I recently completed a multi-post deep dive into the book Conservatism: A Rediscovery by Yoram Hazony. My own views have relatively little alignment with Hazony on many significant issues. Yet, I suspect that may not have come across in the review itself – my review, I believe, cast Hazony’s work in a very positive light. There are a few reasons why that is, and they seem worth unpacking.  The first reason is fairly simple. When doing these sorts of reviews, I dedicate the bulk of the review to presenting the author’s argument as forcefully as I can, in a way I believe they themselves would sign off on. Or, to put it another way, I try to make sure my summary of their work passes the Ideological Turning Test. This includes how I respond in the comments – for the purpose of that discussion, I am also attempting to pass the ITT.  In my final critique of Hazony, I also ended on what seemed like a very positive note, when I said “Hazony has written an excellent and thought-provoking book” and that on “many points I agree with what he says, and I think he offers strong arguments for many of his views I don’t share.” So why would I have such kind words for a book I disagreed with more often that not, written by someone with a worldview very far from what I believe is true?  Let’s start with thought-provoking. This may be a personality quirk of mine, but I find it almost impossible for someone to write a book that’s thought-provoking without it arguing for ideas different from what I hold. A book that’s filled with nothing but things I already think is going to have a hard time provoking thoughts in me. This isn’t always the case – I’ve mentioned before how Dan Moller’s book Governing Least took things that were only nascent, poorly formed ideas in my own mind and was able to articulate them in a way that brought those ideas into much clearer focus for me. But as a general rule, it’s the books filled with ideas I don’t already agree with that are the most thought-provoking (and also most fun) to read.  I also say Hazony’s book has strong arguments in the many areas I disagree with him. This, too, may seem odd, but it really shouldn’t. Our ideological opponents are not made up entirely of morons or knaves, after all. Hazony is a smart guy who’s been thinking and writing about these things for decades. If he managed to spend hundreds of pages outlining his ideas without ever presenting any decent arguments, that would be odd. The world is complex, and virtually everyone is overly confident in their political ideology. So when an intelligent, well-educated person like Hazony writes an entire book arguing that perhaps I’m mistaken in my political ideology, I have to read that book with serious consideration that he may be right and I may be wrong. He didn’t change my mind in any fundamental way, but I can still acknowledge that he has some good arguments on his side.  There is a trap I think we can fall into if we’re not careful, a trap that leads us to reading someone’s argument only to try to figure out why they must be wrong, rather than trying to see if perhaps they are right. There’s a popular trick of mathematics one can find online “proving” that 1 = 2. When someone puts forth a set of equations they claim proves 1 = 2, the natural reaction is to immediately hunt for the error we know must be there, because obviously 1 does not equal 2. In a nutshell, I think that is also how many people approach the work put forward by their ideological opposites. Hazony has written a book arguing for a particular notion of conservatism, and we know that conservatism is wrong just as surely as we know 1 does not equal 2, therefore Hazony’s book should be read (if at all) for the sole purpose of finding the errors we know must be there. But this is a mistake. Neither you nor I should hold a level of certainty in our political views within a lightyear of the certainty with which we know 1 does not equal 2.  Stepping away from politics for a moment, I found a nice example of the mindset I’m advocating for in a science video a while ago. The video explores the possibility that there may be a ninth planet (with apologies to Pluto!) in the solar system. But this hypothesized planet has some pretty extreme parameters – a terrestrial planet with about five times the mass of Earth, and a highly elliptical orbit that takes 10,000 years to complete a full revolution. The host of the video discusses the idea with two different scientists, one who supports the idea and one who is skeptical. In the opening seconds of the video the skeptical scientist, Professor David Jewitt of UCLA, calls the idea “wishful thinking” with a big smile and through a big laugh. The scientist who supports the idea, Professor Konstantin Batygin of Caltech, describes what he thinks are key pieces of evidence supporting the idea. This is usually followed by the host talking to Professor Jewitt, who offers a counterpoint explaining why he doesn’t think the evidence holds up. At one point, Professor Batygin talks about how certain bodies in the solar system have orbits perpendicular to the planets, and others orbit in the solar system in the opposite direction of everything else, and there has never been a good explanation for why that would be. However, this observation is exactly what you would predict if Planet 9 did exist and had the properties ascribed to it. And when the video turns to Professor Jewitt being asked about this, he responds by saying the Planet 9 hypothesis would indeed explain this, and it counts as good evidence in favor of the idea.  