D-Boo, goin' all Boudreaux, in person for once...
Showing posts with label goin' all Boudreaux. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goin' all Boudreaux. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
Monday, June 15, 2015
Goin' All Boudreaux: Paying Attention....
So, Gene Nichol (who I like, personally) wrote a piece about ID requirements.
I had to respond. So I went all Boudreaux on him.
Text:
It appears my good friend Gene Nichol has done some field work and discovered (“An unforgivable quest for ID,” June 12 Point of View) that government agencies are inefficient and that state “service” workers are rude and indifferent to the public.
Until now, it seemed that he wanted the state to run nearly every aspect of our lives. But he has seen the light.
Well, better late than never! Everyone becomes a Libertarian eventually, if they are paying attention.
Michael Munger
Raleigh
I had to respond. So I went all Boudreaux on him.
Text:
It appears my good friend Gene Nichol has done some field work and discovered (“An unforgivable quest for ID,” June 12 Point of View) that government agencies are inefficient and that state “service” workers are rude and indifferent to the public.
Until now, it seemed that he wanted the state to run nearly every aspect of our lives. But he has seen the light.
Well, better late than never! Everyone becomes a Libertarian eventually, if they are paying attention.
Michael Munger
Raleigh
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Going All Boudreaux: Rose's Edition
So, this screed was published in the Chapel Hill News. The Raleigh News and Observer was so taken by its forceful logic and persuasive evidence that it was reprinted there.
The whole thing is excellent. But this part was particularly excellent, I thought:
Roses is owned by Art Pope, a man whose politics I vehemently oppose....Roses is the only store of its kind within walking distance of the neighborhoods that surround University Mall. Many of these are among the poorest in Chapel Hill...Art Pope was essentially using his customers’ money against them. And because of their limited mobility and the lack of other nearby options, there wasn’t much they could do about it. While the demise of such predatory practices are to be cheered in the long run, it’s tough to sell that point to folks who’ll find themselves without a place to buy clothes and other household necessities once Roses closes.
...Were they being exploited? Absolutely. But that doesn’t get make things any easier for them in the short run now that Roses is leaving. Of course, I believe that systems of commerce need to be established that prohibit the creation of an underclass that at once produces and consumes low-cost goods for the benefit of the upperclass.
So, to be clear, people are being exploited by having a store that is conveniently located, has good quality, and low prices. He wants new "systems of commerce," because this whole convenient/good/ cheap model is exploitative. It's the system of commerce, itself, that creates an underclass.
Now, I shouldn't be so hard on him, perhaps, because he's a journalism major, and so has never taken any actual college classes.
Still, I had to go all Boudreaux. Here is the letter to the editor I sent to the N&O, which they printed today:
I felt conflicted reading Henry Gargan's POV piece ("As Roses closes…", April 13). Some folks are so ignorant of markets that they think selling quality products at low prices in convenient stores such as Rose's is "exploitative." Having Mr. Gargan argue this point, and having the N&O give it prominent space, makes for a useful reading for my economics classes. That made me happy.
Still, it's upsetting to see Mr. Gargan exploiting his privileged position. UNC is protected from any kind of competition, and takes its budget from public taxes. Mr. Gargan pays, at most, a fraction of the cost of mislearning economics; he is essentially using taxpayers' money against them. And because the state uses taxes to subsidize leftist think tanks like the Journalism School, there isn't much those of us who care about education can do about it.
The big picture is that Mr. Gargan will never have to face any of the costs of his exploitative misuse of tax funds for personal gain. But the little picture, the one solace in all this, is that I can now use this bizarrely misinformed view of commerce as a teaching tool.
Michael Munger, Professor
Duke University
One clarification: I was trying to parody both the argument and the steps in the argument in Mr. Gargan's original piece. I do not, in fact, think that the UNC Journalism School should be prevented from teaching whatever ideologically biased material appeals to them, any more than I think Mr. Pope should be prevented from exercising his rights to use his support for causes he believes in. So the "subsidize left-wing think tanks" is a parody; I don't think the Journalism School is a left-wing think tank. It's just a bunch of folks doing the best they can, given their beliefs, with the very limited intellectual resources at their disposal.
The whole thing is excellent. But this part was particularly excellent, I thought:
Roses is owned by Art Pope, a man whose politics I vehemently oppose....Roses is the only store of its kind within walking distance of the neighborhoods that surround University Mall. Many of these are among the poorest in Chapel Hill...Art Pope was essentially using his customers’ money against them. And because of their limited mobility and the lack of other nearby options, there wasn’t much they could do about it. While the demise of such predatory practices are to be cheered in the long run, it’s tough to sell that point to folks who’ll find themselves without a place to buy clothes and other household necessities once Roses closes.
...Were they being exploited? Absolutely. But that doesn’t get make things any easier for them in the short run now that Roses is leaving. Of course, I believe that systems of commerce need to be established that prohibit the creation of an underclass that at once produces and consumes low-cost goods for the benefit of the upperclass.
So, to be clear, people are being exploited by having a store that is conveniently located, has good quality, and low prices. He wants new "systems of commerce," because this whole convenient/good/ cheap model is exploitative. It's the system of commerce, itself, that creates an underclass.
Now, I shouldn't be so hard on him, perhaps, because he's a journalism major, and so has never taken any actual college classes.
Still, I had to go all Boudreaux. Here is the letter to the editor I sent to the N&O, which they printed today:
I felt conflicted reading Henry Gargan's POV piece ("As Roses closes…", April 13). Some folks are so ignorant of markets that they think selling quality products at low prices in convenient stores such as Rose's is "exploitative." Having Mr. Gargan argue this point, and having the N&O give it prominent space, makes for a useful reading for my economics classes. That made me happy.
