Except for a few heroes or fanatics, nobody wants to be the last one to fight when his comrades (or perhaps foreign allies) have stopped shooting, abandoned their position, or surrendered. And every soldier knows that every one of his comrades is having the same thought about where his self-interest lies. So when they think the wind is about to turn, it has already turned and the whole battalion or army lays down its arms. This explains Afghanistan last week. The perspective of 72 virgins in the afterlife counts of course, but more mundane incentives too. Game theory has formalized this sort of problem as the famous Prisoner Dilemma. It may be in the common interest of all to continue fighting, but if every individual thinks it is in his own interest to stop, he will. It’s standard economics. In his book Bureaucracy (Liberty Fund, 2005), Gordon Tullock analyzed individual incentives in the military (which is a sort of bureaucracy) and gave numerous examples of their importance. (0 COMMENTS)

I’ve only recently watched the HBO mini-serie on Chernobyl and I can’t but recommend it highly. The cast is superb and the series is quite effective in conveying a sense of what happened in those terrible days. It is also a commentary on the Soviet regime, and a rather effective one. The main point it raises is that the Soviet Union was an inextricable web of lies. It is not only that those responsible for the nuclear disaster were lying about what they did or did not do: that would be understandable and I suppose it would happen almost anywhere. When faced with the possibility of a life sentence, your relationship with the truth becomes all of a sudden more flexible. The series does not pretend that human beings were different under the Soviet regime than they are under Putin, or Biden, or Mario Draghi. In fact, the series is a catalog of remarkable and brave individuals, who put their own lives in jeopardy for the sake of saving others’ lives. Yet the system is begotten by lies. It is not only that, in a bureaucracy, incentives for career advancement are such that people become overtly “flexible” with the truth, reporting only the good things and avoiding responsibility for the others. Once again, something similar may happen in non-socialist regimes too- think about life in a big corporation. The system’s most striking feature is the existence of an “official truth”, which everybody knows has little resemblance with the actual truth and yet it is there, and it influences peoples’ behavior. Once the official truth is in the book, it cannot be openly challenged. Once some information is erased from the books, no decision can be taken on its basis. The KGB enforces lie upon lie, for the sake of national greatness. This comes even to the point of censoring scientific papers, making it impossible to the scientific community to work as it should. In the ongoing discussion on meritocracy, we sometimes are tempted to see the USSR as a meritocracy. In a sense, it was. Think about sports or arts: only the promising people could practice them (an essential element of a free society is that people can try to pursue what they want, even if they’re not particularly good at it). On paper, a bureaucracy is a meritocratic system, particularly when it accords such an important role to research, science and technology. But if everything is founded upon lies, then it is built on thin ice. Anyway, besides my ramblings, do yourself a favor and watch the series. (0 COMMENTS)

Journalist and author Nicholas Wapshott talks about his book Samuelson Friedman with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson were two of the most influential economists of the last century. They competed for professional acclaim and had very different policy visions. The conversation includes their differences over the work of Keynes, their rivalry in their columns at Newsweek, and a discussion of their intellectual and policy legacies. (0 COMMENTS)

Journalist and author Nicholas Wapshott talks about his book Samuelson Friedman with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson were two of the most influential economists of the last century. They competed for professional acclaim and had very different policy visions. The conversation includes their differences over the work of Keynes, their rivalry […] The post Nicholas Wapshott on Samuelson and Friedman appeared first on Econlib.

