More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Daniel Kuehn,

Perhaps I've missed something, for, admittedly, I can barely stand to read anything of yours, let alone reams of it, but it seems to me that, from what little I have read of your debate with Prof. Boudreaux, you have been letting him off too easily.

You had told me that,

"Words obscure and promote unfounded assumptions. Math bring clarity to your assumptions so you can't hide behind bad assumptions."

Why are you allowing him to hide his unfounded assumptions behind words when you could bring clarity to the discussion by means of the mathematical allusions and Black Holes in OuterCyberSpace that you employed so successfully against me?

off topic but this is a pretty clever twitter

http://twitter.com/ourenemy

it’s from the point of view of the state, kinda funny

thought you guys might enjoy it :)

At the University of Virginia, its founder was -- and still is -- called "Mr. Jefferson." I like the non-elitism of that tradition. Were I to meet him, I'd call the president of Microsoft "Mr. Ballmer" -- not "President Ballmer."

Why should the president of one branch of one level of government in one country be treated as if he's something special? He's certainly no more worthy than is the president of the local Rotary Club - and likely much less honorable. (By the way, I'd say this about the president of the executive branch of the United States government regardless of which self-important pooh-bah happens to occupy that office's oval stage.)

T'is interesting to note you referred to Obama as 'Mr. Obama' as though he were some guy on the street. Don't want to refer to him as the President, eh? ;)

Daniel wrote: "but many additional "special theories" have been successfully offered."

Well that depends what you mean by "successfully offered." If you mean that the "special theories" have failed time and time again to be refuted by empirical investigation after empirical investigation, then it is interesting to discuss. But if you mean that the "special theories" have merely been embraced by the gatekeepers in the top journals in whatever discipline you like (say economics), then please, please don't waste my time with "beautiful", "elegant", "innovative", "insightful", "nuanced" theories that cannot be challenged with ugly facts.

Daniel,

Here is an example of why I have so little regard for your intellectual ability, however prolific your writing output may be.

----


"And I've fully granted that I and Obama and many others look at the market and say "sometimes it doesn't work under this condition" or "sometimes it doesn't work under that condition"............. I think Smith would be convinced by many of those arguments - and unconvinced by others if he had the chance to have them posed to him."


Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Apr 13, 2009 4:25:00 PM"

You can think that, you can write that and entirely miss the really good idea is to blame the condiditions, not blame the market, for Chirst's Sake!

I buy, you sell, we have created a marketplace; now name one condition, other than misrepresentation or fraud, that could interfere with that if we are left alone.

Sans misrepresentation or fraud, our marketplace will operate successfully 100% of the time. The conditions you speak of are always the interference of government either through its own stupidity or through the purchase of its force by envious competitors to one or the other of us.

Left alone, there are no, I repeat no, conditions that can cause our market to fail.

Weather won't do it, sickness won't do it, fatigue won't do it, diversity of race won't do it, differences in education won't do it, bandits won't do it, nor any other will do it. As long as I am buying and you are selling, we effect satisfactory exchange of goods as agreed, then the only "condition that can interfere is government.

No market has failed until one makes payment and the other can not, or does not, deliver agreed upon goods or service.

I recall Obama's saying that he would support raising capital gains taxes, even if it resulted in lowering government revenues, because the incidence of the tax would fall most heavily on the relatively wealthy, which would advance the cause of fairness.

"That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principal attention of each individual to that particular portion of it, which was most within the sphere both of his abilities and of his understanding."

Birds of a feather? No.

Its funny that people who are arguing about the 'relative obtrusiveness' of the current administration. Hey, I like to look at pyramids built by government just as much as the next guy, but it doesnt help an economy.

The travesty we have from this administration is that they refuse to learn from history. They are using the same master plan that was used to prolong the great depression over a decade. It is truly sad.

And, yes - Obama does think that he knows better than the individuals within an economy how to use the fruits of their own labor. If he didnt, he would not confiscate these same fruits and transfer them to there areas.

Come on, he worked for one of the proxies of communists in this country - ACORN. He is an outright socialist.