Still, it's upsetting to see Mr. Gargan exploiting his privileged position. UNC is protected from any kind of competition, and takes its budget from public taxes. Mr. Gargan pays, at most, a fraction of the cost of mislearning economics; he is essentially using taxpayers' money against them. And because the state uses taxes to subsidize leftist think tanks like the Journalism School, there isn't much those of us who care about education can do about it.
The big picture is that Mr. Gargan will never have to face any of the costs of his exploitative misuse of tax funds for personal gain. But the little picture, the one solace in all this, is that I can now use this bizarrely misinformed view of commerce as a teaching tool.
Michael Munger, Professor
Duke University
One clarification: I was trying to parody both the argument and the steps in the argument in Mr. Gargan's original piece. I do not, in fact, think that the UNC Journalism School should be prevented from teaching whatever ideologically biased material appeals to them, any more than I think Mr. Pope should be prevented from exercising his rights to use his support for causes he believes in. So the "subsidize left-wing think tanks" is a parody; I don't think the Journalism School is a left-wing think tank. It's just a bunch of folks doing the best they can, given their beliefs, with the very limited intellectual resources at their disposal.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Don B on Immigration
Don Boudreaux on immigration....
Excerpt:
A few friends whose opinions I hold in the highest regard have challenged me recently to reconsider my support for open immigration. Their challenge springs neither from the economically uninformed Luddite view that immigrants will steal ‘American jobs’ (or lower Americans’ wages) nor the worry that more immigrants will be a net drain, through their direct use of the existing welfare state, on the public fisc. Their challenge springs instead from the more plausible concern that immigrants will use their growing political power to vote for government policies that are more interventionist and less respectful of individual freedoms.
This concern isn’t absurd (especially to those of us who believe that culture and rhetoric play a leading role in determining the actual law and policy of society and the performance of the economy). If too many people from countries less free and economies less dynamic than America come to the U.S. and then vote for the same policies that condemn their native countries to second- or third-world status – policies based chiefly on envy, zero-sum thinking, hostility to bourgeois pursuits, belief in secular salvation by Great Leaders, and mountains of plain old economic ignorance – then the very commitment to freedom that leads me to support open immigration might be inconsistent with the long-run maintenance of freedom.
His answer is interesting. ATSRTWT
Excerpt:
A few friends whose opinions I hold in the highest regard have challenged me recently to reconsider my support for open immigration. Their challenge springs neither from the economically uninformed Luddite view that immigrants will steal ‘American jobs’ (or lower Americans’ wages) nor the worry that more immigrants will be a net drain, through their direct use of the existing welfare state, on the public fisc. Their challenge springs instead from the more plausible concern that immigrants will use their growing political power to vote for government policies that are more interventionist and less respectful of individual freedoms.
This concern isn’t absurd (especially to those of us who believe that culture and rhetoric play a leading role in determining the actual law and policy of society and the performance of the economy). If too many people from countries less free and economies less dynamic than America come to the U.S. and then vote for the same policies that condemn their native countries to second- or third-world status – policies based chiefly on envy, zero-sum thinking, hostility to bourgeois pursuits, belief in secular salvation by Great Leaders, and mountains of plain old economic ignorance – then the very commitment to freedom that leads me to support open immigration might be inconsistent with the long-run maintenance of freedom.
His answer is interesting. ATSRTWT
Monday, December 31, 2012
Amazing Filibustration, and Some Smartness
I had to go all Boudreaux on an editorial cartoon. (It's not posted yet, I'll put it up when I can find it). (UPDATE: Here it is....)
Here is the letter I sent to the News and Observer, in outrage:
The 12/31 editorial cartoon (Morin) could have been funny. Old 2012 asks "Where's the 2013 baby?" And a clown dressed as Congress could say, "We're filibustering it." Now, only the Senate has filibusters; the House doesn’t allow them. But at least it would have been nonpartisan, focusing on a dysfunctional institution generically called “Congress” instead of "Senate" (controlled by Democrats) which is certainly dysfunctional. They have not even debated a formal budget bill since 2009. Would the Republicans have filibustered a budget bill? Hard to tell, since the Dems have failed even to bring a budget forward from committee for nearly four years. Still, just say "Congress" and be vague, or "Senate" and be correct. And funny. A little funny, at least.
Anyway, here's the thing. There is wisdom out there. This is the best thing I have seen on the cliff, the budget, etc. The BEST. Not surprisingly, it comes from LeBron, in his NYTimes column. What he said, folks. Excerpt:
Economic conservatives often stress the connection between low taxes and smaller government. But that observation, as an argument for lower current taxes, looks weaker as the years pass. Keeping taxes low doesn’t stop the growth of government spending and, indeed, makes spending taste like a free lunch, because the bill is paid much later. The conservative strategy has long been to hold the line on taxes now, but it would be better to encourage the public to more readily grasp and internalize the costs of government spending.
As I say often, "conservative" once meant (1) question government spending, and (2) if money is to be spent, figure out how to pay for it responsibly. Since the Repubs decided #2 was unnecessary, we've all been in deep #2.
The 12/31 editorial cartoon (Morin) could have been funny. Old 2012 asks "Where's the 2013 baby?" And a clown dressed as Congress could say, "We're filibustering it." Now, only the Senate has filibusters; the House doesn’t allow them. But at least it would have been nonpartisan, focusing on a dysfunctional institution generically called “Congress” instead of "Senate" (controlled by Democrats) which is certainly dysfunctional. They have not even debated a formal budget bill since 2009. Would the Republicans have filibustered a budget bill? Hard to tell, since the Dems have failed even to bring a budget forward from committee for nearly four years. Still, just say "Congress" and be vague, or "Senate" and be correct. And funny. A little funny, at least.
