Postlibertarians argue lockdowns not so bad

Two former libertarians, Tyler Cowen of the Mercatus Center and Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center, argue in recent articles that the harms attributed to lockdowns are really caused by voluntary social distancing.

A Dangerous Libertarian Strategy for Herd Immunity | Bloomberg - Tyler Cowen:

October 15, 2020 - "It would be bad enough if the Great Barrington Declaration ... was simply misguided. But the statement, which now has more than 9,000 signatories, represents a potentially dangerous way of thinking — about not only pandemics but also human nature.... It strikes exactly the wrong tone and stresses exactly the wrong points....

"The declaration also sets up a false dichotomy by comparing its policy proposals to lockdowns. The claim is this: 'Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.' The health problems are very real, but in most of the U.S., the lockdowns are not severe. In my home state of Virginia, there are relatively few commercial activities I cannot partake in, were I so inclined. I even can go see a live bluegrass concert in a nightclub (I won’t, not yet). The problem is that most people don’t want to go out to such concerts, and indeed probably should not. It is this self-enforced isolation, not a government order, which screws us up, sometimes creating mental and other health problems.

"Whatever you think of the stricter policies of last spring, they are now behind us, and the emphasis on 'lockdowns' is not helpful. The more useful question is whether the list of prohibited activities should be expanded or contracted. In some cases, surely, it should be expanded.... Even if you disagree with that judgment, the critics who emphasize lockdowns are setting up a straw man.... The truth is that lockdowns are extremely unpopular, and while they may have to be reimposed in extreme circumstances, they are not the main alternative on the table in the U.S. right now."

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-15/great-barrington-declaration-is-wrong-about-herd-immunity

The Useful Libertarian Idiocy of The Great Barrington Declaration | Will Wilkinson - Niskanen Centre: 

October 27, 2020 - "Tyler Cowen has written a persuasive and quietly devastating analysis of the Declaration’s many non-medical shortcomings at Bloomberg Opinion. If you haven’t read it, please do. Cowen, who has been either libertarian or libertarian-adjacent his entire life, recognizes that these errors reflect AIER’s rigid libertarian outlook.... 'The Great Barrington strategy is a tempting one. Coming out of a libertarian think tank, it tries to procure maximum liberty for commerce and daily life. It is a seductive idea. Yet consistency of message is not an unalloyed good, even when the subject is liberty'.... This is, to my mind, exceedingly gentle. “[C]onsistency of message is not an unalloyed good, even when the subject is liberty,” is a generous way to say that purist ideology is a mind-warping reality-distortion field. I entirely concur with Cowen’s piece, but I think it’s worth drawing out further how the Declaration’s errors showcase some of libertarianism’s signature defects....

"Nobody is going to do this. What’s even the idea here? That a governor or mayor or city council will one day announce that it is now officially a Great Barrington 'focused protection' jurisdiction and everyone will just shout 'Hurrah!' and sprint to the nearest massage parlor or high step it to the hoe down[?]...  [V]ery few of us are willing to simply allow the virus to cull the weak. Which is why next to nobody’s going to try the Great Barrington strategy. And if somebody does try it, it obviously can’t work.... 

"I’m no angel, but it’s nevertheless important to me, as a matter of elementary moral duty, to avoid becoming a link in a chain of viral transmission that could kill somebody. But even if you’re completely bereft of any sense of responsibility for the lives and welfare of others, it remains that there are plenty of selfish reasons to steer clear of the maskless rager over at the Sig Ep house (an unfortunate reality here in Iowa City.).... So mere personal prudence is enough to lead many of us to decline invitations to weddings, retire our gym memberships, and eschew dine-in restaurants. It’s enough to keep managers and business owners from calling their workers back to the office. Now add a functioning moral compass to mix. In that case, a moderate level of entirely voluntary self-isolation and avoidance of un-distanced and/or mask-free social situations becomes practically inevitable. 

"Here in Iowa, we’ve never had an official lockdown, and we’ve had very, very few restrictions of any kind. Nobody’s stopping anybody from going to the movies, but nobody goes to the movies. Restaurants are open, but there aren’t many people in them.... It’s hard to tell the practical difference between the Great Barrington approach and Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds’ active hostility to city-level restrictions, mask mandates, and remote schooling. Yet it’s completely obvious, if you live here, that this approach hasn’t put us any nearer to 'normal'.... 