This, I contend, is an example of what we should all be capable of doing. Professor Jewitt can simultaneously laugh at the idea of Planet 9 and describe the whole project as wishful thinking, while also effortlessly acknowledging there is at least some good evidence in favor of it. The world is not divided into Correct Ideas That Have All The Evidence, and Bad Ideas That Have No Evidence Whatsoever. Even well-established, good ideas have fair arguments against them, and even ideas that are ultimately incorrect can still have good arguments and evidence in their favor. We should not feel at all troubled in admitting this – as William Graham Sumner noted, someone who has truly developed critical thinking “can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain.” A good exercise in mental hygiene can be taken from this. Every now and then, think about the things you believe, and think about what people of opposing political views believe. What are the legitimate criticisms they could level against your views? What are the good arguments and evidence supporting their ideas? If you cannot think of anything to put forward in response, take that as a sign there is something wrong that needs to be fixed.  (0 COMMENTS)

There are a whole bunch of puzzles related to changes in the economy after 1973:1. Why did productivity growth slow after 1973?2. Why did growth in real wages slow after 1973?3. Why has labor productivity growth in construction stalled, while labor productivity growth in manufacturing has remained quite robust? Undoubtedly, there are many factors that contribute to these trends.  A recent post by Matt Yglesias points to one that has received too little attention.  In the period up until 1973, construction of manufactured homes was soaring: Because the manufactured home competed directly with low-end conventional construction but could be executed more quickly, it started to take over. And as of 1973, the Commerce Department was expecting manufactured housing shipments to continue to rise on the simple logic that productivity was rising in factories but not really on constructive sites. Yglesias points out that this boom was killed by regulation: the code explicitly prohibits homes from being transported on a chassis and then placed on a standard chassis-less foundation . . . Mechanically, the chassis requirement adds costs. Even worse, from a banking standpoint, it means that financing a small manufactured house is more like getting a car loan than getting a mortgage. The chassis is also a target for exclusionary zoning. Towns can (and do) make rules against chassis-mounted homes (or against placing them in certain areas), knowing there’s a federal rule against removing the chassis. So instead of spending the 1980s and 1990s watching small manufactured single-family homes become an increasingly significant player in the non-apartment market, we strangled them. Meanwhile, productivity in the American construction sector went from stagnant to negative. Yglesias points out that there is a bill in Congress to repeal this regulation: Fortunately, there’s a good bill from John Rose (R-TN) and Lou Correa (D-CA) to repeal the chassis requirement. The manufactured homes regulations are just the tip of the iceberg.  The 1970s saw a huge surge in other productivity killing regulations, such as the EPA and OSHA.  The various environmental bills ended up hurting the environment in all sorts of ways.  Because of requirements such as “environmental impact statements”, it is now far more difficult to build clean infrastructure.   It is also much more difficult to build multi-unit housing.   Reason magazine points out that a wind farm capable of powering 500,000 New Jersey homes was recently killed by regulation—the Jones Act made it too expensive to build. It is also more difficult to get permission to build single-family homes, which has also slowed the growth in living standards.  There’s an alternative reality where large firms could achieve enormous economies of scale building manufactured homes, and selling them in all 50 states.  But that would require the elimination of the various zoning laws and building codes that distort the market. I am old enough to remember 1973.  We had recently experienced several decades of fast economic growth and fast rising living standards.  The public, politicians, and even professional economists began to take for granted the idea that growth was almost limitless.  