We study the results of a massive nationwide correspondence experiment sending more than 83,000 fictitious applications with randomized characteristics to geographically dispersed jobs posted by 108 of the largest U.S. employers. Distinctively Black names reduce the probability of employer contact by 2.1 percentage points relative to distinctively white names. The magnitude of this racial gap in contact rates differs substantially across firms, exhibiting a between-company standard deviation of 1.9 percentage points. This is from the abstract of Patrick M. Kline, Evan K. Rose, and Christopher R. Walters, “Systemic Discrimination Among Large U.S. Employers,” Becker-Friedman Institute Working Paper No. 2021-94. The authors focus solely on discrimination but don’t speculate about why that discrimination takes place. I wonder if they would consider the following hypothesis. An employer puts out a job description and asks for potential employees to submit applications. Due to the high cost of knowing, without hiring and experiencing, whether a potential employee will be productive, employers look for low-cost proxy variables to help them make relatively quick decisions. One such variable is the first name of the applicant. The authors of the study point out, correctly, that people with a given first name such as Antwan, Kareem, and Tyrone (they list 19 such names in their Appendix B) have a high probability of being black. The authors find discrimination against applicants with such names. But why might an employer who cares only about productivity and how the employee gets along with other applicants discriminate against job applicants with what the authors call black names? Could it be because people with such names are more likely than the average black person to come from a home with only one parent, typically the mother, present? We know from other data that people brought up in single-parent households do less well in school and are more likely to engage in crime. Could this be what potential employers are trying to avoid? The authors also list 19 last names that are more likely to be black names. Here would have been an interesting way to test my hypothesis. Given their large sample size, they could have done it. Pair “black” first names, not with “black” last names, but half and half. That is, pair half of the black first names with black last names and half of the black first names with “white” last names. Then see what difference the black first name makes. If my speculation is correct, then they would find more discrimination based on black first names than based on black last names. For the article on discrimination in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, see Linda Gorman, “Discrimination.”   (0 COMMENTS)

Suppose that like Rip van Winkle you fell asleep in 1997 and woke up in 2017. You asked a friend for a quick summary of what had occurred over the previous 20 years. A complete explanation would obviously take a long time, but this graph (tweeted by Max Roser) provides a very elegant summary of how the world has been progressing: A few comments: 1. In principle, everyone over the age of 24 lies somewhere along each of those three lines.  You might visualize most Chinese people as progressing up and to the right from the red line to the turquoise line. 2. The figures are adjusted for inflation and international cost of living differences.  Those adjustments are far from perfect, but probably much better than not adjusting the figures.  (Also note the log scale.) 3. The share living in “extreme poverty” has fallen from 29.5% to 9.3%.  That’s pretty incredible, and is largely attributable to neoliberal reforms in places like China and India. 4.  The share of the world living in poverty as defined in rich countries has fallen much more modestly, from about 90% to roughly 86% of the world’s population.  Note how the number of poor people in the world is extremely sensitive to definitions. 5.  The average (mean) income in the world is several times higher than the median income.  That might be viewed as bad news.  However the median income has been rising faster than the average income, which might be regarded as good news.  So at least in the sense of the median/average gap, global income is becoming more equal. 6.  Another way of making the same point is that over the 20 years from 1997 to 2017, poor and middle income areas of the world have made much more progress than rich areas.  Bangladesh has grown a lot, Italy hardly at all. PS.  I wouldn’t take that $30/day poverty line for rich countries too literally.  Obviously it depends on lots of factors.  Thus a family of five making $50,000 is less poor than an individual making $10,000 due to certain economies of scale in housing expenses, auto transport, etc. PPS.   My grandmother’s maiden name was Clara van Winkle, which makes me a relative of Rip.   (0 COMMENTS)

