… is from this Facebook post by my former NYU professor Mario Rizzo:
It is too much to say that wealthy people have a moral obligation to flee high tax states. However, they do other taxpayers a favor by putting pressure of rapacious government to curtail its taxes and programs.
DBx. Yes indeed.
(The image is from this January 2020 essay by the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards.)
The post Bonus Quotation of the Day… appeared first on Cafe Hayek.
Art Carden describes “the tragedy of Paul Ehrlich.” A slice:
In the Malthus-Ehrlich view of the world, every new person is just a stomach and a pair of hands. Diminishing marginal returns means the hands can’t keep up, and disaster is inevitable. In [Julian] Simon’s view of the world, which I share with a great many economists and other commentators, each person is a stomach, a pair of hands, and a brain—a creative mind. That creative mind, according to Julian Simon, is the ultimate resource.
The New York Times called his predictions “premature.” The word they needed to use was “wrong.” His alarmist predictions informed fifty years of population and environmental policy, including China’s one-child policy and the demographic cliff we face as population growth slows and may eventually turn into decline. Ehrlich’s ideas had disastrous consequences, and the greatest tragedy of his passing is that he apparently died never having learned from a career of alarmism and sustained error. May his example and his memory serve as a warning to us all.
The administration has already used taxpayer dollars to buy equity stakes in other critical mineral companies, such as Trilogy Metals, Lithium Americas, MP Materials, Vulcan Elements, Korea Zinc and USA Rare Earth. It’s also entered into an agreement to take a 10 percent stake in Intel, the chip manufacturer, and secured a “golden share” of U.S. Steel while negotiating the acquisition of that company by Japan’s Nippon.
There may be a case for limited government intervention to guarantee the supply of certain inputs into products crucial for national security. But a better way to ensure that happens is reducing trade barriers with allies rather than allowing bureaucrats to bet on which firms might be successful.
These deals are especially problematic when the companies have business connections with administration officials or close allies of the president. Syrah, for example, is closely tied with Elon Musk’s Tesla. But they also distort the economy by boosting projects that might not make sense economically. And taxpayers will be left holding the bag if the company fails.
China’s control of critical minerals is a serious issue, but having Uncle Sam as a minority shareholder in a foreign mining operation won’t solve it. Getting out of the way of innovators, and allowing private money to flow more freely between friendly nations, would do more.
The Trump administration’s new biofuels bailout means higher US gas and food prices and worse environmental outcomes.
But at least farmers will get another $3-4B from the government.
Per Bylund reveals “the real lesson of the TSA walkout.”
The idea that the most powerful country the world has ever known is being puppeteered by a country the size of New Jersey — and by a group that collectively accounts for 0.2 percent of the world’s population — is an extraordinary claim. You would expect overwhelming evidence. In reality, there’s little to substantiate it.
Criticize America’s foreign and domestic policy as much as you want—there’s plenty to criticize. But don’t blame it on Israel or its supporters.
The centerpiece of this narrative is a historical claim: that Israel got the United States into the Iraq War. In reality, Israel’s prime minister came to the White House to caution President Bush against invading Iraq, warning that it would empower Iran, Israel’s real enemy. Bush listened politely, then ignored him and invaded anyway, because American presidents make their own choices, for good and for ill.
At the same time, the IDF chief of military intelligence said on TV in the fall of 2002 that Israel did not believe Saddam Hussein could obtain nuclear weapons, contradicting U.S. intelligence assessments. It’s hard to imagine a clearer discouragement. Again, the United States ignored this and proceeded for its own reasons.
…..
The United States maintains hundreds of military bases worldwide and spends vast sums sustaining its global presence. For example, the U.S. stations 30,000 American troops in South Korea and loses $3–4 billion every year because of its deployment there. But no one argues that an all-powerful South Korea lobby controls American foreign policy.
Glenn [Greenwald] tried to argue that the fact that we have troops deployed in South Korea makes the $4 billion a year we lose there a lesser commitment than the aid to Israel. But if the situation were reversed — if we had troops deployed in Tel Aviv and not Seoul — then he’d argue the opposite! Dave [Smith] and Glenn are always reasoning backward from their conclusion — they start from the premise that Israel controls us, and fill in the reasons afterward.
The post Some Links appeared first on Cafe Hayek.
… is from pages 78-79 of my late, great colleague Walter Williams’s 1995 volume, Do the Right Thing; specifically, it’s from Walter’s December 8th, 1994, column (for which I cannot find a link) “Leviathan Run Amok”:
Any catastrophe attracts vultures to feed off carcasses. In the case of regulations, it’s consultants, lawyers, and accountants. Businessmen know about business, but they know little about all the government mandates that can destroy their business. In come the vultures to advise and counsel them to the tune of thousands of dollars a day. Again, who pays? And again, it’s consumers and workers.
DBx: Were he still alive, Walter would today – March 31st, 2026 – celebrate his 90th birthday. Although he’s been gone now for more than five years, I still intensely miss his good humor, piercing insight, and unyielding principle.
He is pictured here on the evening in May 2017 when he was presented with the Bradley Prize.
The post Quotation of the Day… appeared first on Cafe Hayek.
