Truth on the Market

Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more

Archive for the ‘musings’ Category

P.J. Hill — Teacher, Scholar, Mentor

Posted by Thom Lambert on April 28, 2011

My first economics professor, P.J. Hill, is retiring tomorrow after forty or so years of teaching at Wheaton College.  I wanted to take a few minutes to publicly thank him for all he did for me and for the thousands of other students who had the great fortune to sit at his feet in Wheaton’s Blanchard Hall.

I stumbled into P.J.’s Principles of Microeconomics class as a sophomore philosophy major looking to check off my gen-ed social science requirement.  From the first class session, I was hooked.  P.J.’s “economic way of thinking” (which was also the name of our terrific textbook, to which I still regularly refer) made so much sense to me.  And P.J. made sure we really understood the material.  I still remember some of the “Microthemes” he had us write.  One was a response to a kid who was embarrassed because his commodities trader father, unlike his friends’ dads, didn’t “make” anything.  I was happy to reassure the kid that his father did, in fact, make something quite important:  information.  I thought about that Microtheme when I drafted this blog post.

I also remember the day P.J. curiously began to eat a ripe, juicy apple in the middle of his lecture.  I and the other students in the front row were a little put off when he sprayed us with apple juice and blew bits of pulp on our desks.  We settled down, though, when he finally got around to the day’s topic: negative externalities.  We left class with a pretty good understanding of the concept.

The other two courses I took from P.J. – Environmental Economics and Public Choice – were similarly terrific.  In the former, I learned how an absence of property rights can create environmental degradation, while the existence of clearly defined, enforceable and transferable property rights helps accommodate both conservation and appropriate resource exploitation.  Again, the object lessons stick out – like the time P.J. had four students “fish” for paper clips (by picking them up off the floor).  The paper clips, which were redeemable for ten cents each, would be worth a quarter each in 30 seconds.  Sadly, one student figured he’d do best to jump the gun and swoop up the “fish” before they could mature.  His competitors dove to the floor after him, and the fish were quickly “caught.”  We got a different outcome when P.J. made an X on the floor with masking tape and gave each fisherman a property right to the fish in his or her quadrant.  That time around, everyone waited for the fish to mature.  Tragedy of the Commons, anyone?

P.J.’s Public Choice course helped me understand that individuals don’t cease to be rational self-interest maximizers when they enter “public service.”  That implies that a market failure is not a sufficient condition for a government fix.  One must always ask whether the governmental solution, limited by the planners’ imperfect knowledge and tendency to act self-interestedly, is likely to improve things.  You can see the influence of P.J.’s Public Choice course in these posts.

In all of his classes, P.J. peppered lectures with examples and insights from his own research.  He is a first-rate economic historian, and his written extensively, often with Terry Anderson (and once with Nobel laureate Douglass North), on the evolution of property rights.  We students would hang onto every word as he would describe, say, how the Wild West was tamer than you’d think or how the advent of barbed wire transformed property rights in the West.                

In addition to teaching me lots of stuff, P.J. helped set me on the path I now tread.  The weekend of my college graduation, he told me about a research position at the Center for the Study of American Business (now the Murray Weidenbaum Center) at Washington University in St. Louis.  When I expressed interest, he recommended me to Murray Weidenbaum, CSAB’s director and the former chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.  I ended up getting the job.

At Wash U, I met some law professors who seemed to have pretty enviable jobs.  I also had the opportunity to delve into environmental policy and test the waters of academia.  P.J. had me out to Bozeman, Montana to give a presentation at the Political Economy Research Center (now Property and Environment Research Center), with which he is affiliated.  The research I presented was the basis for a couple of articles, one in The Public Interest and the other in the Yale Journal on Regulation.  Publishing those articles helped get me into law school, and into a clerkship, and into law teaching.  So, were it not for P.J., I would not be doing what I’m doing.