Back in September, Wall Street Journal economic reporter Jon Hilsenrath interviewed me for a long news story he was doing on the effects of President Trump’s economic policies. He asked largely tough questions that made me think his piece would be somewhat critical of Trump. It was, although it was largely fair. But one question he asked, which he probably thought was tough, was actually a softball. We had been discussing Trump’s moratorium on evictions of residential renters and I said that I opposed it. “You want landlords to evict millions of people?” he asked. “No,” I answered, “I don’t want that at all. I want them to be allowed to evict. Giving them back that freedom will probably cause most of them to work out rental payments with their overdue tenants.” The same reasoning applies to President Biden’s latest moratorium on evictions. There are many good reasons to oppose it. One is constitutional, but I’ll leave that to my constitutional lawyer friends. The others are economic and moral. These are the opening two paragraphs of David R. Henderson, “Eviction Freezes: Unfair and Unproductive,” Defining Ideas, August 12, 2021. Note, by the way, the statement that a tenant must sign to take advantage of the moratorium. Another excerpt: The stereotype of the landlord/tenant situation is that the landlord is rich and the tenant is poor. That stereotype often doesn’t apply. I saw that dramatically in 1980. After the San Francisco Chronicle had published an op-ed I had written against rent control in San Francisco, a group of landlords in Berkeley invited me to give a talk on the issue on a Saturday morning. I showed up well dressed and found that I was the best dressed person in a group of about sixty people. Appearances, admittedly, are sometimes deceiving, but my take was that no one in the room was a fat cat. As the audience members stated their concerns, I found that these appearances were, by and large, accurate. Many landlords in the room were in their fifties, owned two to four rental units, and had planned for the net income from the units to finance their retirement. Even if the government held the rent to only 10 percent below the market, landlords whose net income absent rent control would have been 30 percent of the rent would face an income drop of a third (10 percent as a fraction of 30 percent.) Read the whole thing. (0 COMMENTS)

Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease, according to a large patient study. That’s the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil. These are the opening two paragraphs of Michael Hiltzik, “Major study of Ivermectin, the anti-vaccine crowd’s latest COVID drug, finds ‘no effect whatsoever’,” Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2021. This is good reporting but shoddy writing. I’m sure he’s right that ivermectin is “being touted by anti-vaccination groups.” Something he leaves out is that it’s also touted by some pro-vaccination people who want treatments for people who, whether or not they are vaccinated, get Covid. He also writes: The findings on Ivermectin are yet another blow for advocates promoting the drug as a magic bullet against COVID-19. True, if the results hold up. They’re also a blow for advocates who promise the drug as an effective treatment against COVID-19 even if not close to “a silver bullet.” Hiltzik also writes: The study’s results on Ivermectin haven’t been formally published or peer-reviewed. As I said, it’s good reporting. (0 COMMENTS)

If you wanted to explore what the concept of freedom really means, how would you go about it? If you’re author Sebastian Junger, you hit the road, on foot. In this episode, Junger joins EconTalk host Russ Roberts to talk about his latest book, Freedom. The book recounts a 400 mile journey Junger undertook with some friends, and the lessons he learned along the way. Roberts describes Freedom as an extended meditation on a very long walk, Junger as “high speed vagrancy.” We’d like to hear what you took from this week’s conversation. You can respond to our prompts in the comments below, and/or use them to start your own conversation offline. You could also drop us a line at econlib@libertyfund.org to share your thoughts anytime.     1- Early in the conversation, Junger asserts, “Freedom is a misused word. It’s been bastardized in the political conversation, dragooned into service for all kinds of nefarious purposes.” What does he mean by this? How is the word misused?   2-While Junger does not characterize himself as meditative or philosophical, he nonetheless recounts several lessons he learned on his journey. Which did you find most interesting, and why?   3- Junger places a lot of emphasis on freedom and balance- loyalty to the group in exchange for freedom. He claims one can achieve “a great freedom through an even greater loyalty.” What does this mean, and what role does threat to oneself play in this balance? Roberts and Junger agree we can’t say we owe NOTHING to society, but what DO we owe?   4- What is the relationship of violence and fighting to freedom, according to Junger, and how does this differ in humans as compared to other mammals? Why did he title the sections of his book Run, Fight, and Think?   5- Roberts and Junger discuss the “wake-up calls” America has received so far in this century, including the 2008 Financial Crisis and the attacks on 9/11. Roberts confesses his concern regarding “the thin veneer of civilization.” How much do you share Roberts’ concern… Have we become more or less “civilized” over recent decades? Has politics really become more “bloodsport” in the past 10-20 years? Explain.   (0 COMMENTS)

