Tweet

… is from page 15 of the late Brian Doherty’s excellent 2007 book, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement:

Libertarianism is based in economic theory, as economic science teaches how workable order can arise from the seeming chaos of free actions uncoordinated by a single outside intelligence, and how government intervention is apt to upset that balance. It is based in moral theory, positing what is or is not right when it comes to a human being, or group of human beings, using force or coercion on another. It is based in political theory, exploring the likely effects of granting human beings power over others. It is ultimately a delicate ecological balance of all these, with history in the mix as well, to further understand how the constant struggle of liberty versus power tends to play out in the real world.

DBx: Yes.

The libertarian – and the classical liberal – looks at, say, the current “partial government shutdown” that today has many Americans waiting in long lines just to get through airport security and concludes: “Yep, this is an unsurprising result of political control of human action.” The libertarian – and the classical liberal – is thus aghast that Substacks, newspapers, magazines, blogs, and the social-mediasphere teem with pundits who sincerely believe that the same agency that literally cannot balance its budget and keep its security staff on the job should be trusted with the power to try to outperform the market at allocating resources.

Tweet

This letter of mine appeared in this past Thursday’s edition of the Boston Globe:

Dr. Ashish K. Jha and professor Irene Papanicolas correctly diagnose a serious disease that afflicts US health care: lack of competition (“Your hospital bill is too high. Price caps are the answer,” Opinion, March 9). But their prescribed treatment — capping the prices health care providers can charge — would further sicken the patient.

The high prices that distress Jha and Papanicolas are perhaps the most common manifestation of monopoly power. However, masking this unpleasant symptom with price ceilings not only would do nothing to cure what actually ails the patient but it also would cause that monopoly power to manifest itself in even worse ways, such as delays in medical treatment, reductions in quality of care, and surcharges on services that are now supplied gratis as part of health care packages, such as patients’ hospital meals and bed-linen changes.

A reasonable case can be made that the disease of inadequate competition is caused by excessive government interference in the health care market. Treating that disease by imposing symptom-masking price ceilings would be akin to treating patients suffering the agony of alcoholism with the temporary relief of a shot of whiskey.

Donald J. Boudreaux
Fairfax, Va.

The writer is a professor of economics and the Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Tweet

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board wisely warns of the taxing binge desired by progressives across the United States. A slice:

• In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers want to use their newly gained control of the governorship to wallop high earners. One bill would impose a 3.8% tax on investment income of taxpayers making more than $500,000, which would raise the top rate to 9.55%. Another bill would create two new individual top tax brackets of 8% (starting at $600,000) and 10% (more than $1 million). Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger campaigned last year as a moderate, but will she buck the leftists in her legislature?

Judge Glock argues that “ending property taxes would be a mistake.” A slice:

Homeowners thus have legitimate reason to complain. But ending property taxes would be a cure worse than the disease.

First: there are no good local alternatives to property taxes, which provide about three-quarters of all local tax revenue. A Tax Foundation study found that repealing property taxes in Florida would make it necessary to raise sales taxes to between 10 percent and 33 percent per purchase, depending on the county. In practice, sustaining these different tax rates would be nearly impossible, since people could easily drive across borders to buy cheaper goods.

The likely alternative—centralization of taxes at the state level, especially through higher income and sales taxes—would undermine growth. That’s because local governments are more favorable to growth when they can absorb its fiscal benefits through property taxes. A study in the Journal of Housing Economics found that countries with centralized finances tended to restrict housing growth. Countries that allowed local governments to keep more revenue, by contrast, permitted more development.

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post applauds the freeing of Poland’s economy. A slice:

You don’t have to credit communism for “breaking down old social barriers.” The truth is the opposite: Poland excelled by firmly embracing free markets and welcoming newcomers.

Taking control of their own destiny, Poles embraced market liberalization, abandoned price controls and scaled back state power. Warsaw joined the European Union’s single market in 2004, further embracing free trade.

Despite [Stephen] Miller’s claims, Poland operated one of the more liberal immigration systems in Europe until recently. Many came from other European countries. That’s no surprise: as a country embraces freedom, it grows more prosperous, and more outsiders want to move in. This is the virtuous cycle of human flourishing.

James Lileks is not amused by the late Paul Ehrlich’s wrong predictions. A slice:

It seemed perfectly likely that Africa and Asia would be overrun with people because there were just so many of them already. Then America would teem as well, just like in the movie Soylent Green, a vision of the future where everyone’s so hungry that they have to eat Edward G. Robinson (who was actually snack-sized and pretty gristly). How could you not worry about this? Ehrlich appeared on The Dick Cavett Show with warnings, and Cavett nodded gravely!