More importantly, though, I would not be who I am.  P.J.’s courses turned me on to the economic way of thinking.  His passion for learning lit a scholarly fire within me.  The clarity with which he communicated sophisticated ideas disabused me of the notion that “rigorous” means “inscrutable.”  The way he wove his own scholarship into classroom presentations – sort of inviting students to join him on his own intellectual journey – helped me see that there’s no dichotomy between teaching and scholarship, that the best teachers are scholars, and the best scholars, teachers.  His integration of his Christian faith with his teaching and scholarship helped me view teaching as a divine calling, a perspective that makes a sweet profession that much sweeter.  I am, in short, a product of P.J. Hill.  And I am grateful.

Posted in economics, Education, musings | 3 Comments »

Penn Law’s Wolff on Labor Issues and the Gay Community

Posted by Thom Lambert on April 5, 2011

University of Pennsylvania law professor Tobias Wolff says that if you’re gay, you should support expansive collective bargaining rights for labor unions. Writing at the Huffington Post, he recently identified the promotion of labor unions as “one of the most important priorities for our community at this moment,” and he urged gay people “to contribute our voices, our efforts and our resources to the existential struggle that the labor movement is currently waging against the Republican forces seeking to cripple the right of workers to collectively bargain and roll back workplace protections.”

According to Professor Wolff, there are “three basic reasons” why gay people should “be putting feet on the streets and money on the table to support labor.”

He first contends that “labor rights is an LGBT issue” because “LGBT Americans come from the same economic and demographic origins as all Americans.” Presumably he means that since lots of Americans benefit from unions’ expansive collective bargaining rights, and since there’s no reason to believe gay people will be underrepresented among those beneficiaries, solidarity with organized labor should be a priority for gays.

Next, he notes that “labor unions have been showing up for years on the issue of LGBT equality.” As an example, he points to the website of the public employee union AFSCME, which “reiterates AFSCME’s commitment to LGBT equality and offers a clearinghouse of online resources and a link to a sign-up sheet for the AFSCME Pride network.” In light of these sorts of affirmations, he says, support for expansive labor union rights is simply a matter of “reciprocal obligation.”

Finally, he contends that gay people should jump on the pro-labor bandwagon in order to win political favor. “[T]his urgent fight over the future of labor and workers’ rights is where the energy in American politics is today,” he asserts. Although the gays do like to keep up with the latest trends (and how!), Wolff’s argument ultimately appeals to more than just a desire to stay trendy: “We need to be visibly showing up and contributing our efforts, so that our allies in labor, in state legislatures, and in political parties and organizing committees around the country will know that we were there when it mattered.”

I must respectfully disagree with Prof. Wolff.  Support for the rights of organized labor unions should not be, as he says, “one of the highest priorities of the LGBT community today — fully on a par with the effort to secure … relationship rights.”

Is it not self-evident that the elimination of state-sponsored discrimination — bans on gay adoptions, the Defense of Marriage Act’s denial of 1,100 federal benefits to legally wed same-sex couples, denials by states of various rights afforded to married couples, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (which is still in effect), etc. — are way more important to gay people than the right of public sector unions to engage in collective bargaining over pensions and termination provisions?  That the matters are not “fully on a par”?  Not to Prof. Wolff, apparently.

The three reasons he articulates for equating labor union rights with relationship rights are far from convincing.  The first — the fact that “LGBT Americans come from the same economic and demographic origins as all Americans” – proves too much.  If gay people are really representative of all Americans, then some gays — say, public school teachers – benefit from expansive rights for public sector unions, and other gays — say, business executives in high tax brackets — are harmed by them.  To be fair, Wolff does suggest that gay people may be disproportionately impacted by reduced employment benefits because they lack various legal protections affored to others, but doesn’t that suggest that the real problem, the place where gays should focus their energies, is the lack of equal protection?  Moreover, one could make a strong argument that gay people, who have fewer dependents on average than straight people, have less need for lucrative employee benefits.  In any event, Wolff’s initial argument is hardly compelling.

