Thatcher, the IRA, Gitmo, and Torture: Not the Same

An article by Peter Cuthbertson at TCSDaily discussing Margaret Thatcher's legacy, and whether Hillary Clinton can (or should, or really intends to) claim it, makes a decent point or two, but also engages in some fairly deplorable rhetorical sleight-of-hand, as does Thatcher herself, apparently. While I have mellowed a little on Ronald Reagan, I still don't think much of him, and it is at least in part because, as I have argued here before, he wasn't really a small government conservative. All talk and no walk. (Or two be more precise, he actually enlarged government, so it's really backwards walk.) Thatcher, on the other hand, actually did take on and reduce some of the sclerotic welfare state she inherited (and was widely reviled by the left for it, even more so than Reagan), and I believe probably does deserve some credit for rejuvenating the British economy. More significantly, I have come around to the view that the staunch moral stance that both leaders took against totalitarian communism was, in fact, both important and the right thing to do, and they are to be commended for it. I think they were, indeed, vindicated by history, although mainly because of Reagan and Gorbachev's historic Reykjavik summit and subsequent treaties, not because "they won" the cold war. (I think the continued pressure at the very end of the Soviet Empire helped push it over the cliff, but it was clearly the inherent flaws in its system, combined with the 40-something years of the Cold War, that really did it in, of course.)

But Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Cuthbertson really go beyond the pale when trying to equate Thatcher's strong anti-terrorism stance against the IRA with the current "war on terror." Cuthbertson admires Thatcher's strong stance against leniency or special treatment of IRA terrorists, and rightly so. But then, we fast forward to modern times and, as Cuthbertson writes:

In prosecuting the war on terror, she would make little time for those whose chief cause is to prevent the rendition of terrorist suspects or improve conditions in Guantanamo Bay. Instead, her response to court rulings favorable to terrorists has been the exhortation that "Conservatives everywhere must go on the counter-offensive against the New Left human rights brigade."

Well, gosh, I guess maybe the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and rendition of suspects to foreign governments really is just the same as Britain's treatment of IRA bombers… Except… something is tickling at the back of my mind, some nagging little detail… what was that? Oh yeah, now I remember-it's called the rule of law.

The IRA prisoners, with whom Thatcher refused to negotiate or show clemency, or to capitulate to when some (in)famously went on hunger strike, were all convicted criminals. They had been duly tried, convicted, and sentenced in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom. They were also incarcerated in actual prisons under humane conditions, in accordance with the law and modern standards of criminal justice. On the other hand, the Guantanamo detainees have persisted in a legal nether-world, their status invisible, and their jailers unaccountable to anyone outside of the direct chain of command back to the White House. Yes, of course all freedom- and life-loving people want terrorists locked up or dead, but how do we know they're terrorists? Because Dick Cheney says so? Why have most of the Guantanamo detainees been quietly released since the administration was told (by the Supreme Court, not some "liberal" human rights groups) that it had to actually take steps to prove that the detainees are actually guilty? The questions answer themselves. And as for "rendition," i.e. the outsourcing of torture to unscrupulous foreign governments, one would hope such a practice would be considered despicable in its own right, but the fact that completely innocent people have been tortured at our behest should shame even the most hard-core Bush defender. Should, but apparently doesn't. Disgusting. It shames me as an American, even though I didn't vote for Bush.

It seems like those who support this illegal behavior must be taking the old saw "break some eggs to make an omelet" to heart. While this expression apparently did not originate with Stalin, it is widely attributed to him, and rightly so, I'd say. I reject the hyperbolic rhetorical overreach of saying that Bush is "just as bad" as bin Laden, or the more general version that the U.S. is "just as bad" as the terrorists. I also don't have any particular problem with Bush's (in)famous use of the term "evildoers." But I do think that when we torture, solicit torture, and trash our proud heritage of freedom AND the rule of law--truly the envy of the world, or at least it used to be--by disregarding the Constitution, then at some point that "evildoers" finger does begin to turn back at us.

Gross Errors

I think Daniel Gross does a generally good job discussing economics in the Moneybox column over at Slate, but his recent two-part (so far) series on the labor market and immigration misses the mark, I think. While not an anti-immigrant stance per se, that is clearly the net result of his analysis, although he at least officially blames business owners and/or managers for the "problem" that he sees. In answer to the "we can't find Americans to do these jobs" argument, he trots out a standard dismissal: just pay more! Gosh, why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Just pay more and Americans will do the work!

Does the word "inflation" ring a bell? While Gross wants to attribute the problem to greed by business owners and managers, or perhaps stinginess on the part of the customers of these businesses, he loses sight of one of the basic concepts of economics (or is deliberately ignoring it). If the price goes up for the exact same thing, that's inflation. Doesn't matter if it's milk, eggs, or labor. The price of labor will work its way through the economy and less stuff gets produced and consumed. No free lunch, folks!

Consider landscaping, a business I know a little bit about. To be sure, if landscapers raised their wages they are paying for labor dramatically, they surely could find some price point at which Americans will be enticed away from other work, or out of comfortable non-work (but since we continue to have low unemployment and high workforce participation, as Gross points out, there's not a whole lot of non-working slack), but there is only so much profit margin in any business. Most landscapers I know aren't fat cats eating truffles on their yachts. To stay in business, they will have to raise prices to their customers. Now, surely there may be a few people in the market for landscaping who aren't price sensitive. The real fat cats are going to get their landscaping, if that's what they want. But the rest of us non-fat cats are sensitive to little things like price. So, raise the price of landscaping and what happens? People buy less of it. People may buy the plants and do it themselves. (Or go down to Home Depot and pick up some Mexicans! ;-) Or do without.