Reading the news media, it’s easy to get the impression that America’s 20-year adventure in Afghanistan is ending in Vietnam-style ignominy, with reports of provincial capitals falling to the Taliban and ominous predictions that women’s rights are headed back to the dark ages.  I’d like to suggest the opposite, that the war was a smashing success for the US. Let’s start with the justification for war.  As far as I know, there have only been two major attacks on the US in the past 200 years, Pearl Harbor and 9/11.  These two attacks were similar in terms of both the number of American fatalities and the extensive property damage.  You might argue that Pearl Harbor was an act of war by a foreign state, whereas 9/11 was a criminal assault by a non-governmental actor.  But Al Qaeda was not operating in isolation, as the Taliban government provided then with sanctuary within Afghanistan. This is from the US intelligence report on 9/11: The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response. Bin Ladin’s inference may well have been that attacks, at least at the level of the Cole, were risk free. The Bush administration began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat within three to five years. Notice the importance of deterrence.  Bin Ladin launched 9/11 because he (wrongly) inferred from our previous responses to terrorist attacks that he could get away with it.  (Note that 9/11 actually caused more damage than Bin Ladin anticipated.) Thus one can argue that even a Taliban that was cooperative post-9/11 should have been attacked, as a deterrent to future governments in other countries harboring Al Qaeda-like enemies of the US. But in the end this was a moot point, as the Taliban did not cooperate and thus we were forced to invade.  And the war was a major success: 1.  The Taliban government was quickly toppled. 2.  Al Qaeda was put on the run, weakening its capability. 3.  Later on, a successful attack on Al Qaeda was launched from Afghanistan, killing Bin Ladin at his hideout in Pakistan. 4.  For the next 20 years, the Taliban was denied power in Afghanistan. If the Taliban takes power again next week, does that mean the war was a failure?  Of course not.  Consider the analogy of someone who serves 20 years in prison for 2nd degree murder.  One critic might carp that the last 15 years was a waste of taxpayer money, as even 5 years in prison is plenty of deterrence.  Another critic might claim that the sentence was ineffective, as the murderer is now out and free to murder again.  Both views are wrong—as 20 years is a reasonable deterrence for 2nd degree murder.  Any specific figure is arbitrary, but you must choose some sort of sentence. The war was a success, as Al Qaeda was badly damaged and the Taliban was severely punished.  But that’s not all, the broader goals of the war were also achieved. Younger readers might not understand how pessimistic Americans were back in late 2001.  There were mysterious attacks with anthrax powder sent through the mail.  Another major airliner crashed in NYC a few months later (non-terrorist as it turned out). I recall talking to highly intelligent people who told me that we’d now have to just live with frequent terrorist attacks, as our society is too exposed to prevent them.  And it is true that we’d have no way of stopping terrorists from killing huge crowds of Americans.  Our “security theatre” is mostly an annoying joke.  We are very exposed. But my friends were wrong.  We’ve been almost free of terrorism since 2001.  It’s not just that flying didn’t become more dangerous; it became far safer than before 9/11. The war in Afghanistan deterred future terrorist organizations (such as ISIS) from directly attacking the US homeland.  Those groups may use suicide attackers, but the organizations themselves are not suicidal. Why is the war not viewed as a smashing success? 1. The world is messy, and most news is bad news. 2.  The war was not carried out in a 100% optimal manner (which is always true of wars.) 3. Average people mix it up with the Iraq War, which was truly disastrous. 4.  A mix of elite liberal internationalists and neoconservatives had fantasies of turning Afghanistan into a central Asian Switzerland, where women could walk around in miniskirts.  But this was never a realistic objective. Because of the so-called “time inconsistency problem“, it is hard to maintain effective policies of deterrence over a period of decades.  The public gets tired of fighting.  So perhaps you need need some sort of fantasy of a higher objective than just beating up on the Taliban for 20 years, denying them power for 20 years, and then walking away.  Just as our punishment of criminals is often linked to imaginary concepts like “rehabilitation”, or “giving them what the deserve”. (What does “deserve” even mean?  To utilitarians like me it’s a meaningless concept.) Nonetheless, if these fantasies of rehabilitation and just deserts help us to do things to deter murder (such as long prison sentences), then perhaps they have some value. (0 COMMENTS)