We were so overconfident that we enacted a set of regulations that killed the golden egg-laying goose.   I see parallels to recent events.  Decades of low inflation convinced policymakers that reckless stimulus would not trigger high inflation.  Those who warned of inflation were likened to the boy who cried wolf.  It turns out that bad regulations really can hamper productivity.  And excessive monetary and fiscal stimulus really can create high inflation. PS.  Many other factors have slowed the growth in living standards.  These include rapid growth in the highly inefficient (and subsidized) health care sector and rapid growth in spending in the highly inefficient (and subsidized) education sector.  Labor legislation also led to growth in non-productive “human resource” jobs.  Excessive litigation has reduced productivity.  The list is endless. (0 COMMENTS)

In 1846, Richard Cobden’s long campaign bore fruit with Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws, the tariffs which kept cheaper foreign wheat out of the country. The less well-off benefited most and ‘free trade’ became a touchstone of British politics as the country reached the pinnacle of its power. By the end of the 19th century, however, Britain faced increased economic competition from Germany and the United States. A group of concerned ‘Imperialists’ sought to consolidate the British Empire and one method they advocated was tariffs. Robert Blake explained: The core of the argument was that political unity could only be achieved if economic unity came first. Just as a zollverein, or customs union, had preceded the political union of the numerous kingdoms into which Germany had been divided fifty years earlier, so a great tariff union embracing the whole of Britain’s possessions overseas would be the surest way of preserving the political unity of the British Empire. In practice, this meant ‘Imperial Preference,’ a general duty on imports with a remission for those from the Empire. In 1902, Lord Salisbury’s Conservatives imposed a duty on imported wheat to help fund the Boer War. When the war ended later that year, Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, a leading Imperialist, recommended the duty be retained but not on imperial imports, as a first step toward Imperial Preference. Opposition from the cabinet’s Free Traders scuppered the plan; a young Conservative MP, Winston Churchill, ‘crossed the floor’ to sit as a Liberal. Chamberlain – always a maverick – resigned from the cabinet to campaign for tariffs. While tariffs split the Conservatives they united the fractious Liberals who, in 1906, were elected in a landslide. This – followed by a string of escalating political crises; the People’s Budget, Home Rule for Ireland, and the First World War – sidelined the tariff issue. But no political idea ever truly dies. When the Conservatives returned to sole power in November 1922 they promised that no tariffs would be introduced without a further election. In May 1923, Stanley Baldwin became Prime Minister. He had worked in the iron industry and seen his business’s American trade lost to the McKinley tariff of 1890. With unemployment at 12%, Baldwin saw protection as the answer. In October, he said “this unemployment problem is the most crucial problem of our country” but “I cannot fight it without weapons…I have come to the conclusion myself that the only way of fighting this subject is by protecting the home market.” But “Baldwin consulted no one, even though there was a wealth of official information available,” Kenneth Young writes; …Lloyd-Graeme, President of the Board of Trade, knew quite well, wrote [Cabinet Secretary Maurice] Hankey, that the figures were against tariffs helping unemployment; when Nevile Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, instructed his secretaries to gather figures to support Protection, he ‘found that they all told the wrong way!’ The economist John Maynard Keynes condemned the policy as the “protectionist fallacy in its grossest and crudest form.” Undeterred, Baldwin called an election for December 6. It was, AJP Taylor wrote, “the only election in British history, fought solely and specifically on Protection.” Whereas Labour and Liberal policy was clear – “Tariffs are not a remedy for Unemployment,” Labour said; “Trade restrictions cannot cure unemployment,” argued the Liberals – the Conservative’s was not. “The impression left on everyone’s mind is of doubt and perplexity,” Conservative M.P. and Joseph’s son Austen Chamberlain wrote, “We have had six columns of speeches from the P.M. in less than a week and no one knows what he means.” The results were calamitous. The Conservatives lost 86 seats and their Commons majority and Labour formed its first government. Protectionism was discredited and tariffs dropped as Conservative policy. Again, though, protectionism refused to die. Lord Beaverbrook, owner of the Daily Express, and Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, exerted intense pressure on