But the cartoon didn’t say “Congress.” Could it be because the Democrats control
the Senate? The clown had to be labeled
“HOUSE Tea Party.” Two problems. First, no House filibusters. Plus, your "Tea Party" bogeyman has a majority in the House. Why would they filibuster? I wouldn't accept this mistake from a high school senior in a remedial civics class.
Second, this is partisan claptrap. Congress, both chambers, is gridlocked by an appalling leadership vacuum, from both idiotic parties. But instead of pointing that out, you selected a cartoon with a factually mistaken, needlessly partisan message.
Second, this is partisan claptrap. Congress, both chambers, is gridlocked by an appalling leadership vacuum, from both idiotic parties. But instead of pointing that out, you selected a cartoon with a factually mistaken, needlessly partisan message.
I sincerely hope that your editorial staff intentionally
chose partisanship over accuracy in selecting that cartoon. Because the alternative is worse: you folks charged with “leading” public
opinion about politics don’t understand the basics of Congressional procedure.
Sincerely, MCM etc.
Sincerely, MCM etc.
Anyway, here's the thing. There is wisdom out there. This is the best thing I have seen on the cliff, the budget, etc. The BEST. Not surprisingly, it comes from LeBron, in his NYTimes column. What he said, folks. Excerpt:
Economic conservatives often stress the connection between low taxes and smaller government. But that observation, as an argument for lower current taxes, looks weaker as the years pass. Keeping taxes low doesn’t stop the growth of government spending and, indeed, makes spending taste like a free lunch, because the bill is paid much later. The conservative strategy has long been to hold the line on taxes now, but it would be better to encourage the public to more readily grasp and internalize the costs of government spending.
As I say often, "conservative" once meant (1) question government spending, and (2) if money is to be spent, figure out how to pay for it responsibly. Since the Repubs decided #2 was unnecessary, we've all been in deep #2.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
CFPB: Cheers (?)
Don B raises the key point. And I don't know the answer. Don makes some good arguments. But it's not a slam dunk case.
Here is the example. Worth reading.
Now, the question: Suppose it is true that C is naive. One of the problems of being naive is not knowing the full extent and impact of one's naivete.
Now, suppose that we know that there are people like D, people who take advantage of naivete. D is capable of making bright shiny things, or complicated things, that will induce C to pay more than that thing is "worth."
Then, along comes B. B is a hand-wringer, the sort who really REALLY cares about other people. But B thinks B should get paid for caring about people, because he doesn't really care about other people THAT much, to work for free. So, B proposes we create a government agency whose job it is to protect C from being taken advantage of by D.
Except that, to make this work, we will also have to tax A. A thinks C is an idiot, and that D is morally defective. But A would never buy D's product, and wonders why C would do it. After all, C should be able to figure it out, if he tried.
But, there it goes: We tax A to pay B to prevent C from being exploited by D. Don asks, "Is this justified?" I think the right question is "When MIGHT it be justified." Still, Don asks a good question.
Here is the example. Worth reading.
Now, the question: Suppose it is true that C is naive. One of the problems of being naive is not knowing the full extent and impact of one's naivete.
Now, suppose that we know that there are people like D, people who take advantage of naivete. D is capable of making bright shiny things, or complicated things, that will induce C to pay more than that thing is "worth."
Then, along comes B. B is a hand-wringer, the sort who really REALLY cares about other people. But B thinks B should get paid for caring about people, because he doesn't really care about other people THAT much, to work for free. So, B proposes we create a government agency whose job it is to protect C from being taken advantage of by D.
Except that, to make this work, we will also have to tax A. A thinks C is an idiot, and that D is morally defective. But A would never buy D's product, and wonders why C would do it. After all, C should be able to figure it out, if he tried.
But, there it goes: We tax A to pay B to prevent C from being exploited by D. Don asks, "Is this justified?" I think the right question is "When MIGHT it be justified." Still, Don asks a good question.
Friday, June 08, 2012
If Boudreaux wore a barrette....
.......he'd be Mike Miller!
Don't take my word for it; feast your eyes:
Don't take my word for it; feast your eyes:
Friday, April 20, 2012
Op Ed in La Tercera
Here is a link to my article today in La Tercera. It's in Spanish, but then of course it would be. The English version (a bit longer, because when JP and I translated it we also had to shorten it by about 30%):
If Treated Like Adults, People Act Like Adults
Michael Munger, Department of Economics, and Political Science
Duke University
In the movie "Minority Report," a government agency becomes convinced it can see the future. Using telepathically gifted super-humans, the state tracks down "criminals" who have done nothing wrong.
On March 9, the Chilean government implemented a "zero tolerance" policy on alcohol consumption for drivers. This policy throws a shadow of dread into every restaurant meal, private party, or after-work party. But most of those who will be afraid, and even many of those who will be arrested, will have done nothing wrong.
If Treated Like Adults, People Act Like Adults
Michael Munger, Department of Economics, and Political Science
Duke University
In the movie "Minority Report," a government agency becomes convinced it can see the future. Using telepathically gifted super-humans, the state tracks down "criminals" who have done nothing wrong.
On March 9, the Chilean government implemented a "zero tolerance" policy on alcohol consumption for drivers. This policy throws a shadow of dread into every restaurant meal, private party, or after-work party. But most of those who will be afraid, and even many of those who will be arrested, will have done nothing wrong.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
El Mercurio, and News - Observer
In which I go all Boudreaux on news people on two continents.