Some people appreciate Smith -- see the Economist (Mar. 19:

"Adam Smith’s disciples

"Throughout the crisis China’s leaders have railed against the dangers of protectionism, knowing that trade with the West is vital. Much to the chagrin of China’s online leftists, Mr Wen has repeatedly sung the praises of Adam Smith in speeches and meetings with journalists. In London he revealed to the Financial Times that he was carrying Smith’s “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” in his suitcase.

"As Mr Wen explains it, an important message of this book is that if the fruits of economic development are not shared by all, that is “morally unsound”, as well as a threat to social stability."

I agree, that given Obama's understanding of his options (which, as a Leftist politician, are between Keynesian and Marxian policies), that Obama is choosing the (relatively) non-interventionist path.

Yes, I too agree that Obama thinks he's taking the less interventionist path. I just don't give two figs what he believes in his heart of hearts. That's for his wife to worry herself with, not me.

indiana jim -

RE: "No we are not ignoring the "time factor"; the fact is that a the most important of Smith's propositions have failed to be refuted time and time again (this is what makes them his most important propositions)."

Right. That's why I agree with the most important of Smith's propositions. What the time factor introduces are primarily "special cases". Nobody has debunked or seems interested in debunking Smith's "general theory", but many additional "special theories" have been successfully offered. My point is simply that we oughta recognize that Smith would probably be interested in and agree with a lot of these "special theories", so nobody should go around using Smith's fundamental insights to chastise a Keynes or a Friedman or anyone else that agrees with Smith on the fundamentals.

...given his understanding of his options, Obama is choosing the non-interventionist route.

But take a step back and put yourself into the shoes of someone who does have a Keynesian/mainstream understanding of recessions. Given the options that are available under that understanding of recessions, the Obama administration is going for the least interventionist route.

So, within the context of Keynesian/mainstream economics, he's taking the "least" interventionist route. Are we supposed to commend him?

What are you suggesting?

Daniel,

I agree, that given Obama's understanding of his options (which, as a Leftist politician, are between Keynesian and Marxian policies), that Obama is choosing the (relatively) non-interventionist path.

It is unfortunate that he limits himself to those two choices.

Daniel does it again with the "you're not still talking about that old Adam Smith stuff":

"I think you're really ignoring the time factor as well - the fact that a lot has happened since 1776."

No we are not ignoring the "time factor"; the fact is that a the most important of Smith's propositions have failed to be refuted time and time again (this is what makes them his most important propositions).

Keep saying 1776, 1776, 1776 as many times as you like Daniel and it is just as devoid of meaning as it was the first time.

Michael Smith -

RE: "That's exactly like arguing that a criminal, who sees no alternative to supporting his life by theft, is taking the "non-criminal" route if he chooses shoplifting over bank robbery."

Intervention into the economy has somewhat more convincing apologists and exponents than living a life of crime does.

OK - I can hear the stampede of "taxation is theft" posts rumbling in now.

12) Force all businesses to pay 100% of their employee's healthcare costs.

Which is much like the farce that employers pay 1/2 the SS withholding.

Daniel Kuehn wrote:

So PLEASE try to differentiate your disagreement with him on what the available options are from your disagreement with me that given his understanding of his options, Obama is choosing the non-interventionist route.

Obama is choosing the non-interventionist route? Preposterous.

Your argument amounts to the claim that since Obama thinks the only options open to him are interventionist, he is choosing the non-interventionist route when he picks one of those "lesser" interventions.

That's exactly like arguing that a criminal, who sees no alternative to supporting his life by theft, is taking the "non-criminal" route if he chooses shoplifting over bank robbery.

S Andrews -

RE: "Raising taxes is the only way a Smithian can make an unsustainable budget sustainable. ROTFLMAO"

Did I stumble into a "Gossip Girls" chatroom? What's with all these abbreviations?

No - raising taxes is not the only way a Smithian can make an unsustainable budget sustainable. It is one of two ways that I can think of. What gave you the impression it was the only way?

OK - regarding "an administration that is trying to do as little as they feel they possibly can to direct industry"... I knew that would be a tough sell to this crowd. That's why I said "as they feel they possibly can", and even then I probably should have said "as they THINK they possibly can", because obviously this government isn't run on feelings.

Given the Obama administration's understanding of the causes and consequences of the current situation, they are trying to do as little to intervene as they think they can manage without throwing the economy into a depression.