And there's the rub! That is real work that doesn't get done, and therefore real wealth that doesn't get created. So you can say that we just have to raise wages, but that doesn't really create wealth, it actually does the opposite.

No. Free. Lunch.

The Nutrition Nannys March On

As the drums of the food police beat on, the Reason website remains an island of sanity. Be prepared to fight for you cheeseburgers, or cheese doodles, or whatever gustatory indulgences you prefer. Please note how Dr. Lustig explicitly advocates government intervention and "de-emphasis of the concept of personal responsibility." This is, of course, necessary to protect--wait for it--the children. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children! They ARE coming to save you from yourself, and if you prefer not to be treated as a helpless child, be prepared to speak up!

Friedman Liked Divided Government Too

An enjoyable survey at Reason of various libertarian types and their take on whether the coming era of divided government will be good for the country and/or libertarian ideals. The part that caught my eye and prompted a post was a tasty tidbit, where Carolyn Lochhead quotes Milton Friedman as telling her "There's no question, if we're holding down spending, a Democratic president and a Republican House and Senate is the proper combination."

So, while teased posthumously in this space for a (I allege) foolish allegiance to the GOP, it does seem that Uncle Miltie saw the light later in life. Good for him. Now if we can only return to the halcyon days of the 90's, when a brilliant philanderer and a hypocritical bomb-thrower inadvertently collaborated to restrain the growth rate of government, just enough to make a real difference! Oh yeah, there were also a couple of modest tax hikes under Daddy Bush and Clinton, that either actually raised revenue, or at least did not inhibit economic growth all that much, so that the economy grew faster than the government, for a while. Again, I say, so much for "starve the beast". Divide the beast, maybe, but the starving just doesn't work!

Popular Economics - Mini Book Reviews Part II: The Undercover Economist

In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford offers pellucid discussions of many important concepts. The style is lively and engaging, but he does not shy away from tackling some of the big problems facing society (and its economists), and I saw little evidence of an ideological ax to grind. That is, while he might be a bit (or a lot) more taken with the power of markets as a force for good than your average leftist, this is to be expected from most modern economists, and he also takes an honest, thoughtful look at the places where markets break down.

In a chapter ("Crosstown Traffic") dealing with externalities, when he snarkily tells an earnest young environmentalist (could easily have been someone like me, once upon a time) that he traveled to the meeting by anthracite-powered steamship from Australia, I'm sure I chuckled aloud. Admittedly, it was a snotty way to make a point, but a point well worth making: moral posturing has very little to do with actually solving problems. And although the case has been made many times, by many eloquent spokespersons, that economic development and environmental progress are not contradictory but complementary, we can always use another voice making the case intelligently. Because, unfortunately, too many partisans of the left and the right still haven't gotten the message--or won't acknowledge it, for political purposes.

I would heartily recommend this book as an introduction to economics. While it actually deals with a wide-ranging array of topics including environmental issues, income inequality, trade, and macroeconomic growth, Harford manages to make even the mundane microeconomic discussions (he opens with purchasing a cup of coffee) lively and engaging, as opposed to the deathly dry nature of most economics textbooks I have picked up. It's probably as good as you can get without getting significantly into the math. (Math is good! I'm all in favor of it, but perhaps the average reader, even an intelligent one, doesn't pick up a book expecting to manipulate variables for entertainment...)

Popular Economics - Mini Book Reviews Part I: Freakonomics

I've read three economics books for the general reader in the past year and a half or so. While I've enjoyed all three, I thought I'd pass on slightly more specific thoughts and recommendations. The three titles are Freakonomics, The Undercover Economist, and The Origin of Wealth. I'll give my mini-reviews in (at least) three installments, in ascending order of my ranking/relative enjoyment.

Freakonomics, I believe, sold the most copies and received the most buzz by a wide margin. Enjoyable, but still my least favorite of the three. At least a couple of people close to me were decidedly unimpressed with the methodology used to make some of the more controversial claims. In particular, the result linking legalized abortion to the drop in crime seems to set a lot of folks' teeth on edge. I cannot speak with much authority on the methodology, perhaps my anonymous economist buddy will chime in sometime. It does seem like multivariate regression analysis is tricky business. On the one hand, these economists (Levitt, et al.) do seem to do their homework. They go out of their way to acknowledge that correlation does not prove causation, but then attempt to show that other plausible explanations don't show the same correlations. After a while the case seems to build and at least approach convincing, at least to a layman such as myself.

I guess the main caveat I'd throw out is that I am still dubious about much (most) of the methodology of the social and behavioral sciences. Proving things about human behavior still seems like an immensely daunting and complicated task, and I'm not convinced that any manageable set of data points is up to it, at least yet. In the specific example, sure they weave an impressive tale about how all the other variables they can think of (and have data for!) do not account for (all of) the drop in the crime rate. But what about something they haven't thought of or do not have data for? There are so many possible variables--human brains and social constructs are just so vastly complex! I suppose in some scenarios, you can try to account for this sort of thing with an "everything else" bucket, which would include all the things currently unspecified, but that seems like a dubious technique. Reminds me of the unrealistic assumptions about perfect information and perfect "rationality" in classical economic theory (but more on that when we get to The Origin of Wealth) . My two bit, armchair amateur critique.