The subhead of Ehrlich’s New York Times obituary was amusing: “His best-selling 1968 book, which forecast global famines, made him a leader of the environmental movement. But he faced criticism when his predictions proved premature.” Premature. As in, “It’ll surely happen eventually, and we hope so because people are a pestilence and Mother Earth weeps every time a baby is born.” Optimism, of course, is for fools who just don’t know how bad things are — and who can actually close their eyes at night without thinking about microplastics.

Scott LIncicome tweets:

The best parts of this very good @60Minutes segment have gotta be when @cpgrabow tells @LesleyRStahl a few basic Jones Act absurdities, and she repeatedly gasps “NO!” in disbelief – truly shocked that a century-old US law could be so dumb and counterproductive.

Sadly, yes.

GMU Econ alum Romina Boccia says that “Congress knows it has a spending problem, but won’t fix it.”

Arnold Kling reflects on his time at UATX. A slice:

Also, I was happy with the results of “practice exams.” In both the Public Choice class and the Political Psychology class, I made up exams that tested students’ knowledge of the important concepts in the course. I gave them as take-home exams, told the students that they would get full credit for completion, and I gave them a prompt to give to an AI to grade the exams. They turned in by email their answers and the AI evaluations. I was very happy with the results. I could tell that the students wrote the answers themselves, and most of the AI evaluations of the answers were justifiably good. Students understood concepts like rent-seeking (in Public Choice) and moral dyad theory (in Political Psychology).

Robert Woodson looks back on Jesse Jackson. A slice:

At his best, Jackson confronted not only injustice from without, but the moral failures within our own communities. He spoke of responsibility and self-determination and challenged wounded people not to surrender to victimhood. Many of us respected him for that. I certainly did.

After he entered the partisan machinery, his prophetic voice gradually gave way to the language of grievance, compromise and self-preservation. He no longer spoke primarily as a reformer, but as a performer on the political stage—a power broker. His focus strayed from rebuilding the moral and social foundations of struggling communities toward mobilizing their resentments.

That decline wasn’t merely the problem of Jesse Jackson. It reflected a broader shift in America itself. The early civil-rights movement was grounded in discipline, sacrifice and character. Its strongest leaders spoke not only about the sins of segregation but also about the responsibilities of freedom, understanding that justice without moral renewal would leave communities politically visible but internally broken.

It was therefore telling that in 2008, when Sen. Barack Obama challenged young men to be responsible fathers, Jackson accused him of “speaking down to black people”—even though Jackson had delivered the same message to Mr. Obama’s generation in Ebony 30 years earlier.

Tweet

… is from page 524 of F.A. Hayek’s brilliant Postscript – “Why I Am Not A Conservative” – to the Definitive Edition (Ronald Hamowy, ed., 2011) of Hayek’s 1960 volume, The Constitution of Liberty:

I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion.

DBx: Hayek died on this date – March 23rd – in 1992, about six weeks shy of what would have been his 93rd birthday (May 8th).

Tweet

Here’s a follow-up letter to a new correspondent.

Mr. N__:

Thanks for your follow-up email, in which you write that, because today’s global economy is so integrated, “interventions of other governments which distort foreign economies still hurt us even if they hurt other countries more.” From this fact, you infer that “we can justify well-targeted U.S. tariffs.”

You’re correct that the U.S. economy is today integrated with the economies of other countries. You’re also correct that, because of this integration, foreign-government policies that distort the allocation of resources abroad also distort the global economy, making it less efficient – and thereby making Americans’ living standards lower than these standards would be absent these policies.

But this reality, I believe, doesn’t justify U.S. protectionism.

First, it’s fantastical to suppose that protectionist interventions will be “well-targeted” and used only to pressure foreign governments to practice better economic policies. American trade restrictions will continue to be driven by what has always driven them – namely, a noxious mix of interest-group politics and economic ignorance.

Second, we Americans have no property rights in, or ethical claims on, the economic performance of other countries. Sure, our absolute material prosperity would be somewhat higher if other countries reduced their trade restrictions. But so too would our material prosperity be somewhat higher if France deregulated its labor market – if Germany abandoned its obsession with “green energy” – if Turkey pursued better monetary policy – if Denmark lowered its income-tax rates. Although the resulting increase in economic productivity abroad would chiefly benefit foreigners, it would indeed also bestow some benefits on us.

Yet our government is no more entitled to try with intervention to improve the economic policies of foreign governments than those governments are entitled to try with intervention to improve the economic policies of our government. This conclusion is only strengthened by the fact that the economic means available to our government to put such pressure on foreign governments practically all involve restricting Americans’ economic freedoms.

