Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Many of those in the so-called “helping professions” are helping people to be irresponsible and dependent on others.
The old adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish has been updated by a reader: Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and french fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his “basic rights.”
Thanksgiving may be our most old-fashioned holiday. Gratitude itself seems out of date at a time when so many people feel “entitled” to whatever they get – and indignant that they didn’t get more.
Envy plus rhetoric equals “social justice.”
No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: “But what would you replace it with?” When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?
While it is true that you learn with age, the down side is that what you learn is often what a damn fool you were before.
It is amazing how many people seem to think that the government exists to turn their prejudices into laws.
Much of what are called “social problems” consists of the fact that intellectuals have theories that do not fit the real world. From this they conclude that it is the real world which is wrong and needs changing.
A recently reprinted memoir by Frederick Douglass has footnotes explaining what words like “arraigned,” “curried” and “exculpate” meant, and explaining who Job was. In other words, this man who was born a slave and never went to school educated himself to the point where his words now have to be explained to today’s expensively under-educated generation.
We seem to be getting closer and closer to a situation where nobody is responsible for what they did but we are all responsible for what somebody else did.
Tag Archives: Thomas Sowell
The opposite of the results-oriented judge is the judge who will rule in favor of litigants that the judge may personally despise, if the law is on that side in that case. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, for example, voted in favor of Benjamin Gitlow in the 1925 case of Gitlow v. New York – and then said afterwards, in a letter to Harold Laski, that he had just voted for “the right of an ass to drool about proletarian dictatorship.” Likewise, Holmes dissented in Abrams v. United States in favor of appellants whose views he characterized in his judicial opinion itself as “a creed that I believe to be the creed of ignorance and immaturity.” As he told Laski, “I loathed most of the things in favor of which I decided.” Conversely, he could rule against litigants he personally viewed favorably. In another letter to Laski, Holmes said that he hadd to “write a decision against a very thorough and really well expressed argument by two colored men – one bery black – that even in intonations was better than, I should say, the majority of white discourses that we hear.” Holmes was not taking sides or seeking “results,” but applying the law.
-From The Thomas Sowell Reader
Tom Sowell discusses his latest book, The Thomas Sowell Reader, a collection of some of his better and more lasting writings over the years.
Here Sowell discusses inequality, Barack Obama, his young years as a Marxist (Sowell’s not Obama’s), Ronald Reagan, OWS…
Thomas Sowell offers some new random thoughts:
Have you ever heard anyone as incoherent as the people staging protests across the country? Taxpayers ought to be protesting against having their money spent to educate people who end up unable to say anything beyond repeating political catch phrases.
There are a few other gems in the column on everything from food stamps and welfare to political “solutions” and Republican debates.
When an industry in the private sector is not performing efficiently or effectively, there is said to be “market failure”. The recommendation by economists and others typically is then for government actions to combat such failure, such as taxes to help reduce pollution. The diagnosis of market failure may be accurate, but the call for government involvement may be naïve and inappropriate.
The reason is that actual governments do not necessarily do what economists and others want them to do because there is “government failure” as well as market failure. Before recommending government actions to correct market failures, one should consider whether actual government policies would worsen rather than improve private sector outcomes. Since many factors often make for considerable government failure, considering such failure is crucial and not just a theoretical fine point.
Those on the Left often call for government intervention in the private sector at the first sign of imperfections. Such imperfections are not limited to the more highly visible examples of millions of people without health insurance or severe environmental damage. I have friends who want the government to most actively regulate the cell phone industry because they think the services are better in Europe. That our phones have improved tremendously over the years – compare your Droid or iPhone to your first cell phone from 10 or 12 years ago, for instance – as have the coverage and plans, is insufficient. It is imperfect, thus can improve. The default measure is regulation. It will sometimes – no, often – make the situation worse, but that only means the regulation needs to be adjusted or the regulators replaced with more competent professionals. Imperfections in the regulation are worth tolerating because they done are in pursuit of improvements, not profits.
Government actions sometimes not only fail to overcome market failure but rather worsen the failure. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were formed as quasi-governmental institutions to help encourage mortgages in the residential housing market because of a belief that the private sector was not providing enough mortgages, especially to lower income families. Yet, as documented in detail in Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner, these two companies used their privileged positions to take excessive risks, and to insure large numbers of mortgage loans that should never have been made.
More damage was done by Fannie and Freddie, of whom the government has more control and information than it does of any private sector company – than all the reported private sector monopolies (Microsoft, Google, General Electric, Intel, etc.) combined. The problem wasn’t the regulation itself, of course, but rather the lack of it.
Hardly. The problem is often in the regulation itself. Regulators distort markets and create costs to be paid by others. They also create unintended consequences for which they are not responsible. The market is like a mobile, where movement on one side creates unpredictable and uncontrollable movement in the others. Market distortions are not easily contained, and we are foolish to think we can manipulate an industry as easily as we do computer code. The market, in its nature the cumulative result of millions of individual decisions, will almost always respond to a problem with more efficiency and information than the government can. Such understanding is what led economist Thomas Sowell from Marxism to capitalism.
Becker also offers his thoughts on how to decide if and when the government should intervene and regulate.
How does one approach policy once it is recognized that government failure is substantial, and often much worse than market failure? As a general rule I believe the presumption should be in favor of government actions only when market failures are quite large and persistent. So clearly governments should have the dominant role in the military and police areas, in the judiciary, in protecting against massive pollution, and in providing a safety net for its least fortunate members (private charities are important but do not do enough). On the other hand, when market failures are relatively small and likely to be temporary, as in monopoly situations or in exploiting consumer ignorance, government involvement should be minimal, as in minimalist anti-trust policies, and in allowing consumers generally to make their own decisions.
The intermediate cases are the most difficult: when market failures may be significant, and yet government alternatives are not attractive. This may be decided on a case-by-case basis, but I believe the usual rule should then be to let the market operate. This belief is based on the conclusion that, on the whole, government failure is far more pervasive, damaging, and less self-correcting, than is market failure. Others may reach different conclusions, but these are the problems that a relevant welfare analysis should focus on. Simply concluding that in particular instances markets are not working perfectly is a misleading and incorrect basis for supporting active and sizable government involvement.