I acknowledge that you guys don't understand recessionary dynamics the same way that the Obama administration or most of the rest of the discipline do - I know that.

But take a step back and put yourself into the shoes of someone who does have a Keynesian/mainstream understanding of recessions. Given the options that are available under that understanding of recessions, the Obama administration is going for the least interventionist route. That was what I was trying to communicate - perhaps I should have spelled it out more deliberately.

So PLEASE try to differentiate your disagreement with him on what the available options are from your disagreement with me that given his understanding of his options, Obama is choosing the non-interventionist route.

A great deal of them are tax issues. Our budget was unsustainable before he came in. His budget is now unsustainable.

Raising taxes is the only way a Smithian can make an unsustainable budget sustainable. ROTFLMAO

Michael -

I'm not going to address all 15 of those things. Some - like suggesting a renegotiation of NAFTA amounts to protectionism, or that he proposed to nationalize the health care system, - are ludicrous on their face.

A great deal of them are tax issues. Our budget was unsustainable before he came in. His budget is now unsustainable. Raising revenue doesn't suggest ignorance of or opposition to the free market. All economists recognize that taxes hurt the economy. A willingness to levy taxes doesn't suggest that that fact is misunderstood or disagreed with.

I think I said quite clearly that Obama is an interventionist and that Smith would disagree with him on a lot of his policies, didn't I? I can't predict how Smith would modify his views if he were alive today (I imagine he would quite a bit), but I think I would disagree with him on many things as well. Are Obama's taxes too high? is something Smith might disagree with him on. Should unions change the way they hold election is something that Smith would probably, and I would definitely disagree with him on.

One thing Smith and Obama wouldn't disagree on is that:

"That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principal attention of each individual to that particular portion of it, which was most within the sphere both of his abilities and of his understanding."

To suggest that they would disagree (or that any major economist since Adam Smith with the exception of the Marxists would disagree) on this insight is far overstating your case about specific policy disagreements that have emerged out of Coasian, Keynesian, or monetarist modifications to the Smithian message.

...an administration that is trying to do as little as they feel they possibly can to direct industry.

Do you really believe that??!!??!??!!????????

Really???!?!?!!?

This thread reminds me of the Drucker quote, "Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things."

I've witnessed firsthand the decline of several organizations where leadership did the wrong things very well. Now I get to see it on a grander scale.

But even the idea that Obama is "overseeing" these industries I think is far overstated. There is a real inteventionist/non-interventionist conflict between you and Obama. But it strikes me as belittling to imply that Smithian logic is lost on an administration that is trying to do as little as they feel they possibly can to direct industry.

Daniel, you're always good for a laugh. Thanks. Do as little as possible? This must be comedy.

15) Commit America to funding U.N. anti-poverty programs, so that American taxpayers are not only bled to fund our home-grown bums and deadbeats, but the whole world’s as well.

This is a particular pet peeve of mine, Michael. What country has ever climbed out of poverty as a result of aid. Countless countries have remained mired in worse poverty as a direct result of aid.

Marx and Smith said fundamentally different things about the economy. My argument has nothing to do with how smart Obama or Smith are. My sociology professor was very smart, but she was a Marxist that differed strongly from Smith. I'm not sure what intelligence has to do with all this.

I'm not performing this mental experiment at all. Obama and Smith agree where it counts - on what Smith is really remembered for. Marx and Smith disagreed on what Smith is really remembered for. There's been some tweaking of Smith in the intervening 250 years or so, but aside from those Marxists there hasn't been a mass movement away from his insights.

I'd say the same of Hayek and Keynes or Friedman and Samuelson or Coase and Pigou. They had their disagreements and those disagreements were very important. But nobody on that list rejected the idea that private actors in free markets are beneficial for society. Keynes perhaps more than most had his snide swipes at rigid non-interventionist orthdoxoy, but he is fundamentally Smithian and pro-market despite the important caveats he raised.

I think you're really ignoring the time factor as well - the fact that a lot has happened since 1776. It would be like saying "Einstein didn't understand or didn't accept Newton". He did understand and accept him. He also elaborated on him. And if Newton were raised from the dead he'd probably say "wow - that Einstein was really on to something... I wish I could go back and revise some parts in Principia".

