David Henderson argues that compulsory national service is worse than even military conscription. A slice:
One of the most important freedoms we have is the freedom to choose what to do with our lives, whether we are old or young. A national-service draft would destroy that freedom whether, depending on the particular version, for one year or two years. That’s wrong and is inconsistent with one of our proudest founding documents, which many of us celebrated last month. The Declaration of Independence stated that among our “unalienable rights” are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” A draft, whether for military or civilian service, violates the right to liberty.
And it’s not just the Declaration of Independence that speaks to liberty. The US Constitution, specifically the Thirteenth Amendment, guarantees freedom not to be drafted. Section I of that Amendment states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Some people argue that Congress’s goal in passing that amendment was to end slavery and prevent its reimposition. But if that had been the only goal, Congress would not have added the words “nor involuntary servitude.” A draft is clearly involuntary servitude.
Steven Landsburg proclaims and explains the value of price theory. Two slices:
Here’s an economics brain teaser: Apples are provided by a competitive industry. Pears are provided by a monopolist. Coincidentally, they sell at the same price. You’re hungry and would be equally happy with an apple or a pear. If you care about conserving societal resources, which should you buy?
Most of my sophomore-level economics students can solve this problem, which I posed on an exam. Almost nobody else can. I’ve tried it out on a lot of smart lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs and scientists. Neither can the latest version of ChatGPT.
First I’ll tell you the answer; then I’ll tell you the moral. In a competitive industry, prices are a pretty good indicator of resource costs. Under a monopoly, prices usually reflect a substantial markup. So a $1 apple sold by a competitor probably requires almost a dollar’s worth of resources to produce. A $1 pear sold by a monopolist is more likely to require, say, 80 cents worth of resources. To minimize resource consumption, you should buy the pear.
The moral is that we need well-trained economists. Economists know things that are true, important and entirely counterintuitive to anyone who hasn’t had the right kind of training—and at least for now, that includes the bots.
Economists learn to reason quickly, rigorously and accurately from facts to an important conclusion. That skill is usually taught in courses called price theory, or sometimes Chicago price theory in honor of the academic venue where it was developed into an art form by such practitioners as Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Gary Becker and Deirdre McCloskey.
…..
Economics without price theory is knowledge without wisdom. Any economist can analyze data to estimate how many lives you’d save by requiring car seats for toddlers on airplanes. It takes a price theorist to ask how many lives you’d lose when the resulting increase in airfares prompts families to drive—which is far more dangerous—instead of fly. Price theory breeds wiser policymakers and wiser voters. If we fail to teach it, that’s a tragedy.
[DBx: At GMU Econ we still teach price theory, at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Unfortunately, as Landsburg indicates, GMU Econ is today a rarity.]
Whenever Chetty mines data, he discovers golden ways for government to reduce poverty. Pay kindergarten teachers more! Change people’s neighborhoods! Social engineering can work — follow the science!
GMU Econ alum Nikolai Wenzel warns against wealth taxes.
Chelsea Follett talks with Rainer Zitelmann about how nations escape poverty.
Steven Greenhut traces J.D. Vance’s “odd political evolution.” A slice:
Vance’s statement defines the central dividing line between paleo-conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan—and classical liberals such Ronald Reagan. The former believe America is a nation built by and for a specific people. They dislike free markets, which are corrosive of their cultural preferences. They want to vastly limit immigration. They have no problem with big government as long as they control it.
By contrast, classical liberals believe America is based on the universal idea of freedom and economic opportunity. They focus on reducing the size and power of government—and creating opportunities for everyone wherever they or their ancestors were born. Classical liberals may want an orderly immigration process, but they’re more interested in turning immigrants into Americans than sending them home.
Classical liberals—and I count myself among them—view free trade as a wonder, not a threat. And while I’m a long-time critic of America’s endless foreign interventions and wars, I care (unlike Vance) about what happens in Ukraine. We believe in liberty for everyone, not just members of our clan.
My Mercatus Center colleague Liya Palagashvili asks if gig work is transforming the labor market.
Andrew Sullivan reflects insightfully on the choice – “choice” – we Americans have in November between Harris and Trump. (HT Peter Minowitz) A slice:
But with Harris, we don’t just have a leftist. We have someone intent on ending any kind of color-blind meritocracy in America and replacing it with equity-based, systemic discrimination against “oppressor” groups in favor of the “oppressed”. That is as radical an assault on liberal democracy and a free society as the authoritarianism on the right. That its diktats are enforced by teachers’ unions, activist journalists, DEI consultants, and federal bureaucrats doesn’t lessen its unaccountable clout. And so far, what passes for Harris’ campaign is largely identity-based. Instantly and instinctively, her supporters divided into ethnic and demographic groups, segregating men and women, white and black, as wokeness demands. White Dudes For Harris! White Women For Harris! AANHPI for Harris! LGBTQIA2S+ for Harris!
Here’s Sheldon Richman on classical liberalism and democracy. A slice:
First, classical liberalism, or what we moderns call libertarianism, is not mainly about believing; it’s about respecting each individual’s person, property, and liberty, and particularly about the government’s respecting those things. It’s also about understanding that freedom leads to social cooperation (the division of labor and trade), peace, and prosperity. Economic theory and history show it.
Second, it’s democracy, not freedom, that requires faith in the absence of evidence. It’s a religion that holds that If we believe hard enough, tens of millions of us going to the temple polls to vote will make the right decisions. No one explains why it should work out that way. And it doesn’t. It’s a faith in magic, and magic is not real.
There is a glitch in the democratic religion: most voters are ignorant. Poll after poll shows that most people know little about the government and the economic process, which the government regulates. They are not only ignorant of basic economic theory, which the evaluation of candidates requires; they are also ignorant of basic indisputable political facts, such as who their so-called representatives are, how they vote, which party controls the Senate and House, and how much the government spends and borrows. How can they vote wisely? (For more on voter ignorance, check out the many YouTube appearances of George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin and his book Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter, 2d ed.)