Baldwin. Unemployment rose further after 1929 and when a financial crisis hit in 1931 it brought down the Labour government and returned Baldwin to power if not office with a hefty majority. “The Government,” he said, “must…be free to consider every proposal likely to help, such as tariffs, expansion of exports and contraction of imports…” The Conservative dominated coalition not only took Britain off the gold standard but imposed a range of tariffs. Such was the fashion; one-third of parliament’s Liberals now supported protection and “in the spring of 1931 Keynes announced publicly his support for a revenue tariff,” Barry Eichengreen writes, basing “his argument on the reduction of unemployment.” Richard Cobden’s achievement was repudiated. The tariffs enacted by the Conservatives were part of an international movement toward economic autarky which saw trade shrivel in the early 1930s and reaped a bitter political harvest. It would take many years of hard work to undo them. John Phelan is an Economist at Center of the American Experiment. (0 COMMENTS)

As much as we think we might know about Russ Roberts as listeners of his long-running EconTalk podcast, a great interviewer can unearth new gems. Paul Millerd does this in his Pathless Path podcast , Russ Roberts Is Reinventing Himself (Again).  A self-proclaimed long time fan of Roberts’ podcasts and books, Millerd is clearly cut from the same cloth. These two curious thinkers converge on many topics and demonstrate the art of conversation. Topics of risk, reward, change, mortality, and what it means to live a good life are peppered with anecdotes, insights, and illustrative memories. You can watch the episode here: Listen to Russ and Paul build a genuine bond. We would love to hear your reaction and hope that these questions might generate more conversation about this demonstrated art of conversation.      1- As Russ Roberts answers the questions about his childhood influences, he attributes his father with forming his habits of mind. He wonders how much was genetic and how much was from growing up in his household. What are your thoughts about the nature versus nurture debate in shaping our minds? Which do you credit more in your own life?   2- Millerd recalls Russ’s example about the complexity of income inequality and how longitudinal data can’t be compared due to household structure. While true, it is not widely believed. Why not? A younger Russ held the belief that truth would prevail. Has he become cynical or realistic? Explain.   3- Russ contends that the prosperity that comes in the wake of market forces captures the “what’s in it for me” cost-benefit analysis of acquiring material goods. Many of our exchanges can encompass our dreams, aspirations, personal responsibility and duties, providing great meaning in our lives. He suggests that this is left out of most classroom economic theory, but could be addressed. How might we go about this? Besides the choice to stay married or to divorce, what other “wild problem” examples fit this description?   4- The question about modern economic teaching segues nicely into Millerd’s praise of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. How does Russ capture the confusion  many readers take away from Smith’s depiction of self-interest. How is his point different from the often assumed “what’s in it for me” rational choice theory?   5- “Conversation is like a work of art that takes on a life of its own. You give up some control and in return the heart opens up.” How do you evaluate your conversational skills regarding use of pauses, ums, no talking with eye contact, listening, and putting words into the Ether? Russ learned something new about his relationship with his father as he answered Millerd’s question.  When was the last time you learned something about yourself through conversation?  (0 COMMENTS)

Is the damage done by ignorance of basic economics and of (classical) liberal philosophy reparable? Consider Angelina Jolie. She is now in the fashion business, which she longs to make “sustainable,” ethical, and “circular-design.” (Whatever the latter means, I gather that it has nothing to do with body shapes nor does it mean that one should always wear the same chothes.) Like so many people, she seems to have bought wholesale the fashionable ideas and simili-altruistic shibboleths that run around and are typically devoid of serious economic and philosophical foundations. About her new business, she asks (“Angelina Jolie Is Rebuilding Her Life,” Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2023): Can we avoid doing real damage—not only to the earth, but the garment workers? … Is it possible that I could go somewhere and enjoy making clothes, enjoy wearing clothes and not hurt anybody? And actually maybe treat people well? The economic way of thinking as well as liberal philosophy give a clear answer to these questions: Yes. Two formally equal parties who voluntarily exchange something must each benefit compared to their respective pre-exchange