A clever sophomore can tell a tale of how I might benefit tomorrow if the U.S. government restricts my freedom to trade today, but that’s all such a tale is: sophomoric. Because a policy of unilateral free trade is politically impossible, a second-best strategy of negotiated trade agreements that improve all parties’ economic policies is welcome. But the U.S. government neither has any business attempting unilaterally to pressure other governments to change their economic policies nor any right to hold your, my, and other Americans’ economic fortunes hostage in such attempts.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Tweet

Pierre Lemieux asks: “If international trade is so bad and abusive, what’s all the fuss about keeping the Strait of Hormuz open?”

C. Jarrett Dieterle reports that “Seattle’s minimum wage laws backfired on Uber and Lyft. Now the union wants to limit drivers.” A slice:

In recent years, progressive locales like Seattle have experimented with minimum wage laws for rideshare and food delivery drivers. These laws have led to surging prices for rides and delivery, reduced demand for trips and orders, and no evidence of higher take-home pay for drivers.

As demand for trips has plummeted in the wake of the wage hikes, more rideshare drivers are finding themselves working longer hours to achieve the same number of rides as before. Instead of fixing the root of the problem, a union representing Seattle rideshare workers has a new solution: Limit the number of people who can work as Uber drivers.

According to the Drivers Union, which represents Lyft and Uber drivers in Washington State, there is a severe glut of rideshare drivers on the road in the Emerald City. The union bases this on a new report it released (with funding from the state Department of Ecology), which concludes that “a majority of miles driven by Uber drivers are now without a passenger.”

[DBx: Above are two economic lessons in one. The first is that, despite clever tales told by some pedants and data processors, minimum-wage legislation does indeed reduce the employment options of affected workers and, thus, makes those workers poorer. The second is that labor unions enrich their members by reducing the employment options of other workers and, thus, making those other workers poorer.]

Bjorn Lomborg, writing at National Review, looks back on the nearly twenty years since Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, first dazzled studio audiences with its fantastical, unwarranted tales. Two slices:

Let’s start with the film’s core narrative: that climate change is driving ever-worsening disasters. Gore painted a picture of a world besieged by floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires, with humanity on the brink.

The data tell a different story. Over the past century, as the global population quadrupled, deaths from climate-related disasters have plummeted. In the 1920s, an average of nearly half a million people died annually from such events. Today, that number is under 10,000 — a decline of more than 97 percent. This isn’t because disasters have vanished. It’s because wealthier, more resilient societies have adapted through better infrastructure, early warnings, and disaster management. Richer, smarter societies have made us dramatically safer, proving that adaptation and resilience work far better than alarmists suggest.

Gore’s movie famously warned of vanishing polar bears, using poignant computer-generated images to suggest they were drowning because of melting ice. Again, reality is starkly different: Polar bear populations have increased from around 12,000 in the 1960s to more than 26,000 today, according to the best available evidence, including from the Polar Bear Specialist Group under the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The primary historical threat was overhunting, not climate change. While future warming poses risks, the apocalyptic narrative is undermined by the data.

Hurricanes were another bogeyman. The film notably claimed that we would see more frequent and stronger storms; its poster cunningly showed a hurricane coming out of a smokestack. But global data from satellites actually show a slight decline in hurricane frequency since 1980. While Al Gore blamed Hurricane Katrina on climate change, just one year later, the U.S. began an unprecedentedly long streak of eleven years without major hurricane landfall. Indeed, the longest reliable data series for landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. has shown a decline since the year 1900, and major hurricanes are about as frequent as they were in the past. When adjusted for more people and more houses, the damages from U.S. hurricanes have declined, not increased.

Wildfires follow a similar pattern. Media hype suggests a planet ablaze, but global burned area has decreased by 25 percent since 2001, according to NASA data. Each year, the reduction spares from the flames an area larger than Texas and California combined.

…..

Two decades on, An Inconvenient Truth reminds us that claiming to care about the planet and future generations is not enough. Alarmism has cost trillions but achieved little. We need to embrace the evidence: Climate change is a challenge, not a catastrophe. And there are cost-effective solutions such as innovation, adaptation, and development, even if they are not as morally satisfying as the exhortations in Gore’s movie.

Jacob Sullum ponders Trump’s theory of the judiciary.

David Henderson sensibly asks “Can you make the case for the drug war by pointing out a bad effect of the drug war?”

Tweet

… is from page 648 of the 1988 collection of Lord Acton’s writings (edited by the late J. Rufus Fears), Essays in Religion, Politics, and Morality; specifically, it’s a note drawn from Acton’s extensive papers at Cambridge University; (I can find no date for this passage):

Every man is the best, the most responsive judge of his own advantage. Therefore don’t let some one else interfere.

