable follow-up question they become eerily silent. I don't mean this in any sort of deprecating way, as I've acted similarly many times myself and I think it's human nature. But if we are realyl serious about those sorts of proposals, perhaps that's the necessary approach.

Perhaps a different way of phrasing the question would be "what would be the effect of a 20% reduction in the salary budget for the administration of, for example, the Department of Transportation." What implications would such a policy have? If salary cuts happened at lower levels, the organization would become more top-heavy: a too many bosses, not enough workers problem. If cuts were made by number of bodies, instead of a percentage of salary, it's possible reduced management oversight could result in enhanced inefficiencies; similarly, if the cuts were rolled out as a percentage of salary, effective people would seek out alternative employment, leaving those who are unable to secure better-paying jobs and most likely leading to further waste and inefficiency within the department as a whole.

What are the potential outcomes of various downsizing strategies? How about a potential system of layoff "rounds"? First round targets 10% of the number of front-line employees, as their managers would tend to know them best. These are also the employees who do the actual work, so this round is the lightest. Second round moves significantly higher in the food chain, cutting 20% of mid-level managers; third round cuts 30% of upper-level management. Follow this up with a significant one-time expenditure (using the accumulated savings) on new equipment, infrastructure, and human resource-retaining benefits.

Now stress-tess such a proposal: how would such a policy retain skilled and valuable workers, while removing deadweight? What effect would this have on effeciency? How could this be incorporated into a regulation-review system to maximize benefits? How would unions be managed? etc etc etc...

Thoughts?

Oil Shock's writes in his gratuitously ad hominem reaction to Trumpit:

"Unfortunately Armpit [Trumpit], some people are not capitalist. they like to steal and pollute other people's property."

But in this Oil Shock misses Ronald Coase's insight entirely that (in the case Coase describes as "disservices without compensation to those damaged"): "Pigou is, of course, quite right to describe such actions as 'uncharged disservices.' But he is wrong when he describes these actions as 'anti-social.' They may or may not be. It is necessary to weight the harm against the good that will result. Nothing could be more 'anti-social' than to oppose any action which causes any harm to anyone."

The optimal amount of pollution is likely to be zero in a trivial number of cases, if any. Raising the issue of "pollution" sans Coasian caveat as reason for government intervention, as Oil Shock does, is a deconstruction of capitalism that fails to persuade.

Brilliantly and eloquently simple, Dr. Boudreaux.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Barack H. Obama (today)

What is really amusing about Trumpit's usual... typing... is that it implies things will be any different under Obama. Politicians will always work for those who will grant them the biggest favors while avoiding risk of impeachment/election loss. Conveniently for the government folks, voters pay very little attention, and if the media companies owe you favors as well, you can get away with quite alot.

Government always works for those who offer the most. The "people" are never it.

Don,

What's the weakest government that has enough power to end slavery?

What do you think about slave owners being compelled to pay taxes to a government that will free their slaves with or without compensation?

The death and destruction of war is supposed to be a public good.

So says Paul Krugman. Show me one Austrian Economist who will agree with Krugman on that. Here is a hint, don't waste time looking.

Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange. Unfortunately Armpit, some people are not capitalist. they like to steal and pollute other people's property. Which is the reason why some small government people allow for a limited role for the government.

My thoughts exactly.

Look up Joseph Schumpeter on Wikipedia if you want to know where we are headed. It ain't smaller government, folks. It's just a matter of who the big government works for. Under Bush it was the rich and his friends, and look what happened to the rest of us. Government needs to be big budgeted to tackle all the problems that the free market creates from pollution to concentration of wealth. And let's not forget the Pentagon's war machine. The death and destruction of war is supposed to be a public good. Ask the children of Gaza how they feel about that.

Amen.

Sheldon Richman expressed similar sentiments here: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0901h.asp</p>

Well said. It's nice to hear a simple, concise, and insightful comment that cuts through all the hype surrounding this event.

I'd love to hear the Cafe's thoughts on Structural Libertarianism vs Policy Libertarianism.

It seems to me that a reduction of political power is unlikely without structural changes because politicians are reluctant to voluntarily reduce their own power, and most voters seem to have collectivist tendencies and think that it's the government's job to "protect" them in many facets of life and therefore want to grant them power. So how would you propose to go about this structural change in a peaceful manner?

Stating that the government should have less power is an idea that appeals to me and many of your readers. But a more useful conversation is: how do we get from A to B?

Ever seen those estimates of how much $ the Men's NCAA Basketball tournament costs employers?

Given the hyperventilation over the inaguration, I thought that would be an interesting number. Here's a very crude back of the envelope guess: From the BLS website I found:


Avg hourly earnings in Dec 08 was $8.64 in 1982 dollars, and using the BLS' Inflation Calculator that converts to $19.02 today.


Total number of employed persons in December = 135,489,000.


Suppose the average worker lost 2 hrs of work today for the innaguration. Total cost is:


$19.02 x 2 x 135,489,000 = $5,154,001,560


That's quite an expensive party!

If that (admittedly) very crude calculation is anywhere in the ballpark of reality, then we're talking Billions of dollars in lost productivity.

Thanks Don, because I am stuck in a virtual sea of Obama, I needed that to get me through today.

There has been a process in place in Oregon to devolve the amount of power placed in the hand of the state, in order to return greater autonomy to it's constituent counties. The process is being called the Big Look.

Even though, as policy, the goals of Big Look are laudable, the process will end up being laughable.

No legislative body will ever give up power it has taken. Just not how it works.

.

Excellent thought, Professor Boudreaux.

I'll second that and add it was interesting the other day that Obama advisor Paul Volker had posited something about keeping banks small, but had no such thoughts on the size of government.

Exactly the right sentiment, Don, and well put. As JS Mill and FA Hayek have both expressed, Democracy is important, but not a substitute for limited government.

No kidding. Well said, Dr. B.