situation; if one doesn’t, he will simply decline the exchange. “Formally equal” means that the parties have an equal liberty to interact with others although, of course, their circumstances may be, and in fact always are, different. Each one estimates his own benefit compared to his pre-exchange situation. The comparison is not made by an external observer according to his own preferences. Anyway, external observers typically have different views of what nirvana would require for others. Incidentally, it is with free exchange that ordinary people became rich starting with the Industrial Revolution, after millennia of dire poverty. Free exchange is not a zero-sum game. A reflection by Nobel economist James Buchanan can serve to summarize this philosophy (James M. Buchanan and Richard A. Musgrave, Public Finance and Public Choice: Two Contrasting Visions of the State [MIT Press, 1999]): If I observe someone with apples and somebody else with oranges, I don’t want to try to say a particular allocation of oranges and apples in a final position is better than in the other allocation. If I observe them trading without defrauding each other, whatever emerges, emerges, and that is the way I define what is efficient. It is tragic that the ideas echoed by Jolie in the Wall Street Journal story implicitly deny not only what is conducive to general prosperity, but also the underlying liberal ideal of equal individuals engaging in reciprocally beneficial interactions, each one according to his own evaluation. Of course, Ms. Jolie is free to help other people, and I have no reason to doubt that she is a caring, benevolent person. But she would probably be more efficient by trading with other business partners on a market basis (as she has done in her movie career), making as much honest profit as she can, and devoting part of her profits to her chosen charitable endeavors. She is apparently not a very political person. One of her remarks suggests that she has some good instincts, although it could also reflect the common illusion that collective choices—choices by some that coerce others—are compatible with individualism and liberty: “I love individuality and I love freedom,” she said. (0 COMMENTS)

On September 15, 2023, I received an email from Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. It was addressed to Lenore but I read it anyway. Congresswoman Greene wrote: Lenore, I’m proud to co-sponsor H.R. 3413, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. AM radio keeps Americans informed and safe and is the backbone of FEMA’s National Public Warning System. Americans utilize AM radio stations to obtain trusted, accurate emergency information about how and where to evacuate, and emergency alerts relating to tornados, wildfires, floods, major accidents, and other crises. Federal, state, and local authorities rely on AM radio to broadcast local alerts about severe weather, child and elder abductions, and traffic and other emergencies to the public via the Emergency Alert Service, Amber Alerts, and Highway Advisory Radio, respectively. When all other services are unavailable, and the power is out, a car’s AM radio is a lifeline. There is no alternative that has the reach and resiliency of AM radio stations, a service that is free to all listeners and doesn’t require a subscription, data plan, or other fees. More than 80 million Americans regularly listen to AM radio and six in 10 radio fans even cited the lack of cost as one of the top two drivers for tuning in. 91% of vehicle owners say having a radio in the dashboard is important. During times of crisis, AM radio listenership increases significantly. When Hurricane Ian hit Florida in 2022, listenership in Orlando, Miami, and Tampa spiked as much as 123%. AM radio is one of the most dependable ways to reach individuals across the country. Every FEMA Administrator in the last 30 years has warned that removing AM radio from vehicles represents a threat to public safety. This legislation ensuring AM radio be included in every vehicle is a common-sense policy that will serve every Northwest Georgian in rural District 14. No one should be in the dark during an emergency, and ensuring quick access to timely information from first responders can be the difference between life and death. I replied: Dear Congresswoman Greene, I’m a fan of many of your views on foreign policy. I don’t get, though, why you think people should be forced to buy cars with AM radios. Shouldn’t that be up to them? Best, David R. Henderson Research Fellow, Hoover Institution Go through all of her reasons and you can find many of them persuasive. But persuasive of what? She seems to be saying that she has thought of AM uses that people value but haven’t thought of themselves. Does she really think that car companies are so not motivated by profit that they would fail to provide features whose costs are below the value consumers place on them? Apparently so. Congresswoman Greene is a “woman of system,” to the term Adam Smith used, updated for gender. Texas Senator Ted Cruz is a man of system. He wants to mandate AM radio also, but justifies it as an issue of freedom of speech. But requiring AM radio to get free speech is like requiring that I buy a local newspaper. I get plenty of speech without it and free speech is not about requiring people to buy things that make communicating lower-cost for others. Fortunately, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is thinking clearly about the issue.   (1 COMMENTS)

