Here's a letter that I sent recently to the New York Times:
The headline of Thomas Friedman's column on President Obama's economic-recovery plan reads "Obama's Big, Bold Bet" (April 5).
Persons
who make big bets with their own money act boldly. Persons, such as
Pres. Obama, who make big bets with other people's money act badly -
and in two traditional senses of that word.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 26 comments }
Do your letters normally get published?
Isn't one of the criticisms of hedge fund managers that they take bets with other people's money while having no skin in the game themselves? I guess that worry evaporates when it's our Dear Leader doing the same thing.
Don,
It's a democracy and he was voted in to do "something" rather then "nothing". Doing absolutely nothing as you suggest, while possibly a better solution, was not what the people voted for and ultimately itself could be considered a bet as well because we do not know with any certainty how that would have worked.
The idea that the government does stuff with other peoples money sounds glorious and self-righteous and makes one feel a little like Patrick Henry but its an unfair blow at the best process of governance to date. The fact is they do things with ALL our money, not just "other" peoples money. George Bush did things with other peoples money and if Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman were president they'd be doing things with MY money… with other peoples money… with ALL our money.
It's not saying anything to say that politicians are sloppy and often sleazy and claim you have a better way but no road map or plan to get there.
Ultimately your vision of the world can be obtained by voting or revolting and nothing else. A superior way is no way at all if there is no way to get there. That's the problem with a narrow focus that assumes nothing but the economy matters. The economy is simply a subset of the society and its rules in which that economy is found. We must remember that economy and governance are two separate but inseparable things. Economics is no more noble in any way then politics and ultimately subservient to it.
I do value your opinion and I'd be curious if you've ever thought of a road map more efficient then writing op-ed and letters to the editors.
An aside for all who cheaply like to call others trolls.
If I were a troll would I have read The Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, The Myth of the Rational Voter and many others? Would I be listening to almost every podcast that Russ offers at Econtalk. Would I be listening and reading stuff from Mises?
Then I see some people here who claim they wouldn't even bother to read a prominent economic journalist such as Paul Krugman and I wonder how much anyone here reads outside of there own little sphere and I wonder what the proper definition of a troll should be.
But please, honestly, positively DO NOT "FEED THE TROLL". If you really feel that way I will not miss your reply a bit.
Muirgeo,
"The fact is they do things with ALL our money…"
That's not really true. My money is only what I have left after withholding*. The amount withheld is just an accounting method to keep track of the degree to which I work as a slave for the political class.
*And not even all of that, as much of what I have left after witholding goes to a wide variety of other taxes and fees, some visible, mostly invisible.
Muirgeo,
Why are you so sure that Obama was elected to "do something"? Perhaps he was elected simply because voters found him (not unreasonably) to be more appealing than John McCain.
One of the (practically countless) problems with collective decision-making (such as voting) is that it is very, very difficult to determine what, if anything, voters truly want or "intend."
And even if Obama was elected to "do something," why must that something be spending goo-gobs of (current and future) taxpayer money?
And even if we could be sure that Obama was elected to spend lots of taxpayer money, that fact doesn't mean that he — or the voters who granted him the power to spend that money — aren't spending other people's money.
I didn't vote for Obama, and I'm sure that many other current taxpayers whose money is being spent by Obama didn't vote for Obama. And I'm absolutely certain that the future taxpayers who will have to repay the gargantuan debt he's running up did not vote for Obama.
Your view of a society, and of democratic collective decision-making, is naive. The fact that a label is attached to a group of persons — that label being, in this case, "American" — does not mean that there is a sentient mind or consciousness out there called "America" — a mind and consciousness that has desires and a will in any way comparable to the way you and I and Barack Obama each have our own desires and our our own will.
And the fact that many Americans yank levers in voting booths from time to time, with the aggregate results of that yanking being translated by some reasonably well-known algorithm into "electoral results" does not mean that "society," or "all voters," or even "all voters who yanked the levers for the winning candidates" chose in any meaningful way all or even most of what those empowered by the most recent yanking of levers do when they're in power.
Then again perhaps Obama was actually elected because th young and brainless outnumber the mature and thoughtful; empty headed pop culture young voters with no sense of history because they were never required to spend a minute in a history book, empty headed pop culture young voters who couldn't give you a decent definition of socialism or capitalism and probably could even spell those two words, empty headed pop culture young voters who have been indoctrinated to believe that black is cooler than white and voting for a half black man is cutting edge cool.
In other words, we have a man in the Whitehouse who was put there by the sorriest and most ignorant elements of our society, and more than anything it was his race that was the tipping point, so that means he is there for the very worst reason.
That's the problem with a narrow focus that assumes nothing but the economy matters.
In terms of what most people consider most important, physical survival, the economy matters most of all.
It's food on the table, clothes on your back, shelter from the storm.
It's the business of survival. That technology, division of labor, and trade have made it seem easy does not make it any less important than any other time.
And yes, other things are important, but they wouldn't be worth much if the trucks stop carrying produce to market.
Vidyohs,
Plenty of old people voted for Obama and most of them support the welfare state.
