The Latest from Cafe Hayek


Who’s (Ir)Responsible?

Posted: 27 Aug 2021 04:50 AM PDT

(Don Boudreaux)

Here’s a letter to a new correspondent:

Dr. L___:

You interpret my opposition to lockdowns and other government-imposed restrictions designed to combat Covid-19 as evidence that I’m “blind to responsibilities which we have to one another.”

Your interpretation is mistaken. Opposition to panic-driven, heavy-handed, one-size-and-style-fits-all, unprecedented government measures meant to protect people from Covid – measures imposed top-down and in contradiction to what was regarded until as recently as 2019 as the best advice of public-health officials – is opposition to the method, not the goal, of promoting public health. My opposition to lockdowns and government-imposed mask and vaccine mandates no more means that I am, as you accuse, “hostile to Covid victims” than does my opposition to minimum-wage legislation mean that I am hostile to low-wage workers.

Just as I believe that minimum wages are a counterproductive means, unleashing a host of unintended ill-consequences, of raising low-skilled workers’ incomes, I believe that lockdowns and other Covid mandates are counterproductive means, unleashing a host of unintended ill-consequences, of promoting public health. Perhaps I’m mistaken in one or both of these cases. But I assure you that my position in neither case signals any indifference on my part to human suffering, or any belief that each of us should be allowed to act irresponsibly toward the rest of us.

The truly irresponsible actors, in my view, are government officials who imposed lockdowns and other mandates. Anthony Fauci, for example, no doubt sincerely pursues the goal of minimizing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. But he does so irresponsibly – by which I mean that he does not, because he cannot, weigh the costs to you, to me, and to each of the hundreds of millions of other of our fellow citizens of being restricted according to his counsel. Dr. Fauci advises tirelessly, but he’s immune to most of the resulting consequences. Individuals who as a consequence of his advice lost their jobs, or who died because of delayed cancer diagnoses, or who watched their children sink into depression suffered directly from Dr. Fauci’s advice, yet he personally suffers from these consequences not at all.

My criticism isn’t so much of Dr. Fauci and other such government officials personally as it is of a system in which responsibility for decision-making is so easily seized from individual men and women, each with his or her own unique knowledge and circumstances, and replaced by commands issued by these officials. I understand – as do most people – that the coronavirus is a dangerous pathogen that’s contagious. But I also understand – as too many people seem to have forgotten – that government power is not only also dangerous, but also in its own manner highly contagious. As the economist Robert Higgs’s persuasively argues, each expansion of government power – especially when fueled by panic – nourishes itself. And as the state grows, individuals’ abilities truly to act responsibly toward each other withers. And thus is paved a path to hell.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Some Covid Links

Posted: 27 Aug 2021 03:05 AM PDT

(Don Boudreaux)

James Bovard explains that government power weaves no effective safety net that protects well against Covid. Three slices:

There is no “science” to justify prohibiting Australians from going more than 2 miles from their home. But New Zealand and Australia presume that no one will be safe unless government officials have jurisdiction over every breath that citizens take.

In the United States, many of the same pundits and activists who howled about the evils of “microaggressions” are now cheering for the government to forcibly inject everyone with a Covid vaccine. Biden publicly declared that he is checking to see if he has the power to force everyone to get injected.

…..

Politicians’ anti-Covid recommendations increasingly resemble frightened soldiers shooting at any noise they hear in the dark. NIH Director Francis Collins recently condemned the “epidemic of misinformation, disinformation, distrust that is tearing us apart.” But much of the misinformation has stemmed directly from the Biden administration’s flip-flops and fearmongering. On August 3, Collins announced during a CNN interview that “parents of unvaccinated kids should… wear masks” in their own homes. He conceded: “I know that’s uncomfortable, I know it seems weird, but it is the best way to protect your kids.” A few hours later, Collins recanted on Twitter, perhaps after other political appointees persuaded him to stop sounding like a blithering idiot.

…..