In this episode from 2009, EconTalk host Russ Roberts welcomed Christopher Hitchens to talk about his book, Why Orwell Matters. The conversation begins as Roberts notes Hitchens’ claim that George Orwell was right about the three big issues of the 20th century: imperialism, fascism, and Stalinism. What are some examples of specific things he was right about? What was he wrong about. Hitchens describes Orwell as having been transformed from a distinguished figure into an immortal figure. It certainly seems clear that Orwell’s legacy- and Hitchens- remain powerful. Revisit this popular conversation, and share your thoughts with us today.     1. What ideologies did Orwell embrace? How did these beliefs combine his love for the English people and his opinion of socialism?   2. Roberts comments on how unique the Spanish Civil War was in the direct involvement of intellectuals, like Orwell, taking personal risk in the military ranks. He also notes how rarely high profile people seem to take such risk today. To what extent do you agree, and why do you believe this may or may not be the case?   3. Some claim 1984 and Animal Farm are pessimistic about the inevitable triumph of oppressive government. How does Hitchens counter this? How does this relate to the novels’ historical significance and continued political relevance?   4. How does Orwell’s view of F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom compare to his concept of what an over-might state entails? How does Orwell balance competing ideologies?   (0 COMMENTS)

In a recent post, I wrote against the temptation to seek out universal solutions to problems, particularly when the approach in question is, “just look at however they’re doing things over there, and then do the same thing over here.” This was inspired by a commenter who, in reply to one of my posts, suggested “if the goal was better education we would just do what Massachusetts and New Jersey do and avoid what Oklahoma does”, and then repeated the same claim almost word for word in reply to another post a few days later. I argued that this kind of approach is unlikely to be successful because there’s no intrinsic reason to think whatever works in Massachusetts must therefore work equally well everywhere. There’s simply too much variation from state to state, district to district, or even student to student to assume that there is a one-sized-fits-all approach that just needs to be universally imitated. When I wrote that post, there was a particular response I was anticipating, and as predicted it appeared as a question in the comments. If we ought to be cautious about universal solutions, and shouldn’t expect them to work everywhere, then “would this not also apply to school choice/vouchers?” After all, isn’t school choice itself offered as a universal solution? Indeed, we can expand this question even further – does that not also apply to the market? Economists are known to approach issues like population density and housing development by saying the “free market is the best way of determining what sort of housing density is appropriate.” Doesn’t that suggest that the market is being treated as a universal solution? No, and here’s the difference – “the market” is not in itself a solution for anything. Instead, markets are set of conditions allowing solutions to be created, tried, and voluntarily adopted. In a similar way, “science” is not a solution to any particular problem. If a new disease begins to spread, the solution to that particular problem is not “science.” The solution will be something more specific – a new kind of vaccine or new antibiotic that deals with the particular issue. Science per se isn’t the solution – science is a method used to find solutions. Markets, too, are not a solution – markets are about allowing the emergence of various different solutions, as well as a means by which those solutions are vetted, through competition for the voluntary adoption of a proposed solution by people who, through direct experience and based on their specific circumstances, prefer it against various alternatives.  In the same way, school choice is not a “solution” to the various problems of education, because school choice doesn’t mean implementing any particular approach in any particular place. Advocating for a greater role of school choice is not at all like saying “just do what New Jersey does,” or assuming that particular aspects of different curriculums will be equally effective if integrated into different districts.    