1. El Mercurio, in Santiago, Chile: Por otra parte, a ocho meses de las presidenciales, esta indecisión republicana podría tener consecuencias. "A medida que Romney avanza hacia la victoria en las primarias, está perdiendo piso en la elección general", advirtió The Washington Post, que resaltó que se le ve "en peor forma en este punto de la campaña" en relación con los últimos aspirantes presidenciales republicanos. Y es que, bajo el argumento de que no ha sido capaz de "noquear" a sus rivales, varios comentaristas han puesto en duda su competitividad ante Obama.
¿Por qué tanta prisa?
Sin embargo, también hay quienes llaman a la calma. "Yo no entiendo por qué los medios dicen que 'Romney no puede cerrar el trato'. Si se compara con 2008, la nominación demócrata no terminó hasta mayo. Romney tiene, en este punto, más delegados de los que tenía Obama en marzo de 2008, pero nadie preguntó entonces '¿por qué Obama no convence al electorado?", indicó Michael Munger, analista de la Duke University.
En términos de estilo, Munger compara el caso de Romney con el del Presidente Sebastián Piñera, "que hace que las cosas funcionen, pero no es muy ideológico". "Esto es una desventaja en las primarias republicanas, donde los extremistas quieren ideología extrema. Pero podría ser una ventaja en la elección general. Quizás tenga problemas para que la gente se entusiasme, pero el desempleo es alto y hay insatisfacción con la actual gestión. Así que podría ser como en Chile, donde Piñera ganó no porque entusiasmara, sino porque a la gente le preocupaba la dirección del país".
Los republicanos vamos a unirnos, porque realmente creemos que Obama debe ser reemplazado.
2. Same theme, letter to News-Observer. Steve Ford must have miss-typed, right? ("Drilling into Democrats' do-over," Jan. 29 column.) He actually said that if Republicans "were comfortable with the current pack of candidates, one would already [be] the nominee-apparent."
In 2008, the Democrats knew nothing about who would be their nominee by January's end. In fact, the primaries of February through April just muddied the waters. Barack Obama was not clearly selected until May. Today, Jan. 31, Mitt Romney is far ahead of Obama in 2008, in terms of elected delegates.
But the Democratic Party showed little "discomfort" in 2008, uniting behind their candidate. Nobody but media types and college professors think primaries should be decided fast and clean. Democracy is messy.
1. El Mercurio, in Santiago, Chile: Por otra parte, a ocho meses de las presidenciales, esta indecisión republicana podría tener consecuencias. "A medida que Romney avanza hacia la victoria en las primarias, está perdiendo piso en la elección general", advirtió The Washington Post, que resaltó que se le ve "en peor forma en este punto de la campaña" en relación con los últimos aspirantes presidenciales republicanos. Y es que, bajo el argumento de que no ha sido capaz de "noquear" a sus rivales, varios comentaristas han puesto en duda su competitividad ante Obama.
¿Por qué tanta prisa?
Sin embargo, también hay quienes llaman a la calma. "Yo no entiendo por qué los medios dicen que 'Romney no puede cerrar el trato'. Si se compara con 2008, la nominación demócrata no terminó hasta mayo. Romney tiene, en este punto, más delegados de los que tenía Obama en marzo de 2008, pero nadie preguntó entonces '¿por qué Obama no convence al electorado?", indicó Michael Munger, analista de la Duke University.
En términos de estilo, Munger compara el caso de Romney con el del Presidente Sebastián Piñera, "que hace que las cosas funcionen, pero no es muy ideológico". "Esto es una desventaja en las primarias republicanas, donde los extremistas quieren ideología extrema. Pero podría ser una ventaja en la elección general. Quizás tenga problemas para que la gente se entusiasme, pero el desempleo es alto y hay insatisfacción con la actual gestión. Así que podría ser como en Chile, donde Piñera ganó no porque entusiasmara, sino porque a la gente le preocupaba la dirección del país".
Los republicanos vamos a unirnos, porque realmente creemos que Obama debe ser reemplazado.
2. Same theme, letter to News-Observer. Steve Ford must have miss-typed, right? ("Drilling into Democrats' do-over," Jan. 29 column.) He actually said that if Republicans "were comfortable with the current pack of candidates, one would already [be] the nominee-apparent."
In 2008, the Democrats knew nothing about who would be their nominee by January's end. In fact, the primaries of February through April just muddied the waters. Barack Obama was not clearly selected until May. Today, Jan. 31, Mitt Romney is far ahead of Obama in 2008, in terms of elected delegates.
But the Democratic Party showed little "discomfort" in 2008, uniting behind their candidate. Nobody but media types and college professors think primaries should be decided fast and clean. Democracy is messy.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Tea Party Hero: Bill Clinton
My good friend Bill Chafe (yes, one of the 88; deal with it) wrote a piece for the N&O this morn. And he's basically right. So I sent him this note:
Dear Bill:
I enjoyed your article in the N&O this morning.
Thought I would share a table I made up for an article I just wrote for CRITICAL REVIEW. This is total government spending per capita, in real (2010 constant) dollars, by decade:
Table: U.S. Nominal and Real (2010$) Federal Spending Per Capita
Year...NomG/Cap...RealG/Cap
1970...$1,000.... $5,500
1980...$2,600.... $6,800
1990.. $5,100.... $8,300
2000.. $6,500.... $8,300
2010.. $12,300... $12,300
(Sources: Budgetof the US Government: Historical Tables 3.2 and 7.1, and StatisticalAbstract of the United States)
So ignoring the fact that Republicans are hopeless hypocrites about tax cuts, it is pretty clear that Republicans presidents are also the cause of spending increases! That's mostly, but not exclusively, because of idiotic military spending, but that hardly matters.