Neither is his second argument.  Surely the fact that a group expresses support for gay equality and offers gay people various resources does not create a “reciprocal obligation” on the part of gay people to support all that group stands for.  Does Wolff think gay people have an obligation:

  • to support Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Citigroup in their opposition to derivatives regulation? 
  • to support Monsanto’s efforts to avoid regulation of genetically modified organisms and rBST? 
  • to support Aetna’s opposition to various mandates under Obamacare? 
  • to encourage additional financial support for AIG? 
  • to endorse a BP plan to limit liability for oil spills? 
  • to call their congressmen to echo requests by Chevron and Shell to increase offshore oil drilling? 
  • to join Bristol Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline in their efforts to prevent the illegal production of patented AIDS drugs in Africa? 
  • to support AT&T’s proposed merger with T-Mobile? 
  • to back a plan by Waste Management, Inc. to streamline the permitting process for landfills?  

I doubt he would call on gay people to take any of these stances.  But each of the listed companies — Goldman, B of A, Citigroup, Monsanto, Aetna, AIG, BP, Chevron, Shell, Bristol Myers, GSK, AT&T, and Waste Management — is included on the Human Rights Campaign’s list of the “top businesses that support equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.”  If an expression of support for gay rights and the provision of benefits to gays were enough to create a “reciprocal obligation” to provide support, gay people would have to spend all their time pushing causes!

This brings us to Wolff’s last, undoubtedly most important, argument: that gay people should support organized labor now so that organized labor feels compelled return the favor when the gays have an issue to push.

Here, I depart from Prof. Wolff — and from the herd of independent minds comprising the leadership of the gay community — on a most fundamental level.  At this point in American history, I believe the best way for gay people to make equality gains is via a bottom-up, not a top-down, approach.  Gays should stop running to the government for additional protections from private actors (though they should vigorously oppose state-sponsored discrimination), and should instead concentrate on changing the hearts and minds of their friends and neighbors. 

And guess how you do that?  By being yourself.  By going through your workaday life, being your “best self” and expressing your own beliefs and convictions — religious, political, or otherwise — because they’re yours, not because someone dictated that you must, by virtue of your sexual orientation, hold them.

So, if you’re a gay person and you think collective bargaining by public sector unions is bankrupting state and local governments while fattening the civil service class, go gripe about it to your Republican neighbor over a beer.  In doing so, you’ll be promoting the sort of social change that will ensure real equality for gay people in the future.

Posted in musings, politics | 7 Comments »

What search bias would really look like

Posted by Geoffrey Manne on April 4, 2011

A friend sent me a link to this Simon Rich “Shouts and Murmurs” from the New Yorker last year.  Somehow I missed it at the time.  It’s pretty funny.  A taste:

My favorite Google feature is Google Dictionary. Whenever I need a word defined, I just type it into the search box and the meaning pops right up. It’s really convenient, but sometimes the definitions can be strange. For example, here are some words I looked up recently on Google Dictionary.

* * *

Jesus Christ: A guy who made people’s lives much easier and then was crucified. Sound familiar?

* * *

Thank You: A thing it wouldn’t kill people to say.

Posted in google, musings | 1 Comment »

Dilbert on Opportunity Cost

Posted by Josh Wright on March 13, 2011

From today’s Washington Post:

Posted in economics, musings | Comments Off

The Breathtaking Ruthlessness of the Proposed Budget Cuts

Posted by Thom Lambert on March 8, 2011

The New York Times is appalled at House Republicans’ plans to “eviscerate nondefense spending,” calling the vote in favor of the cuts an act of “breathtaking ruthlessness.”

The budget cuts, the Times says, will “carve $61 billion out of the government for just the next seven months, which would throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work and kill off scores of vital functions.” Did you hear that?! $61 billion — with a “b.” And in a mere seven months?!

That does sound pretty extreme…until you listen to this kid. (In his example, $61 billion would be 152.5 pennies.)