Science is not a death match, and paradigm shifts are very rare. Even when they do occur, it's even rarer that students of the new paradigm reject the fundamentals of the old paradigm - at most they usually just see the old paradigm from a new and different angle.

Daniel Kuehn asked:

What evidence do you have that Obama and the world renowned economic advisors in his administration mysteriously missed the boat on the single most important insight in the history of economics?

Here are the things Obama promised to do during the presidential campaign:

1) Raise the top income tax rate.

2) Raise the corporate tax rate.

3) Raise the dividend tax rate.

4) Raise the capital gains tax rate.

5) Create a new tax on businesses that outsource jobs overseas.

6) Punish the oil companies by seizing a portion of their profits.

7) Punish the pharmaceutical companies by seizing a portion of their profits.

8) "Spread the wealth around" with a scheme whereby those who don’t currently pay taxes will receive a rebate funded by those who do pay taxes -- a scheme which Obama calls a “tax cut”.

9) Eliminate the secret ballot in union elections and allow union organizers to bring intimidation and threats to bear directly on anyone who dares to oppose a union.

10) Raise the minimum wage by 50%.

11) Impose "cap and trade" limits on CO2 emissions that will, in Obama’s words, "cause electricity rates to soar" and "bankrupt anyone who builds a coal-fired power plant".

12) Force all businesses to pay 100% of their employee's healthcare costs.

13) Complete the nationalization of the healthcare industry.

14) Impose protectionist trade restrictions by "renegotiating" existing free trade agreements.

15) Commit America to funding U.N. anti-poverty programs, so that American taxpayers are not only bled to fund our home-grown bums and deadbeats, but the whole world’s as well.

Obama thinks that doing all of the above will spur economic growth and the production of wealth. You tell me what he's missed.

In the above, it is Daniel, NOT David, who I am quoting.

Sorry to have forgotten your name Daniel.

David wrote:

"Since when does nuance, departure on specifics, and admission that we may have learned more about the economy since 1776 imply either (a.) ingorance of, or (b.) rejection of one of the greatest economic minds to grace this planet."

and this:

"A lot has been written, argued, debunked, and asserted since 1776 - so Obama's decisions are certainly not going to read right out of the Wealth of Nations."

The problem, David, is that a lot has NOT been debunked of what Smith hypothesized, and furthermore a lot has failed to be refuted time and time again. David, you sound just like the Marketing professor who once asked me whether I was still teaching that "old Adam Smith" stuff. Your continued reference to 1776 suggests that you are of the same ilk. The merits of Smith's most important ideas are independent of time.

Daniel,

You seem to reason thusly: Adam Smith was smart. Barack Obama is smart. Therefore, the two must basically agree at a foundational level, regardless of the ocean of differences that separate Smith's words from Obama's words and (especially) actions.

Such reasoning is unwarranted. Karl Marx was smart, but surely you don't assert that Marx and Smith agreed at a foundational level. (Or do you?) Surely you don't chalk it up to my inability to appreciate nuance that I argue that Marx and Smith disagreed foundationally. (Or do you?)

Or try this one: James Buchanan is smart. Joseph Stiglitz is smart. Therefore, they must agree with each other at a foundational level. Do you think that only a failure to appreciate nuance explains why someone might claim (as I do) that Buchanan and Stiglitz disagree foundationally.

Perform the same mental experiment with other pairs of unquestionably smart people -- e.g., Ronald Coase and A.C. Pigou; F.A. Hayek and J.M. Keynes; Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson.

*Edinburgh... I don't know what's with my spelling today.

What is your evidence for you astonishing claim? That he isn't Hayek?

Don -

RE: "What is your evidence for this astonishing claim? The fact that Obama isn't Stalin, or even Clement Atlee?"

What is my evidence for this astonishing claim? My evidence is that he shows full recognition that private actors trading in a free market in most cases provide by far the most optimal outcome for a prosperous society.

And I've fully granted that I and Obama and many others look at the market and say "sometimes it doesn't work under this condition" or "sometimes it doesn't work under that condition". I think Smith would be convinced by many of those arguments - and unconvinced by others if he had the chance to have them posed to him.