The usual story about how Clinton balanced the budget was that he had huge tax increases to cover his big spending growth. Well, thanks for playing, but no.
Constant dollar Gov't spending per person was $8,300 in 1900, and was still $8,300 in 2000 when "conservative" GWB took over.
We have had exactly one president who embodied the "keep spending low, balance the budget" conservative principles of the Tea Party since 1970, and his name was... Clinton.
So, goodONya, sir. Hope to see you sometime.
Mike
Dear Bill:
I enjoyed your article in the N&O this morning.
Thought I would share a table I made up for an article I just wrote for CRITICAL REVIEW. This is total government spending per capita, in real (2010 constant) dollars, by decade:
Table: U.S. Nominal and Real (2010$) Federal Spending Per Capita
Year...NomG/Cap...RealG/Cap
1970...$1,000.... $5,500
1980...$2,600.... $6,800
1990.. $5,100.... $8,300
2000.. $6,500.... $8,300
2010.. $12,300... $12,300
(Sources: Budgetof the US Government: Historical Tables 3.2 and 7.1, and StatisticalAbstract of the United States)
So ignoring the fact that Republicans are hopeless hypocrites about tax cuts, it is pretty clear that Republicans presidents are also the cause of spending increases! That's mostly, but not exclusively, because of idiotic military spending, but that hardly matters.
The usual story about how Clinton balanced the budget was that he had huge tax increases to cover his big spending growth. Well, thanks for playing, but no.
Constant dollar Gov't spending per person was $8,300 in 1900, and was still $8,300 in 2000 when "conservative" GWB took over.
We have had exactly one president who embodied the "keep spending low, balance the budget" conservative principles of the Tea Party since 1970, and his name was... Clinton.
So, goodONya, sir. Hope to see you sometime.
Mike
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Koch brouhaha--My take
I went all Boudreaux on the Koch controversy in Florida, published an op ed today in the Tallahassee Democrat, link here but behind paywall. But you, lucky KPC reader, get it fast, fresh, and free!
Koch brouhaha is hardly news in academia
Florida’s universities, and media, are in an uproar about the Koch Foundation’s “strings” on grants to FSU’s Economics Department. But I’m not sure why.
As chair of Duke’s Political Science Department for the past ten years, I have competed for dozens of grants, large and small. And I have dealt with the reporting requirements of funders including the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and George Soros’ “Open Society.”
These organizations, not surprisingly, want to make sure their money is spent legally and fruitfully. But the media has been shocked that "information on publications, presentations, courses taught, students supervised and outreach activities'' was to be provided by recipients of Koch grants.
Look: that’s boiler plate. It’s essentially the same requirements that are imposed on any operating grant I have ever dealt with. There are two kinds of grants: endowment and operating. Endowment contributions go to a university’s investment principal, and all that can be spent is the income from that principal. In 1995, Yale returned $20 million to the Bass family, when the donors wanted control over hiring tenured professors. Princeton finally settled—in 2008—a lengthy lawsuit brought by the Robertson family over a $900 million endowment for support for the Woodrow Wilson School. Universities generally reject strings on endowment gifts.
But operating gifts are different. Most foundations give operating gifts exclusively. Endowment gifts produce investment returns, while operating gifts are spent directly. If I get $100,000 to spend on my Philosophy, Politics, and Economics program at Duke, then I spend the whole $100,000 during the term of the grant.
And then I have to file an annual report. How was the money spent? Was it effective? What is the evidence that it had an impact? How can I justify a future renewal of this money? Operating contributions come with strings, because they are spent directly, and then evaluated immediately.
I grew up in Central Florida, and still feel a strong kinship with the state. Full disclosure, though: I accepted operating contributions from the Koch Foundation last year. We used it to bring in outside speakers, including a New York Times columnist and an expert on economic development in Africa, for my classes in the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program at Duke University.
There were strings. As one condition of the grant, we distributed questionnaires to find out if students thought the speakers added learning value to the class. I did not have to get permission from Charles Koch, mind you. What the Foundation wanted to know was whether the students, the customers if you will, thought that the money was well spent, in terms of their own individual educational goals.
And well spent it was. I had 60 students, and got the highest evaluations I have ever received. The chance to have in a variety of experts, with direct experience to challenge students from across the ideological spectrum, was an enormous help.
I have studied the grant process used by the FSU economics department. There was nothing unusual, or underhanded, about what went on in Tallahassee. The funds were operating donations funds, not endowment. But I am concerned, as a long time Florida resident, about the media maelstrom. Why is it that even a hint of real intellectual diversity--the kind that represents differences in ideas--is seen as being so problematic at our state universities?
Michael C. Munger, PhD
Professor of Political Science, Economics, and Public Policy
Director, Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program
Duke University
For an alternative view, see (for example) the DK....
For Don Luskin's view, see the WSJ article...
Koch brouhaha is hardly news in academia
Florida’s universities, and media, are in an uproar about the Koch Foundation’s “strings” on grants to FSU’s Economics Department. But I’m not sure why.
As chair of Duke’s Political Science Department for the past ten years, I have competed for dozens of grants, large and small. And I have dealt with the reporting requirements of funders including the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and George Soros’ “Open Society.”
These organizations, not surprisingly, want to make sure their money is spent legally and fruitfully. But the media has been shocked that "information on publications, presentations, courses taught, students supervised and outreach activities'' was to be provided by recipients of Koch grants.