Another difference between the universal-solution mindset and maximizing the scope for varied, competing solutions was revealed in another question that came up in the comments, where it was asked, “If your goal was to improve your child’s education why not improve the quality of all the schools?” One problem with this question, as Chris Freiman points out, is that even if you agree that improving the quality of all schools is the goal, opponents of school choice would still need to provide a “good reason to effectively trap students in underperforming public schools *before* they get fixed.” But more fundamentally, this question only makes sense in a mindset described by the late Jeffrey Friedman as “naïve realism,” which I discussed in detail in two different posts as part of a series reviewing his final book. To ask “why not improve the quality of all schools” makes sense only if you assume that improving the quality of all schools is a solved problem with a known solution. Friedman described polling data showing that many citizens believe “the reason social problems persist is that elected officials have ‘the ability but not the will to take care of the nation’s problems.’ The ability was, for them, the easy part, or so it seems; the hard part was the will.” As a consequence of this belief, those same citizens naturally concluded that unsolved social problems were proof that “officials had bad intentions, not inadequate knowledge, such that they deliberately, willfully declined to solve problems they knew how to solve.” The possibility that policymakers simply don’t know how to solve an issue is not given serious consideration in the mindset of naïve realism. The same applies here. If you don’t think that improving the quality of all schools is a solved problem with a known solution, then it’s pointless to ask why it’s not being done. It’s not being done because nobody knows how to do it.  I don’t believe there is anybody who possesses the four kinds of technocratic knowledge needed to improve the quality of all schools. Nor do I think the answer is anything as simplistic as saying “Look at systems that are performing well. Are there aspects you could integrate into your system?” Maximizing school choice is grounded in the idea that there isn’t a single, universal solution to how to best run a school system, or even that aspects of one school’s system that will work well in another system, or with different student populations. The advocate of school choice says “This is a complex issue. There are many different solutions that can be tried, and no one approach will be the best for any system or even any student. So the best approach isn’t to try to universalize some particular school system, or to try to mimic different parts of different programs piecemeal expecting them to work the same way everywhere. The best approach is to let a thousand flowers bloom. Let’s try to maximize the different kinds of programs that are made available to students and maximize the ability of students and families to try these different programs, rather than just assigning students to a single, predetermined program based on their zip code. The more different approaches are available, and the more students have the ability to try these different approaches, the greater the odds that any given student will be able to find a system that best suits their own needs and learning style.”   This is also true of markets. Markets are not a universal solution – markets are beneficial precisely because there is so rarely a universal solution. The market is a system that allows a great multiplicity of solutions to be offered, and the success of any given solution depends on it being voluntarily adopted by people who through direct experience find it most satisfactory compared to the alternatives. To use a government system rather than market system is to intrinsically reduce the scope of options that may be tried. Sometimes that’s just fine, like in cases where there really is an essentially universally best approach that can be reliably known. For example, a system that universally assigns things like “murder” and “arson” to the “not allowed” category will get no complaints from me. But most of life doesn’t work that way, including for issues like education or population density. This why I advocate for a system that maximizes the ability to offer different, competing solutions for voluntary adoption.  (0 COMMENTS)