I can dig up some interviews or statements or past actions of Obama if you want to - but I'd really rather not. It sounds like a lot of work.

What evidence do you have that Obama and the world renowned economic advisors in his administration mysteriously missed the boat on the single most important insight in the history of economics? Do you really think you and select others were the only ones that got that memo from Edinborough?

A lot has been written, argued, debunked, and asserted since 1776 - so Obama's decisions are certainly not going to read right out of the Wealth of Nations. But to suggest that he is somehow not a full participant in the Smithian legacy or the Classical Liberal legacy simply because he doesn't follow your strand of that broad legacy is a little much, Don.

Don -

RE: "As reported in the New York Times, on February 16, 2009... the president was reserving for himself any decision on the viability of G.M. and Chrysler"

The context that this statement refered to the president's personal review (with his economic advisors) of GM and Chrysler's business plan as a condition of a continued loan would have been nice. "Any decision on the viability of GM and Chrysler" sounds incredibly expansive until you read the rest of the article and realize it's just about the loan.

I cringe to defend Obama on this one because I actually strongly disagreed with his decision on Wagoner and I'm quite comfortable with letting GM go bankrupt. But I also believe that a creditor disciplining a company that is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy is very far removed from a government presuming to know how to run a car company. There is good reason to believe that GM is not a good place to lend right now. Demanding some changes to make it somewhat safer to lend before lending may be an inappropriate intervention - but it's far removed from the motivation, hubris, and extent of the intervention that Smith is refering to. Is it really so wrong to admit that?

Of course, I meant to say he can't run everything, but our Reverse Robin Hood sure can take from the poor to give to the rich.

Daniel,

You say that Adam Smith and Barack Obama "would share a foundational understanding of the economy."

What is your evidence for this astonishing claim? The fact that Obama isn't Stalin, or even Clement Atlee?

Don -

RE: "I'm sorry, I can't resist asking: are you seriously proposing that Obama and his people understand and accept Smithian logic?"

And I can't resist this question Don - is this seriously so hard for you to accept? Since when does nuance, departure on specifics, and admission that we may have learned more about the economy since 1776 imply either (a.) ingorance of, or (b.) rejection of one of the greatest economic minds to grace this planet.

Why do you think the brilliance of Smith is lost on people who don't see eye to eye with you? Larry Summers? Tim Geithner? Are you seriously telling me that these men are just clowns and pretenders? I understand there are intractable philosophical differences between you and them - but do you really think there is such a cavernous difference or misunderstanding on the fundamentals of a work like The Wealth of Nations???

As reported in the New York Times, on February 16, 2009, in a report on the Obama administration's creation of the auto-industry taskforce -- a report entitled ""To Fix Detroit, Obama Is Said to Drop Plan for 'Car Czar'":

"the president was reserving for himself any decision on the viability of G.M. and Chrysler."

Don -

I just posted before seeing this. I would certainly think that there are interventions that Obama is proposing that the Smith of 1776 would disagree with. No doubt about that. What I'm saying is that they are in agreement about the fundamentals of private actors in free markets. It's just like me - I talk and think a lot about externalities and market failures. But you or others are wrong to assume that I somehow misunderstand or disagree with Smith's insights. I am strongly pro-market. I probably think it breaks down in some areas, and the Smith of 1776 might disagree with me on that. But that disagreement doesn't suggest I'm in fundamental conflict with him.

You also need to remember that Smith lived in an entirely different world where the interventions were of an entirely different character. You are right to point out that he did advocate some interventions - but I would also point out that he didn't even conceive of the necessity or possibility of other interventions. I don't think anybody can take a historical figure and declare that if he were zoomed ahead to the early twentieth century he would agree more with Hayek than Keynes. I think Smith would have thought "wow - Keynes really has some great modifications (and Hayek had some good ideas too) - I can buy that". I personally think that's what Smith would have said, but I can't say for sure because he's dead and he wrote with an 18th century understanding about an 18th century world. I also don't think we can just assume that if we zoomed him to the 21st century we can definitively say that he'd agree with you over Obama if he were privy to all the additional work that's gone on in the meantime. I could very easily see him being an Obama booster.