Look: that’s boiler plate. It’s essentially the same requirements that are imposed on any operating grant I have ever dealt with. There are two kinds of grants: endowment and operating. Endowment contributions go to a university’s investment principal, and all that can be spent is the income from that principal. In 1995, Yale returned $20 million to the Bass family, when the donors wanted control over hiring tenured professors. Princeton finally settled—in 2008—a lengthy lawsuit brought by the Robertson family over a $900 million endowment for support for the Woodrow Wilson School. Universities generally reject strings on endowment gifts.
But operating gifts are different. Most foundations give operating gifts exclusively. Endowment gifts produce investment returns, while operating gifts are spent directly. If I get $100,000 to spend on my Philosophy, Politics, and Economics program at Duke, then I spend the whole $100,000 during the term of the grant.
And then I have to file an annual report. How was the money spent? Was it effective? What is the evidence that it had an impact? How can I justify a future renewal of this money? Operating contributions come with strings, because they are spent directly, and then evaluated immediately.
I grew up in Central Florida, and still feel a strong kinship with the state. Full disclosure, though: I accepted operating contributions from the Koch Foundation last year. We used it to bring in outside speakers, including a New York Times columnist and an expert on economic development in Africa, for my classes in the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program at Duke University.
There were strings. As one condition of the grant, we distributed questionnaires to find out if students thought the speakers added learning value to the class. I did not have to get permission from Charles Koch, mind you. What the Foundation wanted to know was whether the students, the customers if you will, thought that the money was well spent, in terms of their own individual educational goals.
And well spent it was. I had 60 students, and got the highest evaluations I have ever received. The chance to have in a variety of experts, with direct experience to challenge students from across the ideological spectrum, was an enormous help.
I have studied the grant process used by the FSU economics department. There was nothing unusual, or underhanded, about what went on in Tallahassee. The funds were operating donations funds, not endowment. But I am concerned, as a long time Florida resident, about the media maelstrom. Why is it that even a hint of real intellectual diversity--the kind that represents differences in ideas--is seen as being so problematic at our state universities?
Michael C. Munger, PhD
Professor of Political Science, Economics, and Public Policy
Director, Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program
Duke University
For an alternative view, see (for example) the DK....
For Don Luskin's view, see the WSJ article...
Sunday, February 13, 2011
The New Kirkpatrick Doctrine
The Myth of Mutant Ideologies...
in the Durham Herald, by this correspondent.
in the Durham Herald, by this correspondent.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Facts Don't Matter
To the food nannies, actual facts are irrelevant.
Jacob Grier cites some of these facts.
I myself was so discombobulated I went all Boudreaux on the New and Observer, for this story.
Jacob Grier cites some of these facts.
I myself was so discombobulated I went all Boudreaux on the New and Observer, for this story.
Friday, December 10, 2010
If you hate taxes, cut spending!
Two articles... Op-ed about "end the DAFT!" in the south Florida Sun-Sentinel today.
Second, my friend Bill Lumaye bridled when I called him a "Keynesian" on air on WPTF Monday for supporting temporary extensions of the Bush tax cuts. Bill, if you won't believe me, maybe you'll believe that lefty Charles Krauthammer. Short-term, uncertain duration "tax cuts" are not tax cuts at all, but deficit-financed spending.
It's just a crackpot Keynesian stimulus policy! Don't be fooled that it's the "Republican Way." To have an effect on economic activity, tax cuts have to be credibly permanent.
As I say in the Sun-Sentinel article: If you hate taxes, cut spending.
Second, my friend Bill Lumaye bridled when I called him a "Keynesian" on air on WPTF Monday for supporting temporary extensions of the Bush tax cuts. Bill, if you won't believe me, maybe you'll believe that lefty Charles Krauthammer. Short-term, uncertain duration "tax cuts" are not tax cuts at all, but deficit-financed spending.
It's just a crackpot Keynesian stimulus policy! Don't be fooled that it's the "Republican Way." To have an effect on economic activity, tax cuts have to be credibly permanent.
As I say in the Sun-Sentinel article: If you hate taxes, cut spending.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Letter to the Editor
A letter to the Editor, shared by KPC friend Douglas Coate:
The roots of Rand Paul's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act as applied to private employers run deep. In English history, back to the Anglos and the Saxons, the Magna Carta, and the common law. In Western civilization the roots run longer, through Roman law, the Babylonian codes, and to the early traders in Mesopotamia. There has always been tension between citizen traders on the one hand and the
state on the other. Merchants have tried to enhance and preserve their wealth by gaining rights to property, contract, and trade, while states have too often tried to expropriate it by denying these rights. The great accomplishments of Western civilization, and now Eastern civilization, have resulted from the spread of these rights and the flowering of trade, cooperation, and specialization.
Fair employment laws or anti discrimination laws are the latest attempt by the state to take wealth from those that create it. By changing the hiring, firing, pay, and promotion decisions of private firms from their profit maximizing levels the state can redistribute wealth to favored groups. But not without consequences. Targeted
firms will have higher costs, some will be driven from business, and all will try to sell their goods at higher prices. Trade, cooperation, specialization, and wages and living standards will suffer.
Private firms if left alone do not discriminate. They hire the best workers they can at prevailing wages. Not to do so would increase their costs, lower their profits, and threaten their existence. Workers themselves become the ultimate arbiters of employer fairness in a market economy, for they can leave one employer for another without notice.
So, what did Rand Paul do wrong? He caved! If he had stuck to his position, he would have at least made people think.