It's a sorry state when the choice had to be narrowed down to McCain and Obama.
McCain would've had pretty much the same priesthood telling him what he should do.
Your view of a society, and of democratic collective decision-making, is naive.
You might even call it doctrinal.
Yes, give up your power to the political class. Pull a lever and surrender your power to us, we'll take your money and buy off your support with crumbs, but don't touch our wars, subsidies, etc.
Well aware of this Sam,
"Vidyohs,
Plenty of old people voted for Obama and most of them support the welfare state."
But, IMHO, they weren't the tipping point. Perhaps my error above was not setting off the words "and brainless" in commas.
"…he was voted in to do 'something' rather then 'nothing'."-mrgo
I posted this on my blog yesterday: "Eight years of lackluster speeches from W. drove oratory skill to the top of the list of presidential qualifications, well above qualifications like stance on issues, leadership results and demonstration of principles. A good thing about the next few years may be a return of such qualifications to the top of the list for the next president."
Vid,
Great post! You hit the nail on the head, and expressed it brilliantly.
Rock on!
After all, Ron Paul got A LOT of fervent support from young people.
Muirgeo,
True, if Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman were an elected official, they'd also be doing things with our money.
However, since they – unlike Obama – understand that I can spend my own money a lot more wisely than any politician can, and that it is immoral to tax me highly in any case, they would be spending a lot less of my money if they were in power, than Obama is.
Sure, most people agree that we need some taxes, (besides possibly Don;-) and spending on very basic needs – such as a military – people like Sowell and Friedman would only tax and spend the $ necessary for these basic needs, and have no interest in punitive taxation for massive wealth redistribution as Obama advocates.
The Good and the Ugly:
The promotion of the public good is often the unintended consequence of the pursuit of individual self-interest in competitive markets.
Ugly waste is often the consequence of the coercions created by central planners fomenting covetousness.
Well play vidyohs…
Muirgeo,
Plenty of people have responded to your comment, including Don, so I won't. But, that was one of the more decent comments I have seen you post on this blog.
If Milton Friedman were President we wouldn't just be spending alittle less than Obama, we'd be spending relatively nothing.
In this interview Friedman did he explains what he would do if President:
Abolish Dept. of Agriculture
Abolish Dept. of Commerce
Abolish Dept. of Education
Abolish Dept. of Energy (except nuclear bit, which should be moved to Military)
Abolish Half of Dept. of Health & Human Services
Abolish Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Abolish Dept. of Interior
Abolish Dept. of Labor
Abolish Dept. of Transportation
He explains at the end of the video (at about 21:00 on) if you want to watch for yourself.(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4932229245802913052&ei=rvLcSamiAo2grwKas8HbDg&q=milton+friedman&hl=en)
Seth wrote: "I posted this on my blog yesterday: "Eight years of lackluster speeches from W. drove oratory skill to the top of the list of presidential qualifications"
Very well said, Seth!
On, you mean like the typical CEO who is playing with the shareholders money because the board elected them to the office.
Spencer,
Please — each shareholder, individually, CHOOSES to invest his or her money as he or she does. Each shareholder can refuse to invest in XYZ Corp, and each can eliminate his or her investment at will and at very low cost.
It's true that current shareholders vote and are represented by a board of directors. And it's true that many of the problems with collective decision-making that public-choice scholars identify as infecting political decision-making also infect this private sort of collective decision-making. But, in part because individual choice in the latter setting is very real (unlike in the political setting), the practical problems created by flaws in collective decision-making mechanisms are much reduced in magnitude in private settings than in political settings.
Joe,
Friedman would have gotten eaten alive by the Beltway machine. Of course, neither he nor any other person voicing those kinds of thoughts could ever win an election anyway. Politicians win elections by promising to fix "things", not by taking away goodies.
"After all, Ron Paul got A LOT of fervent support from young people.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 8, 2009 1:13:50 PM"
To what end? It is obvious that being younger, blacker, and a slick hustler trumps knowledge, wisdom, and experience in our pop culture world.
Obama's young people outnumbered all other candidates young people. Which proves that there are more empty headed pop culture young than there are ones who can pour piss out of a boot without having instructions printed on the heel.
"Then again perhaps Obama was actually elected because th young and brainless outnumber the mature and thoughtful;"
But then again, there wasn't really a candidate for the mature and thoughtful.
Obama clearly advocated the most evil policies by far, but McCain's policies, especially with a Democrat Congress, were unlikely to be much different. McCain does after-all LOVE compromising (actually caving in) to Democrats. He probably would not have been more fiscally conservative than Bush, and Bush was just Obama-lite.
Now if the mature & thoughtful would take the primary process seriously, it might make a difference.
vikingvista,
Exactly, no candidate for the mature and thoughtful.
I deliberately avoided going down the McCain road, as the subject was not McCain; however, I agree with you completely.
Economics is no more noble in any way then politics and ultimately subservient to it.
Economics is a field of study. What does nobility have to do with it.?
Politics is behavior, it is quite often ignoble or worse.
George, Plans are overrated.