tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post2314354373362686657..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Libertarians embracing public goods, Tim Lee editionNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78058744499535462162012-07-02T19:53:19.340-04:002012-07-02T19:53:19.340-04:00Infrastructure spending, and highway spending, has...Infrastructure spending, and highway spending, has continued to <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22003" rel="nofollow">increase</a>, according to the CBO. Republicans continually, as they did <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/235959-winners-and-losers-in-highway-battle" rel="nofollow">today</a>, frustrate Heritage, the Club for Growth, Cato, Reason, etc. by voting in favor of highway projects because of perfectly Keynesian reasons like "jobs." (Republicans also helped override a Reagan veto of a highway bill.) The "Zombie Confederates" who hate spending that they think is aimed just at black people don't feel that way about roads.<br /><br />Indeed, it's a commonplace pointed out elsewhere that Republican voters (and Independent and Americans in general), while they hate taxes and often claim to hate spending and deficits in general, want to spare nearly all the spending that exists. The things that they want to cut (which, yes, are things aimed at foreigners and the poor) take up much less of the budget than they like. Contrary to your assertion, the voting of Republican politicians bear that out. While there is a wing that votes against the Export-Import Bank, the highway bill, flood insurance, agricultural subsidies, and everything else, the vast majority of settled "infrastructure" and "investment" programs are passed on a bipartisan basis, even the more dubious ones.<br /><br />Programs seen as more transformative of society do tend to be rejected by Republicans, but surely that's irrelevant if you're trying to claim that the pre-1970s situation is what we should aspire to.<br /><br />And even pre-1970s, I suggest you look at books like "Party Loyalty among Congressmen: The Differences between Democrats and Republicans 1947-1962" by David Mayhew, to see that it was the same back then. As he shows, Republicans voted against farms, urban renewal programs, and water programs, except when those issues matched local interests. Democrats in general voted in favor of all those issues, even when it didn't affect their local districts, except that Southern Democrats didn't care for urban renewal programs (again, the Zombie Confederate issue you mention), though they were glad to support farm programs.<br /><br />All the issues and attitudes you mention, therefore, existed pre 1970s. NEPA, however, did not. So if something changed starting in the 1970s, it was the cost increase that NEPA brought about.John Thackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269867695937765049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-85218415881894112722012-07-02T19:43:54.115-04:002012-07-02T19:43:54.115-04:00I prefer to avoid conspiracy theories and dark que...I prefer to avoid conspiracy theories and dark questions of motives, Noah. I think that a simpler explanation is that several things, including NEPA, made it significantly more expensive (in time, money, effort, etc.) to build infrastructure, and as a result the new political equilibrium is that we got less of it.<br /><br />I understand that liberals want to say that since these regulations were worth it, the polity should be willing to simply be willing to pay the higher costs but still purchase as many public goods as before. But we shouldn't be surprised at a shift towards goods that didn't have such a large cost increase.John Thackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269867695937765049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32472328084524133462012-07-02T19:21:20.795-04:002012-07-02T19:21:20.795-04:00Hi Noah.
I don't think that you can discuss t...Hi Noah.<br /><br />I don't think that you can discuss the decline in production and quality (which is somewhat different than just spending on) public goods and infrastructure since the start of the 1970s without discussing the National Environmental Policy Act, signed in January 1970.<br /><br />It's not libertarians who made the review process timeline for infrastructure <a href="http://www.rpa.org/library/pdf/RPA-Getting-Infrastructure-Going.pdf" rel="nofollow">increase</a> so that "a survey of projects by the<br />Federal Highway Administration found that the average time<br />it took to complete an EIS in 2011 had grown to 8.1 years, com-<br />pared with 2.2 years in the 1970s." (This is from a document supporting NEPA but saying that the process shouldn't take that long, that the law doesn't require the length and breadth of documents that they get.) Consider that the requirement for an EIS for federal dollars only dates to 1970.