"The governor’s aggressively laissez faire approach has delivered some of the country’s highest infection rates, but with very few mitigating economic benefits. I recently visited Massachusetts, which has responded to the pandemic far more aggressively and competently than Iowa has. It now has one of the lowest infection rates in the country, which is why economic and social life there was notably more active and normal than it is here in plague-ridden, anything-goes Iowa....

[As of October 31, 'plague-ridden Iowa' reported 127,966 official cases (93,200 recovered) and 1,716 deaths (544/million), while Massachusetts reported 158,576 cases (127,054 recovered) and 9,991 deaths (1,450/M).  - gd] 

"Casselman and Tankersley sum it up well: 'A growing body of research has concluded that the steep drop in economic activity last spring was primarily a result of individual decisions by consumers and businesses rather than legal mandates. People stopped going to restaurants even before governors ordered them shut down. Airports emptied out even though there were never significant restrictions on domestic air travel.'"

Read more: https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-useful-libertarian-idiocy-of-the-great-barrington-declaration/

Green New Deal could cost over $90 Trillion

Study: Green New Deal Could Cost More Than $90 Trillion – Reason.com - Joe Seyton:

February 25, 2019 - "The Green New Deal — a brainchild of progressive Democrats... — has been controversial since it was released....  How much would it cost? At least $50 trillion and possibly in excess of $90 trillion, according to a report released ... by the American Action Forum (AAF).

"The AAF, a center-right think tank that focuses on economic issues, projected costs for six aspects of the Green New Deal: reworking the electricity grid in an environmentally friendly manner, revamping the nation's transportation network to reduce transmissions, and its guarantees of well-paying jobs, universal health care, affordable housing, and food security for each person in the U.S.

"One of the Green New Deal's goals is to meet '100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources' in the next 10 years. Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in this area would cost at least $5.4 trillion by 2029, the AAF says — not including another $387 billion per year for things like operations and maintenance.... [T]otal electricity costs would go up by 22 percent for consumers, the AAF says. Residential customers, who paid an average of $111.67 per month in 2017, would pay an average of about $300 more per year for electricity.

"The Green New Deal also proposes 'overhauling transportation systems ... to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible.' The AAF's estimate of the cost for this proposal assumes that high-speed trains would replace air travel.... Doing so would cost between $1.3 trillion and $2.7 trillion, the AAF estimates....

"The Green New Deal's jobs guarantee would also cost a considerable amount. The AAF based its estimates here on a 2018 report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that reaching full employment would involve putting roughly 10.7 million unemployed or underemployed people to work [which] would cost a total of $543 billion.... The AAF updated some of those numbers with 2019 data, and found that a federal jobs guarantee would cost $547 billion in 2019, and $6.762 trillion from 2020 to [2029].. Both of those numbers would rise if, with a guaranteed job waiting for them, many of those who aren't currently looking for work decide to join the labor force....

"The report also estimates that providing universal health care 'will cost roughly $36 trillion between 2020 and 2029.' The AAF simply built off a 2016 estimate of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I–Vt.) Medicare for All Plan, which the Center for Health and Economy said would cost $34.67 trillion over 10 years. It's likely an accurate projection, roughly in line with a July 2018 Mercatus Center report, which said Medicare for All would cost the federal government more than $32 trillion over 10 years.

"The fifth aspect of the Green New Deal that AAF addresses is its guarantee of 'affordable, safe, and adequate housing." Simply housing the homeless could cost under $12 billion, AAF estimates.... But the Green New Deal also calls for 'upgrading all existing buildings ... to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.' Applying such costs to all housing units ... yields a potential cost of $1.6 trillion to nearly $4.2 trillion."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/02/25/study-green-new-deal-could-cost-more-tha/

'via Blog this'

Libertarians call for spending as well as tax cuts

LP.org: Trump’s ‘major’ tax overhaul a major disappointment | Independent Political Report:

September 5, 2017 - 'President Trump’s proposal for a major tax overhaul addresses only one half of America’s economic problems,' said Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark. 'Trump’s proposal to cut the federal corporate income tax from 35 percent to 15 percent is merely a first step. American corporate taxes are substantially higher than those of most other industrialized nations. That incentivizes American corporations to stash cash from foreign earnings overseas, rather than bring it back to be spent or invested in the United States. Any tax cut is a good thing, but a tax cut without a corresponding federal spending cut is essentially meaningless to average Americans.'