Faith in absolute power is not “science” – regardless of how many scientists pledge allegiance to Washington in return for federal funding. As historian John M. Barry, author of The Great Influenza, observed, “When you mix politics and science, you get politics.” There is no safety in submission to damn fools, regardless of their pompous titles.

The entire federal workforce is required to be vaccinated. So why is the federal bureaucracy still operating as if routine public interactions are a public health threat?” – a great question asked by Reason‘s Eric Boehm.

While I dislike el gato malo’s refusal to capitalize, he more than makes up for this distracting tic by consistently offering excellent insights. (HT Dan Klein) A slice:

sweden did very little to try to stop covid. they did not lock down, they did not wear masks, they closed few businesses, they left most schools open, undistanced, in person, and unmaksed.

many have endlessly screamed that “well look at the covid deaths! it was a disaster!” but here’s the thing: it wasn’t.

sweden has one of the most aggressive covid counting methodologies in the world. they tested a lot and then called any death for any reason within 30 days of a positive covid test a covid death.

get sick, recover, get hit by a bus? covid death

test positive, have no symptoms, die of a drug overdose? covid death.

die of cancer in hospital, test positive for trace covid? covid death.

you get the picture.

this definitional issue has made it very hard to compare to other places.

but even with this huge definitional issue, they outperformed the US, especially since last summer.

Meanwhile, in the once-free but now dystopian Gehenna that is Australia…. (HT Todd Zywicki)

Guy de la Bédoyère decries the disaster now unfolding in Australia. A slice:

The individual states are asserting their autonomy and doing so with ever more strident bio-authoritarian measures, some buying deeper into zero-Covid. The destruction of individual freedoms in Australia and the epic speed with which that has happened has no parallel in the modern world in a modern democratic state. Yes, I know these have been hitherto widely welcomed by Australians, but you’d have to be spectacularly naïve to think that such support will necessarily be sustained. In 1943, Germany was full of people who fanatically supported the Nazis. Two years later the country was full of people shaking their heads and wondering what on Earth they’d been thinking.

Reporting from the Covidocracy-run Australia is the Institute of Public Afffairs’s Gideon Rozner. Three slices:

Yes, everything you’ve heard about Australia and coronavirus is true.

Yes, the entire city of Greater Sydney has been in full lockdown since late June, at which time there were 82 cases in the entire state of New South Wales. Not 82 deaths, not 82 hospitalisations – 82 cases. At the time the latest lockdown was announced here in Melbourne, the total active case count was six. And no, the lockdowns aren’t working – cases are rising steadily in both states.

Yes, the premier of Victoria used a press conference to admonish people for watching the sunset on the beach and has put rules in place that mean you can take your mask off to sip your coffee but not your beer.

…..

Yes, police in Melbourne forced a hunger relief charity to shut its doors three hours early because they thought the traffic into the warehouse was creating a “risk to public safety”. Yes, this week a rural town council decided that a planned transfer of dogs from its animal shelter to another town wasn’t worth the potential health hazard and had the dogs shot instead.

Yes, we Australians know you don’t understand it. We don’t either, if we’re being honest with ourselves. But collectively, we can’t quite bring ourselves to say out loud what a growing number of us are thinking – that our de facto national goal of zero Covid is not only impossible, but that it is also destroying us.

…..

When Australia – thank goodness – made it through 2020 with the lowest per capita Covid deaths of almost any country in the developed world, our opportunistic political class took all the credit, and confected a kind of Australian Covid exceptionalism. For all the pain, inconvenience and misery of lockdowns, we had succeeded in keeping coronavirus out of the country. That’s how our leaders can keep a straight face as they persist with the political fiction that Australia is “the envy of the world” at a time when those overseas are increasingly looking to us as a cautionary tale.