But that's just my thoughts on issues of historical criticism and what we read into historical texts. My main point is that yes, Obama is an interventionist for sure, and yes there would probably be serious bones of contention between Smith and Obama - but they would share a foundational understanding of the economy.

Don -

Maybe there's just some confusion on what exactly those "grand plans" are in your mind. There's an obvious Austrian critique of the effort to increase liquidity in banking by the administration, and Smith would probably be sympathetic to that critique. But increasing liquidity isn't trying to "direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals" as Smith is discussing more specifically. Insofar as Obama does that (regulating pay and things like that are already bothering me in this regard), I guess it is relevant.

I don't think Obama would disagree too much with this Smith quote, and I don't think Smith would say that what Obama is doing falls under the jurisdiction of this quote. There's certainly a lot of Obama's program that Smith would disagree with - that seems inevitable. But the point is that whatever you perceive Obama's "grand plans" to be, they don't come close to being as intrusive as what is being described in this Smith quote, and the broad perspective of the Obama administration is consistent with the broad perspective of Smith. I know it's not as fun to share the Smithian legacy - but you really need to. Obama is an interventionist. He doesn't agree with every point of the Classical economists. But he certainly doesn't fundamentally disagree with the Smithian view of private actors and free markets either.

Daniel,

I'm sorry, I can't resist asking: are you seriously proposing that Obama and his people understand and accept Smithian logic?

If so, you'd better re-read your Adam Smith.

And to anticipate a response, if not from you then surely from some others: I am aware that Smith believed that there is a positive role for government -- a role larger than I grant to it. But no fair reading of Adam Smith can lead someone to suspect that he would approve of the interventionist machinations of the Obama administration (or of the Bush administration, or of the Clinton administration, or of..... go back at least to Calvin Coolidge, or perhaps even to Grover Cleveland).

Let's never forget this insight from Adam Smith:

"What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

I leave it to the unbiased reader to judge if Adam Smith would agree or disagree with me that Mr. Obama's (or anyone else's) grand plans to improve society are unlikely to improve society.

(From Book IV, Chapter 2 of TWON)

Don -

I agree you weren't saying that Obama and the administration aren't "running" these industries. That was probably an overstatement on my part.

But even the idea that Obama is "overseeing" these industries I think is far overstated. There is a real inteventionist/non-interventionist conflict between you and Obama. But it strikes me as belittling to imply that Smithian logic is lost on an administration that is trying to do as little as they feel they possibly can to direct industry.

All I'm saying is that your primary difference with the Obama administration is not on the question of whether private actors should run or oversee these industries. Why do you write letters to the editor as if that is the real disagreement?

And I'm guessing you write those letters to the editor because you feel that is the real disagreement, in which case I'm just subimitting my two cents and agreeing to disagree.

No, Obama can run the auto or banking industries, but he sure can take from the poor to give to the rich.

Society best advances when each of us is free to pursue our own individual goals






Don, I'd suggest that society only advances when such liberty exists - all else is a decline into serfdom.

Careful readers will note that I did not say that the President runs, or proposes to run, anything. The word I used is "oversee" -- which is precisely what the President proposes to do.

WHo thinks that *any* President runs everything personally? Not even a CEO runs an entire company - even a small one - single-handedly. That's why people refer to a President's "administration", and it's why personnel choices are so critical.

I can understand poeple being concerned about the deficit; I can even understand concerns abotu taxes; but this notion that President Obama, or ANY President, runs the entire nation himself (and eventually, some day, herself) is patently absurd.

Again Don, you're acting as if Obama's admitted interventions into these industries in a time of crisis amount to him running all of them out of the Oval Office. I accept that there are legitimate criticisms of the interventions that have gone on (I've levied some myself) - but that's no reason to overstate the case and suggest that Obama is running whole industries in lieu of private actors. It's a shame you've dragged Smith into an accusation like that.

You're also bringing up the naivete/IQ duality again that you did in the earlier Krugman post. Do we even know Obama's IQ or Krugman's IQ? I wouldn't have assumed they are especially high - intelligent as the two may be.

"...government doing no more than protecting each of us from the predations and officious ambitions of others."

What do we do when the government is the one doing the predating? Our government is now only limited by the imagination of those we elect to run it.