The roots of Rand Paul's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act as applied to private employers run deep. In English history, back to the Anglos and the Saxons, the Magna Carta, and the common law. In Western civilization the roots run longer, through Roman law, the Babylonian codes, and to the early traders in Mesopotamia. There has always been tension between citizen traders on the one hand and the
state on the other. Merchants have tried to enhance and preserve their wealth by gaining rights to property, contract, and trade, while states have too often tried to expropriate it by denying these rights. The great accomplishments of Western civilization, and now Eastern civilization, have resulted from the spread of these rights and the flowering of trade, cooperation, and specialization.
Fair employment laws or anti discrimination laws are the latest attempt by the state to take wealth from those that create it. By changing the hiring, firing, pay, and promotion decisions of private firms from their profit maximizing levels the state can redistribute wealth to favored groups. But not without consequences. Targeted
firms will have higher costs, some will be driven from business, and all will try to sell their goods at higher prices. Trade, cooperation, specialization, and wages and living standards will suffer.
Private firms if left alone do not discriminate. They hire the best workers they can at prevailing wages. Not to do so would increase their costs, lower their profits, and threaten their existence. Workers themselves become the ultimate arbiters of employer fairness in a market economy, for they can leave one employer for another without notice.
So, what did Rand Paul do wrong? He caved! If he had stuck to his position, he would have at least made people think.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Interview with Iraqi Newsweekly GULAN
An "interview" with the Iraqi/Kurd newsweekly GULAN, and Ferhad M. Hassan, editor in chief. His questions in italics, my answers in Roman....The subject is the transition to democracy in Iraq and Kurdistan.
1- In the transitional stage, everything in the society is facing changes. So, we would like to ask you, how do you define post dictatorship transitional stage and what are the necessary steps required to be taken?
We have learned a lot about the problem of transition. The hardest problem is to reform the legal system, to ensure that judges, police, and public officials are fair in enforcing the law, and that the law applies equally to everyone.
Until this happens, the political transition cannot be fully effective, or complete. So the problem of the transitional stage is that the voters do not yet fully trust the government, or the police. And so they may not be willing to pay their taxes without close scrutiny. But that means that the government cannot pay the police, and judges, and so the system is always on the verge of running out of money.
Many scholars and professors in the U.S. have concluded that having a strong system of honest judges must come BEFORE a strong democracy.
2- As many experts think that transitional stage is not an easy step and takes many years. Is there any measurement to determine the end of the transitional stage?
In the U.S., it took a full decade, from 1791 through 1801. Even then, there were lots of problems. The key factor in proving the transition is complete is when an opposition party is able to run against the governing group, and win in a fair election. And then the defeated governing party hands over power voluntarily. Elections are "peaceful revolutions," where the outside group defeats the ruling group, and takes over the government, without war or bloodshed.
So, two things have to happen: 1. A free and fair election where the ruling party loses, and 2. A peaceful transition of power, accepted by all people (including the Army) as being legitimate.
3- The most important element in the transitional stage for building democracy is the political parties. Especially the countries which have been under dictatorship. So, the political parties to a certain extend are revolutionary not democratic. So, once the political parties need to be democratized first, how can they produce democracy?
Parties ARE revolutionary, yes. But democracy ensure peaceful revolutions. That is what elections are: peaceful revolutions. And parties are crucial for this. Imagine that there was to be a soccer match between "11 guys" and "Another 11 guys." No one cares about watching that. But if the "Party I Love" is going against the "Party I Don't Like", then I will go to the soccer match, or I will turn out for the election.
Experts on democracy nearly universally say that democracy is impossible without parties. Only parties can create a sense of connection with voters, and create a repuation that keeps government accountable, for success or failure.
4- Developing and implementation of economy market is another aspect of the transitional stage. But, many experts think that, transition from central economy to independent economy may result in corruption. So, how to avoid and prevent corruption in the transitional stage?
Again, the problem is fair judges and police. Also, having a market economy creates a middle class, a countervailing power that helps keep government accountable.
The problem faced by Iraq is that it has great oil wealth, and this wealth is a temptation for corruption. The oil wealth of the country means that politicians are tempted to promise cheap gas, and low taxes. Corruption results when people can make more money from misusing public office than they can from using private enterprise honestly. If a man starts a restaurant, he makes money by providing good food at low prices. If a man becomes a corrupt policeman, he makes money by stealing from drivers at checkpoints and by threatening people. Corruption is MUCH more likely in a planned economy, because people pay bribes to the center for favorable treatment.
5- Another important aspect of the transitional stage is the role of free mass media and intellectuals of the society. So, how far free mass media and intellectuals can play an effective role in the transitional stage?
The media and intellectuals must try to do two things. 1. Educate the public on the process of transition, and warn that it may take ten years, and 2. Report on corrupt practices, and violations of the law, even when it embarrasses the government. The problem is that the media cannot be truly "free" until it can carry out this function without fear of government reprisal and repression. This is the key to transition: when a newspaper or television person can write or say something critical of the government without fear. If there is fear, then the media, or intellectuals, cannot carry out their function. Even uncertainty about government response can have a "chilling effect," causing media and intellectuals to censor themselves.
6- Religion and politicization of religion is another aspect for building of obstacles in the transitional stage. So, how far the Islamic political parties are reasons for the backward situations in the eastern and Islamic societies?
The problem is not religion, the problem is religious intolerance. There are many "Islams" and many kinds of believers. An insistence that each citizen can live as he chooses is the guarantee of religious freedom for all.