I’m very pleased and proud – as reason for which this essay serves as evidence – that the faculty at GMU Econ now counts in its ranks Vincent Geloso. A slice:

Well, let’s take the data most frequently used on vaccination rates at the county level, which has been heavily publicized in outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post. For the sake of comparison, let’s use the dataset of Tom Pepinsky at Cornell University which has been assembled from multiple sources to properly match county vaccination rates with demographic data for these counties (his analysis is here). That data does indeed show that counties with larger Trump margins have lower vaccination rates. However, not all counties are the same. For example, Loving County (TX) voted 90% for Trump. It also has 64 people as of the 2020 census. Meanwhile, Los Angeles County (the most populous in America) voted 75% for Biden. Would we be crazy enough to say the vaccination rate in both places speak to the same thing? Few would!

The latest essay from Philippe Lemoine is titled “Why COVID-19 Is Here to Stay, and Why You Shouldn’t Worry About It.

Even the BBC, long a cheerleader for Covidocratic tyranny, is starting to admit that lockdowns’ collateral damages were not sufficiently taken into account. A slice:

A report by the National Children’s Bureau previously said that families of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) felt they were “forgotten” in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Many therapies and essential services they relied on were withdrawn and have not fully returned.

The NICCY report draws attention to the widespread suspension of services and their effect on children.

Many face-to-face services in early years, for children aged 0-3 and their families, were suspended.

Ross Clark reports on the new study out of Israel that finds that natural immunity against Covid-19 is stronger than vaccination.

Quotation of the Day…

Posted: 27 Aug 2021 01:30 AM PDT

(Don Boudreaux)

… is from page 59 of Richard Epstein’s brilliant 1995 book, Simple Rules for a Complex World:

The reason for the dominance of the autonomy principle is not any belief that people live in small social islands uninfluenced by and unconcerned with the interests and the behavior of others. It is that no other principle matches power with interests to the same degree.

DBx: Indeed. A legal regime that concentrates in me power over my person and possessions, and concentrates in you power over your person and possessions, much better ensures that everyone’s persons and possessions are used in socially beneficial ways than would a regime that concentrates in me power over your person and possessions and concentrates in you power over my person and possessions.

Infant-Industry Protection Infantalizes

Posted: 26 Aug 2021 07:54 AM PDT

(Don Boudreaux)

Bryan Caplan has a superb post at EconLog on (some of) the problems with the so-called “infant-industry” argument for protectionism. Do read it all.

One of the arguments (indeed, the chief argument) offered by proponents of infant-industry protection is that government-supplied protection from foreign competition will intensify the incentives of the owners and managers of the protected firms to improve their efficiency – to improve the quality of their outputs and to achieve maximum possible efficiencies in production and distribution. As Bryan points out, this argument is very weak.

Here’s a slightly expanded version of a comment that I added to Bryan’s post:

Bryan,

As usual, great post.

Here’s a mental experiment that I share with students in my International Economic Policy course when we get to the topic of infant-industry protection:

Suppose that I, as teacher of the course, were to tell each of you students that on each exam and paper that you submit for the course, I’ll raise the grade you earn by one letter grade. So a student who earns a C+ on a mid-term exam will be recorded in my Excel spreadsheet as having earned on that exam a B+. A student who earned a B on a paper will be recorded in my spreadsheet as having earned on that paper an A.

I explain that my grading policy is meant to encourage each student to study harder and, thus, to better learn the material. My reasoning is that a student who senses that he or she, with ordinary studying, is destined only to earn, say, a C- will feel that it’s not worthwhile to study harder if the likely result will be only a C or a C+. The improved outcome isn’t worth the effort. But if by studying harder this student understands that the C+ he thereby earns will be raised by me to a B+, the result suddenly does seem worth the effort.

What could be simpler?!

Even my students understand that, were I really to make such a promise to artificially raise their grades, the result would be less studying rather than more – and, hence, less learning rather than more. Similarly, of course, were government to use tariffs or other protective measures to artificially increase demand for certain firms’ outputs, the result would be less effort to improve output quality and productivity – and, hence, less economic growth in the country.