<br /><br />There may indeed be great reasons to have imposed NEPA, and it certainly prevents (and was in response to) some of the infrastructure projects that ignore local desires, especially those desires of the poor. (The Power Broker by Robert Caro, about Robert Moses, comes to mind.) But it's certainly true that it massively increased the cost of infrastructure projects. It's unsurprising that the political equilibrium would shift in the direction of fewer infrastructure projects and using money for other things.<br /><br />Note that Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians continually call for easing NEPA requirements, such as <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/05/nepa-yet-another-reason-the-stimulus-is-guaranteed-to-fail/" rel="nofollow">Sen. Barrasso's (R-WY) amendment</a> to force EISes for ARRA projects to take no longer than what the planning organization document I cited before took. Obviously liberals and Democrats don't trust that, which I understand.<br /><br />I think it's a huge thing to leave out. Well-intentioned policy (and perhaps simply good policy) has made infrastructure much more expensive since 1970. It's hard to answer the question of how much more infrastructure we'd have without those changes, but I feel certain it would affect the equilibrium.John Thackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269867695937765049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-36808781976139441332012-06-08T04:45:32.163-04:002012-06-08T04:45:32.163-04:00Using gov't force to construct infrastructure ...Using gov't force to construct infrastructure that is then made available for public use is, throughout the 20th century, the activities with the highest GDP positive rate of return.<br /><br />Money invested is far less than increase in economic activity; your apple raising & selling is a great example.<br /><br />Nevertheless, most road construction required the use of force against private property owners who were otherwise unwilling to sell, i.e. the price was too low. Had the price paid by the gov't for the land risen to the level that a private road builder would have had to pay, that return on investment would be much less positive.<br /><br />The limits of what peaceful capitalism can do are based on what prices induce individuals to act in the various ways desired by the social engineers.<br /><br />The successful, wealth creating US capitalist system has been based on strong private property rights, which do require gov't force to protect. <br /><br />I usually support using limited gov't force for public infrastructure -- but the use of gov't force to provide public goods has been perverted into the provision of private goods.<br /><br />Social Security should have been a forced savings, of your money for your benefit. Like in Chile.<br />It is not. It is forcefully paying now, for benefits to those retired now, with the promise of gov't forcing others later, to pay for your benefits later.<br />Most SS recipients have gotten more back than they paid in. Current college graduates with jobs are unlikely to get such a good deal -- for them it's a gov't program with a negative return.<br /><br />The Libertarian critique of gov't is based on two main pillars:<br />a) the gov't programs mostly have a negative rate of return, and<br />b) all gov't actions involve force, for which it is morally problematic to use against peaceful, honest people.<br /><br />Naturally, socialists and fascists are willing to use immoral force against free people for what they, perhaps reading Krugman, call "good" reasons. Too many, according to most Libertarians, and to me.Tom Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15046612425809449502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-91436937725759149962012-06-06T16:15:32.783-04:002012-06-06T16:15:32.783-04:00"...the entire market system is a sandbox pro..."...the entire market system is a sandbox produced by government for capitalism to play in"<br /><br />Correct. Power constrains economic outcomes, markets merely optimize within those constraints. <br /><br />Power is essential to a causal account of economic behavior, yet academic economics systematically shoves questions of power off-stage as "exogenous variables" and stops thinking about them. This makes economists sound like Dr. Pangloss saying everything works out for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire invented Pangloss to parody the 18th century vogue for 'optimism' -- a naive generalization of the principle of least action from mathematical physics to human affairs. It's the same misunderstanding now as it was back then. Economists may have forgotten the principle of least action by that name, but Arrow-Debreu is effectively a reformulation of the same idea.Sethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-11588078606556546672012-06-06T15:42:16.012-04:002012-06-06T15:42:16.012-04:00You have misquoted Wikipedia, it actually says &qu...You have misquoted Wikipedia, it actually says "Socialism is an economic system characterised by *social* ownership and/or control of the means of production". The clue is in the name, accepting the difference may be a concept that does not compute for a professional economist.<br /><br />BPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-7572124157797419672012-06-06T15:16:52.194-04:002012-06-06T15:16:52.194-04:00Libertarianism is an intellectual muscle suit stra...