Donald Trump has promised to pay off the entire national debt within 4 years: “We’re going to pay off debt — the $35 trillion in debt. We’re going to pay it off. We’re going to get it done fast, too.” I am supposed to be an economic commentator.  So perhaps I should do my civic duty and evaluate this economic policy proposal. Federal revenue is less than $5 billion per year.  Thus even if spending were cut to zero, it would require huge tax increases to pay off the debt in 4 years.  But spending cannot be cut to zero, as the government is legally required to pay interest on the debt.  That means even more massive tax increases would be needed. One possibility is that Trump is proposing that non-interest spending, including the military and Social Security and Medicare all be reduced to zero for 4 years, and that all of the tax rates be roughly doubled during that period.  And even that may not be enough, due to “Laffer Curve” effects. Another possibility is that Trump is not serious; he’s making the promise to repay the national debt because it sounds good.  That raises the question of whether any political promise should be taken seriously.  Why even watch the debates? One response is that voters are able to distinguish between sincere promises and insincere promises.  But I doubt that voters are that smart.  I recall back in 2017 chatting with a trucker who was excited about Trump’s promise to rebuild our infrastructure.  I was excited by Joe Biden’s promise not to build a wall on the southern border.  In fact, Trump never even proposed a major infrastructure initiative.  Biden abandoned his promise not to build a wall.  And yet these promises initially seemed much more plausible than the promise to repay the entire national debt. We are frequently told that we should be good citizens, and evaluate candidates based on their campaign promises.  But I suspect that people that make that claim are not being serious.  Very few people would vote for Trump if they truly believed that he would double tax rates and cut Social Security and the military to zero.  (Or keep some of that spending and triple tax rates.)  Instead, I suspect that what the elite actually want voters to do is become mind readers—figure out which promises are sincere and which promises are fluff.  But that’s harder than it seems! Back in 2017, I would have expected Trump to propose major new infrastructure.  He’s a guy that likes to build big projects.  I would have expected Trump to pull the US out of Afghanistan.  He did neither.  I would not have expected Trump to back prison reform that reduced the term of drug dealers.  He did so.  Now he’s promising to repeal Obamacare.  Will he do so?  I have no idea.  He says he’ll immediately end the war in Ukraine.  But how?  Surrender?  I have no idea.  He says we should kill drug dealers.  Will he do so?  I have no idea.  And would that death penalty apply to people working in retail establishments selling drugs where state law says it’s OK but federal law says it’s a felony?  What exactly is a drug dealer?  Is it someone who sells narcotics in a way that violates federal law? As I get older, I increasingly discount the promises made by politicians.  Instead, I focus on character.  Which candidate has the most integrity?  In the long run, I suspect that character is what matters most. PS.  If we had a parliamentary system in the US, then I’d vote based on “the issues”.  But we don’t. PPS.  One might argue that we could look at Trump’s first term.  But Trump has promised a radically different approach in his second term, staffing his administration with Trumpian populists rather than old line Republicans (as in his first term). (1 COMMENTS)

I’ve written before about why I think California is the canary in the coal mine for the success or failure of electric vehicle (EV) mandates. Now, based on an experience I had in Phoenix last Thursday, I think there are multiple canaries. I had rented a car from Avis on-line, to be picked up at the rental car center close to Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport. By filling out various items on line, I could go to the Avis counter, show my credit card and driver’s license, and be on to the garage to pick up my car. That’s what I was told. But after waiting over 10 minutes in line for 2 customers to be taken care of, I approached the person behind the counter and handed her the two documents, saying, “So now I can pick up the car, right?” “Not that simple,” she answered, “I’ve got to see if there’s a car available.” She went to a computer at the end of the counter and spent 5 to 10 minutes on it before coming back to me. She then told me that there were no cars available with internal combustion engines (ICE), even though I had explicitly reserved one. If I was willing to take an EV, she said, I could get one right away. “How long a wait if I want a gas-powered car?” I asked. “15 to 20 minutes,” she replied. I pondered. On the one hand, I wanted to visit a former student who is terminally ill and maximize my time with him before my event started in the evening. On the other hand, I didn’t want to drive an EV when I wasn’t familiar with that kind of car. I had driven a Tesla a short distance 4 or 5 years ago, but I didn’t remember if there were any special things I needed to know. I decided to get a water and use the men’s room while I waited for the ICE. Then came the canary. “It’s too bad,” she said, “we have a lot of EVs ready but no one wants them. And soon we’re going be switching to 80% EVs.” I wonder how that will work out. (1 COMMENTS)