Posted in musings, politics | 1 Comment »

My blackberry’s not working and other extended puns

Posted by Geoffrey Manne on February 9, 2011

Having just discovered Kellogg economist Shane Greenstein’s blog, I have also now just discovered on his blog this super-hilarious video.  Well worth a watch through to the end:

Posted in musings, technology | Comments Off

Epstein on Obama at U of C

Posted by Thom Lambert on January 29, 2011

It’s pretty hard to cycle through the University of Chicago Law School (or at least it used to be back when I was a student) without gaining an appreciation for the extent to which markets, while subject to occasional failures, enhance human welfare by channeling resources to their highest and best ends. It’s also hard to spend much time at Chicago without coming to understand that government interventions, despite the best intentions of the planners, often fail, given planners’ limited knowledge (see, e.g., Hayek) and bureaucrats’ tendencies to act, like the rest of us, in a self-interested fashion (see, e.g., the public choice literature). Indeed, even left-leaning Chicagoans like Cass Sunstein, for whom I have tremendous respect, appreciate these ideas and therefore tend to advocate (somewhat) limited government interventions that are targeted at real market failures and that preserve space for private ordering. (See, e.g., Sunstein’s “libertarian paternalism,” which has occasionally been derided on this blog but is a far cry from the “paternalist paternalism” we’ve been seeing from the current Administration.)

When President Obama was elected, I hoped and expected that his time at Chicago would influence his policy prescriptions. It hasn’t done so. Not only did he push through two of the most market-insensitive and government-confident pieces of legislation in modern history (the stimulus and the health care law), but even his “move to the center” speech following a mid-term shellacking advocated central planning in the form of pick-the-winner “investments” in green technologies, high-speed rail, etc. His answer to economic stagnation isn’t sound money and the creation of institutions that permit entrepreneurs to flourish without fear of excessive regulation and confiscation. Instead, he wants government to step up and push America forward, as it did in the space race with the Russians: “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment!”

I’ve often wondered how Mr. Obama managed to spend so many years at Chicago without absorbing the ideas that seem to saturate the place. Richard Epstein offers an answer in today’s Wall Street Journal (which quotes an interview Epstein gave to Reason TV):

Reason: The economy has lost 3.3 million jobs, consumer confidence is half its historical average, and unemployment is 9 percent. To what extent is Obama responsible for this?

Richard Epstein: He’s not largely or exclusively responsible, but he’s certainly added another nail into the coffin. The early George Bush—I think he got a little bit better through his term—and Obama have a lot in common. Bush wanted a pint-sized stimulus program that failed and Obama wanted a giant-sized stimulus program that failed. Neither of them is a strong believer in laissez-faire principles. The difference between them, which is why Obama is the more dangerous man ultimately, is he has very little by way of a skill set to understand the complex problems he wants to address, but he has this unbounded confidence in himself.

Reason: So he’s the perfect Chicago faculty member.

Epstein: He was actually a bad Chicago faculty member in this sense: He was an adjunct, and we always hoped he’d participate in the general intellectual discourse, but he was always so busy with collateral adventures that he essentially kept to himself. The problem when you keep to yourself is you don’t get to hear strong ideas articulated by people who disagree with you. So he passed through Chicago without absorbing much of the internal culture.

So that’s it….

Posted in markets, musings, politics | 3 Comments »

Not Exactly How I’d Characterize It

Posted by Thom Lambert on January 25, 2011

Here’s how NPR’s All Things Considered described the State of the Union speech:

You might think about the State of the Union address as an attempt to talk to our national family by the Head of Household.  It tells us where we’ve been, and where we’re going.

I suppose “The King’s Speech” was taken.

Posted in musings, politics | Comments Off

Some Links

Posted by Josh Wright on January 3, 2011

Posted in musings, truth on the market | Comments Off

Fun With Google ngrams

Posted by Josh Wright on December 17, 2010

Tyler Cowen shows the Google Ngram — which uses Google Books to count references for the given term — for the term “liberty.”

Here’s one for “antitrust.”

Posted in antitrust, musings | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,034 other followers