… is from page 180 of Thomas Sowell’s 1983 book, The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective:
Unions are a major factor making labor markets noncompetitive. They have both direct and indirect effects on discrimination. Directly, they have at various times excluded various groups from membership – in the United States, the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, and blacks perhaps most pervasively of all. Some unions have limited entry to relatives of existing members. This, in effect, excluded members of other racial and ethnic groups.
The post Quotation of the Day… appeared first on Cafe Hayek.
“Crypto-Communist” is a word with a strong conspiratorial crackpot connotation. But it simply means “secret Communist,” and the history of the Cold War is packed with bona fide examples. Fidel Castro ruled Cuba for two years before he admitted he was a Communist. Ho Chi Minh joined the Comintern in 1920, but spent decades posing as a Vietnamese nationalist. Enver Hoxha, long-time dictator of Albania, similarly joined the Comintern in the early 1930s, but pretended to be a mere anti-fascist during World War II. Nelson Mandela wasn’t only a crypto-Communist; he was on the Politburo of the South African Communist Party since the early 1960s. Alger Hiss was merely the most infamous of the American crypto-Communists. The case of Juan Negrín, last prime minister of Republican Spain, is more controversial. But Burnett Bolloten, author of the magisterial The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution, deemed him a crypto-Communist, and I believe Bolloten.
Who cares if a successful politician is a crypto-Communist? Anyone with a hint of sense. Communism is a murderous totalitarian doctrine, and Communist governments largely practice what they preach. Furthermore, once Communists take over a government, getting rid of them is like pulling teeth.
Once you admit the notable prevalence and grave danger of crypto-Communist politicians during a particular era, there is a clear-cut contemporary implication: A notable share of current and would-be leaders who say they aren’t Communists are probably lying. If you’re living through this era, this raises a thorny question: “How do we identify the crypto-Communists before it’s too late?”
Needless to say, you can’t just publicly ask them, because they’ll lie. You could do a thorough background check, but the people who know the most are usually fellow Communists eager to protect their own. So you’re usually left with three admittedly imperfect heuristics.
Heuristic #1: Communist rhetoric. If you habitually voice the views of the Communist Party, it is reasonable to suspect that you’re a Communist. Remember, Communist Parties often strategically moderate their rhetoric, especially when they’re weak.
Heuristic #2: Communist policies. If you habitually push the policies of the Communist Party, it is reasonable to suspect you’re a Communist. Remember, Communist Parties often strategically moderate their policies, especially when they’re weak.
Heuristic #3: Communist ties. If you habitually ally with the Communist Party, or if you have an atypically high share of Communist friends, it is reasonable to suspect you’re a Communist. Remember: While apolitical people could easily have Communist ties by coincidence, ambitious people choose their ties more strategically.
When historians cover the Cold War, they routinely discuss cases where the U.S. supported the overthrow of a democratically elected leader who, in hindsight, definitely wasn’t a Communist. Iran’s Mossadegh, Guatemala’s Árbenz, Chile’s Allende, Congo’s Lumumba, and Indonesia’s Sukarno are the textbook examples.
I’m usually suspicious on both counts: How “democratic” were their elections really, and how confident should we be that the overthrown leaders weren’t crypto-Communists?
But even if we accept both premises, the key point is that it was hard to identify crypto-Communists at the time. Barring a definitive examination of Communist Party archives or damning testimony from Communist Party insiders, contemporary actors had to rely on my three heuristics: If he talks like a Communist, acts like a Communist, and fraternizes with Communists, there’s a good chance he is a Communist.
The crucial question then becomes: How high does the probability that a major national leader is a Communist have to be before drastic action is justified? Back in 2020, for example, I estimated Bernie Sanders’ probability of being a crypto-Communist at 15.8%. Which, to my mind, is disqualifyingly high. American checks and balances will protect you? Probably, but is that good enough?
If you delve deeper into the game theory, you discover the underlying logic of anti-Communist “paranoia.” Ambitious Communists hide their true identity because most people understandably don’t want to be ruled by Communists. This leads people to harshly punish the best predictors of Communist affiliation. Which in turn leads crypto-Communists to avoid displaying these predictors. Which makes any lingering predictors suspicious: Given strong incentives to avoid Communist rhetoric, policies, and ties, why don’t you scrupulously avoid Communist rhetoric, policies, and ties? If you answer, “Communist rhetoric, policies, and ties aren’t so bad; in fact, we have much to learn from them,” it’s time to sound the alarm.
Doesn’t the same logic hold for crypto-Nazis and crypto-fascists? Naturally. The main difference is that since World War II, both of these groups have had much lower quality human capital than Communists. This makes them less of a threat, and easier to depose. But the basic logic of “They won’t admit their true views, so we have to probabilistically infer their true views from their rhetoric, policies, and ties” is ironclad. And yes, the anonymity of the internet reveals that even in Western countries, full-blown Communists and fascists are not rounding errors (though neo-Nazis probably are).
The hardest fact for game theory to explain is that most members of these totalitarian sects aren’t crypto. Especially in a democracy, why admit to being something most people fear and hate? The best explanation, though, is easy: For followers, unlike leaders, politics is almost entirely expressive. The main reason they proclaim their allegiance to Communism or fascism isn’t to win, but to revel in the cruelty of politics.
Though Donald Trump will leave office after a new president is elected in 2028, his legacy will live on forever in the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library in Miami. The proposed library will feature an impressive lineup of exhibits, with some of them still being kept under wraps.
Log in