Tweet

My GMU Econ and Mercatus Center colleague Pete Boettke continues to make clear that AI cannot possibly replace markets. A slice:

This is where Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) comes in. Hayek explained that the problem is not merely that the relevant knowledge is decentralized — spread out across millions of individuals — but that it is often tacit. Local shopkeepers’ understanding of their customers’ buying habits cannot be translated into one data point to feed into an AI or any other kind of model. Nor can we predict the emergence of an entrepreneur dreaming up a product that did not exist before.

Most important of all is the phenomenon of prices — indispensable signals that guide our decision making. Prices are neither set in stone nor arbitrarily fixed. Instead, they emerge from real exchanges. When the price of wheat rises, it is because buyers and sellers are competing for a limited supply. This price increase signals something about relative scarcity. It also provides an incentive to adjust consumption and conserve the resource, to look for a substitute, to increase production and to innovate.

In short, prices are not lying around in the wild, waiting to be harvested and fed into an algorithm. Rather, they are the result of constantly evolving discovery. Without this process of discovery, the knowledge embedded in a price simply doesn’t come into existence.

Hayek called the price system, with its ability to generate knowledge in the market, a “marvel.” He described competition as a “discovery procedure” that does much more than allocate resources. When entrepreneurs bring new products to market, for instance, they are making informed bets. If they’re wrong, they bear the cost. If they’re right, they reap the rewards. Through this process, we all learn a little more about what is possible, what is valued and what works.

Liya Palagashvili applauds “the rise of portable benefits.”

The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal justly criticizes FTC commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who is described by the Editorial Board as “Trump’s Lina Khan impersonator.” A slice:

Then there’s Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson, who is defending his Biden predecessor Lina Khan’s overreaches in court. On Thursday he struck out at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Ferguson, a Trump appointee, has for unclear reasons defended Ms. Khan’s magnum-opus rule that sought to suffocate mergers with red tape. Last month federal Judge Jeremy Kernodle blocked the rule on grounds that the agency’s cost-benefit analysis was sloppy. The FTC’s claimed benefits “are illusory or, at least, unsubstantiated,” he wrote.

The Chair asked the Fifth Circuit to stay the decision to let the Khan rule stay in effect. A three-judge panel on Thursday rejected the request in a pithy unsigned order. That suggests the panel agreed with Judge Kernodle’s reasoning for the most part. The panel notably included appointees of Donald Trump, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post writes of “Rivian and the danger of building a business on government largesse.” A slice:

Rivian’s struggles offer a cautionary tale to investors. A company that structures its business around generous government handouts is like a house built on sand — with just one political wave, its foundation could disappear.

Arnold Kling decries the stranglehold that “teachers” unions have over government-supplied K-12 “education” in Montgomery County, MD – and, hence, over taxpayers in that county.

Eric Boehm blames U.S. regulations for China’s dominance in rare-earth minerals. A slice:

In an attempt to break China’s hold on the global market for this vital resource, the Trump administration is now spending millions to spur the development of new rare-earth processing facilities in Texas and California, and is also seeking partnerships with Australian mines.

That response flows from the widespread belief that Chinese dominance of rare-earth minerals is the result of a market failure.

“The market fundamentalists argue that government should not be picking which industries to support,” Marco Rubio, now the secretary of state, explained in a 2019 speech. “But what happens when an industry is critical to our national interest, yet the market determines it is more efficient for China to dominate it? The best example of this is rare-earth minerals.”

That view ignores the government’s own role in sabotaging America’s production of rare-earth metals—a market that the United States dominated until the 1980s.

Permitting is a major problem. It takes seven to 10 years for a new mine to obtain the necessary permits in the United States, compared to an average of two years in Canada and Australia, according to the Essential Minerals Association (EMA), an industry group. An S&P Global study published in 2024 found that it took American mines an average of 29 years to go from discovery to production—the
second-longest period in the world behind Zambia.

Those delays often stem from the fact that a single mine requires approval from multiple federal and state agencies with overlapping and duplicative regulatory requirements. The EMA estimates that permitting delays add more than $1 billion to the development of major mining projects.

John Puri explains what shouldn’t – but, alas, what today nevertheless does – need explaining: Gasoline prices reflect underlying economic realities that do not disappear if they are masked. A slice:

In a world of finite oil supplies, easing pressure at any particular point will raise it elsewhere. Only the worst ideas remain. Capping energy prices would result in shortages. Banning petroleum exports would backfire on America by further disrupting established trade patterns. A windfall profits tax on oil companies would discourage domestic production.

Ivan Osorio remembers Brian Doherty.

Tweet

… is from page 329 of Amity Shlaes’s wonderful 2007 book, The Forgotten Man:

The inexorable New Deal emphasis on the group over the individual was not liberal in the classic sense.