<i>Libertarianism is an intellectual muscle suit strapped on by A) paid hacks, and B) idealistic wet-behind-the-ears kids ... their system is just some silliness cooked up by (A). It's fun for liberals to smack libertarians down; ... But it's really just a distraction from what we ought to be doing</i><br /><br />Tell me again why you think it is worth your while to engage with these folks?Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4049140452173182822012-06-06T10:21:08.918-04:002012-06-06T10:21:08.918-04:00Why, yes, I did follow each of those links. And t...Why, yes, I did follow each of those links. And they have all the significance of the Koch brothers supporting ballet, the old Soviet Union having extensive human rights built into its constitution, and a host of other lip service aimed at establishing credibility.<br /><br />When they split from libertarianism over this, when they denounce the libertarians who will not recognize this, then I might take them seriously.<br /><br />There's a famous definition of diplomacy: saying "nice doggie" until you can find a stick. That's what they're doing. It's tactical political bullshit: they don't really care if they are right or wrong, as long as they get people to think they are good guys. <br /><br />Listen to what the people who dealt with Friedman and Hayek for decades had to say about them. I think you will evolve the same attitudes.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-45778035126056221782012-06-05T15:24:58.646-04:002012-06-05T15:24:58.646-04:00It may take a lot of back and forth to get our com...It may take a lot of back and forth to get our communication clear, and both of us have little time, but again, I think in the end we would see there's little if any real disagreement. I'll add just a little more (Then I'll try to zip it up!):<br /><br />Most people who support or fall for some libertarian ideas and claims just don't know about, or haven't really thought about, things like externalities, the zero marginal cost of ideas, the income and substitution effects,... Plus, people are ridiculously wrong about how government spends money, what waste there is (and compared to the private sector), the percentage of government spending that's on the poor (especially the undeserving poor), etc. <br /><br />So, there's a big confronting and exposing job to be done, especially for opinion leaders, VSPs, and many economists (who may know their narrow specialty, but not lots of other things). It's not just having fun with libertarians; it's exposing it for what it is to lots of people, a big important job.<br /><br />Then, there are economists like Taylor and Mankiw, who know full well the horrendous, monumental costs of libertarianism, but they'd rather have that than give up even relatively small amounts of personal freedom. They're true libertarians, not libertarians only because they fall for a fantasy that it creates more total societal utility. These people are especially dangerous because they have titles and prestige, and will use them to grossly intentionally mislead and confuse for the libertarian cause. A very interesting book is the China Study, by famed Cornell Nutritional scientist Colin Campbell. He talks about how long it took for it to be widely accepted in the public that smoking was very harmful, and part of the reason was that you had some doctors and people with prestigious titles who could be quoted saying smoking wasn't harmful.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49792561270743043022012-06-05T13:15:21.189-04:002012-06-05T13:15:21.189-04:00I don’t think we disagree much, maybe not even at ...I don’t think we disagree much, maybe not even at all on anything here. It’s just imprecise language and communication is making it look like we do. As a comic example, by confederate zombies I thought you were referring to this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_vs._Zombies <br />w<br /><br />And I, at least by and large, agree with all you said above; this is primarily fueled by tons of money from the rich; it’s not an expansion of Cato, etc. But the right has largely used the economic arguments of libertarians, and these arguments have to be confronted and exposed to the public, because sadly they can be effective. They’re simple and easy, soundbites, and few people know what externalities, the backward bending labor supply curve, etc. are. <br /><br />And I would add, libertarians and libertarian leaners are disproportionately represented in academic economics and among the VSP’s, and these people have a lot of influence. Look, for example, at all of the successful intentional misleading and confusion that can be created by people like John Taylor, Greg Mankiw, and Edward Prescott, with the titles and prestige they have. Krugman talks about this in his book Peddling Prosperity.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-13284703357139009062012-06-05T12:08:17.518-04:002012-06-05T12:08:17.518-04:00Mike, did you click on any of the links in my post...Mike, did you click on any of the links in my post? Read what Tim Lee, Alex Tabarrok, and Peter Thiel are saying about infrastructure, research, and public goods in general. Read it! How can you think this is not a good thing??Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30972977789885308912012-06-05T12:04:00.196-04:002012-06-05T12:04:00.196-04:00No.No.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89080699259986871022012-06-05T12:03:09.529-04:002012-06-05T12:03:09.529-04:00All joking aside (and I will rent that movie), ext...<i>All joking aside (and I will rent that movie), extreme libertarians aren't just out there at the fringe anymore. Economically, they've taken over one of our two major parties, have strong influence in academic economics, and have moved the Overton Window waaaay to the right.</i><br /><br />Actually, I don't think you're right. What I think happened, in a nutshell, was that rich people managed to convince the Zombie Confederates that all taxes came out of the pockets of white people (Zombie Confederates think of themselves as just "white people") and all govt. spending was handouts to black people. This point of view is readily apparent to anyone who spends half an hour listening to any right-wing pundit or media person or casual discussion.<br /><br />Basically, I think libertarians were a side story to this basic narrative. People like the Cato Institute had basically zero impact on the grassroots dialogue (which is all about race and identity). What I think they did is to provide an intellectual distraction for liberals to fight against.<br /><br />Look, it's easy to show libertarians are wrong about stuff. As Will Wilkinson says, someone sporting the libertarian label basically signals that their IQ is 15 points lower by doing so. Libertarianism is an intellectual muscle suit strapped on by A) paid hacks, and B) idealistic wet-behind-the-ears kids who like the idea of a self-consistent moral system based on individuality and have not yet realized that their system is just some silliness cooked up by (A). It's fun for liberals to smack libertarians down; it lets us feel smart. But it's really just a distraction from what we ought to be doing, which is finding ways to create an effective liberalism that works as a national policy strategy, and finding ways to sell this liberalism to the average American.<br /><br />In other words, instead of winning, we're having fun punching the tar baby of libertarianism. Which is fine, fun is good, but we have bigger fish to fry.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1792170320723719192012-06-05T10:05:35.708-04:002012-06-05T10:05:35.708-04:00If we ignore Manifest Destiny, slavery, rich peopl...If we ignore Manifest Destiny, slavery, rich people happily buying the laws and force that they found convenient, and massive government bailouts.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49781391029441321592012-06-05T10:01:05.610-04:002012-06-05T10:01:05.610-04:00Seconding - Noah, you are living and working in th...Seconding - Noah, you are living and working in the rubble of the oh-so-bright economists' delusions. Please accept that.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-621622114663138792012-06-05T09:58:40.510-04:002012-06-05T09:58:40.510-04:00Mike Huben and Alexander Hamilton are correct. The...Mike Huben and Alexander Hamilton are correct. The only times libertarians have 'good' views is when their ridiculous ideology happens to overlap with what is actually sensible.<br /><br />For example, most people on the left would agree that the war on drugs, as it stands, is a bad thing. It has created massive black markets, health problems, costs a lot of money and makes little sense seeing as alcohol and smoking are legal. <br /><br />However, the left also agree that legalisation from where we are now could surely cause problems, and that it would need to be carefully thought through and debated before implemented.<br /><br />Libertarians, on the other hands, say 'SO WUT I WANT 2 TAKE DRUGS GUVNTMENT IN TEH WAY REMOVE ALL RESTRICTIONS!!!' <br /><br />There is no thought. It is an ideology that does not require thought - at the very most, you have to paraphrase Milton Friedman.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-75145871702962153782012-06-05T09:19:23.706-04:002012-06-05T09:19:23.706-04:00I'm afraid I agree strongly with Alexander Ham...I'm afraid I agree strongly with Alexander Hamilton above.<br /><br />I've spent almost 20 years "showing" libertarians better ways of understanding where they go wrong at Critiques Of Libertarianism. The result is that occasionally I get email from somebody who says I helped them escape libertarianism.<br /><br />I worked directly with the authors of the Political Compass, to explain why it was distorted. The result was they made cosmetic changes and wrote a FAQ to defend their propaganda.<br /><br />As AH says, very few people can change their outlook short of drastic infringements on their liberties. The only solution is to work against their recruitment and marginalize their arguments in the eyes of onlookers. If even hard sciences like physics have to wait for the old generation to die out, what hope do softer sciences and politics have?Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-71591090597029103402012-06-04T21:57:42.922-04:002012-06-04T21:57:42.922-04:00"What I think happened is this: America has a...<i>"What I think happened is this: America has a deep-seated cultural and intellectual respect for personal liberty. So what certain rich conservatives did is to come along and basically trick a bunch of people into believing that taxes, spending and regulation are the greatest threat to personal liberty. They did this by paying some shills (think tanks) to simply say this over and over."</i><br /><br />That sounds about right.ArgosyJonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-5000616357226956782012-06-04T21:40:52.486-04:002012-06-04T21:40:52.486-04:00I imagine "O Fortuna" playing while you ...<i>I imagine "O Fortuna" playing while you deliver this speech...</i><br /><br />Good choice. <br /><br />(And I agree with Alexander Hamilton down the page. You should look up Col. Boyd's "OODA loop" when you have some time to spare from working on your thesis.)Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-314747273422862672012-06-04T21:21:54.776-04:002012-06-04T21:21:54.776-04:00All joking aside (and I will rent that movie), ext...All joking aside (and I will rent that movie), extreme libertarians aren't just out there at the fringe anymore. Economically, they've taken over one of our two major parties, have strong influence in academic economics, and have moved the Overton Window waaaay to the right.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-53150976432095014282012-06-04T21:10:00.324-04:002012-06-04T21:10:00.324-04:00@Absalon:
They are paid mercenaries without souls...@Absalon:<br /><br /><i>They are paid mercenaries without souls. You crush them or they crush you. There is no room for compromise.</i><br /><br />I imagine "O Fortuna" playing while you deliver this speech...<br /><br /><br />@Richard:<br /><br />Well, I think America has some people who are causing much, much bigger problems than the libertarians...I am speaking, of course, of the Zombie Confederacy.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58594601665099468352012-06-04T20:51:58.314-04:002012-06-04T20:51:58.314-04:00Noah, you are very mistaken to think libertarians ...Noah, you are very mistaken to think libertarians have good instincts on many issues, regardless of whether the issue is immigration, the drug war, or torture and executive detention.<br /><br />Someone has suggested to you to read my biography. <br /><br /> At the same time you should read everything you can by Col. John Boyd. You wholly fail to understand people, conflict, and, most importantly, the moral component of conflict. You do not show people; you marginalize and destroy them by direct, confrontational moral assaults. It has been shown over and over and over that very few people have the capacity to admit either that they are wrong or that they do not know. Today, only three public figures have the strength of character and minds up to that task: Munger, Buffett, and Soros.<br /><br />In no way should you read the foregoing as a defense of Obama. It is simply to point out to you that libertarians have nothing to contribute toward thinking about any problem, economic or political.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-63825750901482467712012-06-04T19:28:53.766-04:002012-06-04T19:28:53.766-04:00And, of course, I value personal liberty too, but ...And, of course, I value personal liberty too, but it's this extreme imbalance, where you're not willing to sacrifice even the tiniest bit to avoid even monumental suffering and loss that I oppose. I oppose where you won't give up even one micron of personal freedom for a vastly better, wealthier, more scientifically advanced world, especially for future generations with greatly increased growth (as opposed to the horrendous decay their ideology would bring). It's the terrible imbalance of anything else, no matter how precious, no matter how vast, being worthless compared to even the tiniest spec of personal freedom, that I oppose.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78188305947222335062012-06-04T18:32:53.284-04:002012-06-04T18:32:53.284-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-14110414943204983922012-06-04T18:20:40.018-04:002012-06-04T18:20:40.018-04:00Allright, but it is a battle at the ballot box, wh...Allright, but it is a battle at the ballot box, whether you want it to be one or not. One side wins we get the Ryan Budget; the other side wins, and pretty much all citizens get health insurance they can always count on. Or if the extreme libertarians really win, we end Social Security, Medicare, any and all government paid for schooling for children of any kind -- kids go to school only if their parent's pay, and to the extent they pay, all government basic science and medicine, any unemployment insurance at all, public vaccination, public infrastructure,... It's a battle for them, and that's what they're fighting for. The less you fight back, the more they win, and we've gotten our biggest progress when we've decided to fight hard.Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.com