So, the problem is not Islam, but rather demagogues and authoritarian leaders who try to use Islam as a way to get power over other people. This can only happen if voters allow it. Voters have to vote for leaders who vow to protect the freedom to practice Islam, not leaders who say they will impose one particular narrow view of Islam on everyone.
7- How success in the transitional stage is evaluated? And, what are the conditions that should be taking into consideration in deciding whether transitional stage is passed or not?
If people trust their police, and trust that judges will treat them fairly, and pay their taxes voluntarily, then democracy has begun.
If in addition the ruling party loses an election, and hands over power peacefully, then the transition is complete.
1- In the transitional stage, everything in the society is facing changes. So, we would like to ask you, how do you define post dictatorship transitional stage and what are the necessary steps required to be taken?
We have learned a lot about the problem of transition. The hardest problem is to reform the legal system, to ensure that judges, police, and public officials are fair in enforcing the law, and that the law applies equally to everyone.
Until this happens, the political transition cannot be fully effective, or complete. So the problem of the transitional stage is that the voters do not yet fully trust the government, or the police. And so they may not be willing to pay their taxes without close scrutiny. But that means that the government cannot pay the police, and judges, and so the system is always on the verge of running out of money.
Many scholars and professors in the U.S. have concluded that having a strong system of honest judges must come BEFORE a strong democracy.
2- As many experts think that transitional stage is not an easy step and takes many years. Is there any measurement to determine the end of the transitional stage?
In the U.S., it took a full decade, from 1791 through 1801. Even then, there were lots of problems. The key factor in proving the transition is complete is when an opposition party is able to run against the governing group, and win in a fair election. And then the defeated governing party hands over power voluntarily. Elections are "peaceful revolutions," where the outside group defeats the ruling group, and takes over the government, without war or bloodshed.
So, two things have to happen: 1. A free and fair election where the ruling party loses, and 2. A peaceful transition of power, accepted by all people (including the Army) as being legitimate.
3- The most important element in the transitional stage for building democracy is the political parties. Especially the countries which have been under dictatorship. So, the political parties to a certain extend are revolutionary not democratic. So, once the political parties need to be democratized first, how can they produce democracy?
Parties ARE revolutionary, yes. But democracy ensure peaceful revolutions. That is what elections are: peaceful revolutions. And parties are crucial for this. Imagine that there was to be a soccer match between "11 guys" and "Another 11 guys." No one cares about watching that. But if the "Party I Love" is going against the "Party I Don't Like", then I will go to the soccer match, or I will turn out for the election.
Experts on democracy nearly universally say that democracy is impossible without parties. Only parties can create a sense of connection with voters, and create a repuation that keeps government accountable, for success or failure.
4- Developing and implementation of economy market is another aspect of the transitional stage. But, many experts think that, transition from central economy to independent economy may result in corruption. So, how to avoid and prevent corruption in the transitional stage?
Again, the problem is fair judges and police. Also, having a market economy creates a middle class, a countervailing power that helps keep government accountable.
The problem faced by Iraq is that it has great oil wealth, and this wealth is a temptation for corruption. The oil wealth of the country means that politicians are tempted to promise cheap gas, and low taxes. Corruption results when people can make more money from misusing public office than they can from using private enterprise honestly. If a man starts a restaurant, he makes money by providing good food at low prices. If a man becomes a corrupt policeman, he makes money by stealing from drivers at checkpoints and by threatening people. Corruption is MUCH more likely in a planned economy, because people pay bribes to the center for favorable treatment.
5- Another important aspect of the transitional stage is the role of free mass media and intellectuals of the society. So, how far free mass media and intellectuals can play an effective role in the transitional stage?
The media and intellectuals must try to do two things. 1. Educate the public on the process of transition, and warn that it may take ten years, and 2. Report on corrupt practices, and violations of the law, even when it embarrasses the government. The problem is that the media cannot be truly "free" until it can carry out this function without fear of government reprisal and repression. This is the key to transition: when a newspaper or television person can write or say something critical of the government without fear. If there is fear, then the media, or intellectuals, cannot carry out their function. Even uncertainty about government response can have a "chilling effect," causing media and intellectuals to censor themselves.
6- Religion and politicization of religion is another aspect for building of obstacles in the transitional stage. So, how far the Islamic political parties are reasons for the backward situations in the eastern and Islamic societies?
The problem is not religion, the problem is religious intolerance. There are many "Islams" and many kinds of believers. An insistence that each citizen can live as he chooses is the guarantee of religious freedom for all.
So, the problem is not Islam, but rather demagogues and authoritarian leaders who try to use Islam as a way to get power over other people. This can only happen if voters allow it. Voters have to vote for leaders who vow to protect the freedom to practice Islam, not leaders who say they will impose one particular narrow view of Islam on everyone.
7- How success in the transitional stage is evaluated? And, what are the conditions that should be taking into consideration in deciding whether transitional stage is passed or not?
If people trust their police, and trust that judges will treat them fairly, and pay their taxes voluntarily, then democracy has begun.
If in addition the ruling party loses an election, and hands over power peacefully, then the transition is complete.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Lean on your Staff
A little piece on working with staff, in the CHE.
I was NOT good at this, at the beginning. And I'm still not, let's be honest. It's hard to do well.
This cartoon is all too accurate, I'm afraid...
But I wrote down the things I now know would make me, or anyone, a little better at figuring out how to work with a staff in an academic department.
I was NOT good at this, at the beginning. And I'm still not, let's be honest. It's hard to do well.
This cartoon is all too accurate, I'm afraid...
But I wrote down the things I now know would make me, or anyone, a little better at figuring out how to work with a staff in an academic department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)