"Referring to research by Mercatus Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy, Sarwark pointed out that '43 percent of federal spending is borrowed. Nearly 70 percent of federal spending is in so-called mandatory spending (Social Security and other pensions, health care, interest on the debt, and various income transfer programs). That means the government is already borrowing before it even thinks about discretionary spending (defense, courts, regulatory agencies, roads, etc.). That’s all borrowed money.

"Sarwark continued, 'Whether the federal government borrows the money it spends or extracts it from the people through taxation makes little difference. In either case, it is money that is no longer available to be spent or voluntarily invested in the economy. Instead, it is spent far less productively, on wars, counterproductive bureaucracies, and the transfer of earnings from people who work to those who don’t'....

"The Libertarian solution is to eliminate the 43 percent of federal spending that is borrowed, with these common-sense, simple measures: limit defense spending to defense, eliminate counterproductive regulatory bureaucracies, and phase the government out of the health care and pension businesses. Then cut spending even more, with corresponding cuts in taxes.

"Americans spend more on federal, state, and local taxes than they do on food and clothing combined, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released last week. People get their money’s worth in food and clothing. They don’t get it in government services."

Read more: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/09/lp-org-trumps-major-tax-overhaul-a-major-disappointment/
'via Blog this'

5 great books on politics and policy from 2016

5 Great Books on Politics and Public Policy from 2016 | Competitive Enterprise Institute - Richard Morrison:

December 21, 2016 - "A lot of interesting books on politics, economics, and public policy were published over the last twelve months. It can be difficult, though, finding the gems among the extremely large number of books about public affairs that hit bookstore (and Amazon warehouse) shelves each year. For every volume as eagerly anticipated as Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Equality, engaged readers must sift past a dozen volumes of hot-take pop commentary like Thomas Friedman’s Thank You for Being Late. That said, here are a few new titles that caught our attention at CEI in 2016.

"The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech by Kimberley Strassel. Reviewed ... by Fred L. Smith, Jr.... 'A skilled investigative journalist, Strassel documents the extensive efforts to suppress political opposition, intimidate dissidents, and weaken the First Amendment. Strassel notes that attacks on speech — and defenders of it — have come from both parties.... Readers will gain clarity, but little comfort, from her chronicle of culture and politics conspiring to weaken free speech.'

"Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future by Johan Norberg, summarized here by Ryan Young.... 'Norberg is a Swedish economist and political commentator who ... updates CEI hero Julian Simon’s work showing why the world is getting better, not worse.... Norberg remains pessimistic about a scare-obsessed media’s ability to accurately report on the human condition. But the facts on the ground give him no choice but to be optimistic about humanity’s future, from declining disease rates to rising life expectancies to mass prosperity finally reaching the developing world'....

"Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction by Lawrence W. Reed. Reviewed by Kent Lassman.... 'Reed brings to life dozens of stories where high character animates courage and triumph. Reed has mastered the maxim that people think analytically but learn analogically. He carefully makes the case that we need real heroes and they can be found all around, if we are willing to see them.'

"Rivalry and Central Planning by Don Lavoie. Summarized here by Ryan Young.... 'Lavoie played a major role in building up George Mason University’s economics department before he passed away in 2001. The Mercatus Center’s new reissue of his 1985 book ... remains relevant to today’s debate between spontaneous orders versus central planning....

"I also include my own review, for Cato Journal, of Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests by Jason Brennan and Peter M. Jaworski ... released in 2015, but the review was published this year.... 'The authors do a good job of separating incidental objections from the fundamental moral questions at the heart of the anticommodification debate.... Their primary question is whether there are things that categorically cannot be legitimately bought and sold.... For example, Brennan and Jaworski engage in fascinating discussions on whether public betting on the likelihood of future terrorist attacks should be legal, as well as on more well-trod debate topics like legalizing sex work and the moral status of surrogate motherhood.'"

Read more: https://cei.org/blog/5-great-books-politics-and-public-policy-2016
'via Blog this'