Sixteen years ago I wrote about problems with the U.S. Social Security System. The system promises a given pension upon retirement (a defined benefit) that is financed by a given payroll tax. It is not a pool of saving that is drown down at retirement. It is pay as you go. https://wcoats.blog/2008/08/28/saving-social-security/
When Franklin Roosevelt established it, average life time after retirement was only about two years. Today life expectancy in the US is 79 years, or 14 years of retirement pension payments for those retiring at age 65. This fact, plus the declining population growth rate, means that the workers being taxed to pay for the currently retired are shrinking relative to those already retired and receiving benefits. The worker to beneficiary ratio of 3.3 in 2005 is projected to fall to 2.1 in 2040. At that point wage taxes will not be enough to cover the current benefits promised at that time.
Various proposals have been made to address this problem. The wage tax could be increased. Retirement age could be increased (20% voluntarily work after retirement already). As people live longer many choose to work longer for more than just the extra income. Pension benefits could be indexed to inflation rather than to wage growth (which has been greater than inflation). But more recently I have proposed replacing Social Security and other safety net programs with a Universal Basic Income for every man, woman and child without exception. Such a remake of our social safety net would have a number of very good features. https://wcoats.blog/2020/08/20/replacing-social-security-with-a-universal-basic-income/
Views on abortion have always been difficult to reconcile. Under our constitution, anyone born here is a citizen and has all of the rights of all other citizens. But when does a human fetus or embryo become a person with such rights? The question can be most challenging when the rights of two people—the mother and the fetus—conflict. My own view is that a fetus obtains the status of person with the right to protection, when it is viable, i.e., capable of living when removed from the womb.
The recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that an embryo is a person that must enjoy the protections of the law, moves the goal post to a whole new level. Dr. Ito Briones (MD, Ph.D) argues that, if that is true and applied into practical terms, then women will be subject to a whole new level of restrictions on their behavior in the interest of the unborn person. His interesting observations follow:
The recent ruling by the Alabama supreme court to equate the embryo as a person started when embryos frozen in tubes were accidentally destroyed in a fertility clinic. The parents sued the clinic based on Alabama’s law of “wrongful death of a minor’s act”. The lower courts said that this law does not apply but the Alabama Supreme Court overturned that decision. And so here we are.
As a practical consequence of this ruling, IVF clinics in Alabama have expectedly suspended treatments. There are already numerous outlets online and in the news that discuss this topic and so I will not discuss this here anymore. Unfortunately, there are also other unintended consequences from this decision that might turn the mundane day to day life of a woman into a dystopian mess.
Here are other issues that may need to be considered because of this ruling.
Is a restaurant owner liable for serving alcohol to a pregnant woman even if she didn’t know she was pregnant and does not inform the establishment? Presently, restaurants and stores can be held legally liable if they serve or sell alcohol to minors. The liability is valid even if they were not aware of the age status of the patron. To solve this issue, restaurants ask for an ID to confirm age. Does this mean women should also be required to show a negative pregnancy test before being served any alcohol?
Coffee has been scientifically proven to be harmful to the embryo. Do women also have to show a negative pregnancy test before being served coffee? Caffeine is the main culprit in harming embryos and caffeine is also present in tea, chocolate, soft drinks and other foodstuff. Should the government limit the sale of these items to women?
How about pregnant women who have breast cancer or any cancer? Can they get treatment even if it will most probably harm if not kill the embryo?
Before this ruling, a medical case of a pregnant woman with cancer will involve an intimate discussion with the woman, her husband and family, and the doctor. Because of this ruling, the government and law enforcement will have to join the already hypersensitive and impossible dilemma that she will face.
Additionally, any medical treatment on a pregnant woman will have to be reviewed by lawyers to make sure that the embryo’s rights are taken into consideration.
Medical studies have shown that stress on pregnant women may harm the embryo. Stress can induce sleepless nights, hypertension, loss of appetite or a tendency to overeat, headaches, etc.
Can pregnant women (at any trimester including the first) work as nurses (exposing the embryo/child to harm) or police officers? Should women in these jobs show a monthly negative pregnancy test while at work?
Driving can be very stressful for the woman. Can pregnant women drive?
Do women have to show a negative pregnancy test while enrolled in college?
By the way, is every miscarriage going to be handled as a possible homicide?
If I have any recommendation about this ruling it is that one should invest in pregnancy test kits soon. The stock value of these tests in the market will surely skyrocket.
It depends of course. But in America, which was established to empower each individual to make their own decisions, the state should only regulate those individual activities that might harm others such as violating property rights. This attitude presumes that each of us cares more about our wellbeing than does anyone else and know better how to achieve it taking account of our differences in tastes, interests, and risk preferences. It has resulted in a society of more prosperous and happier members.
This can be contrasted with the view that the average person is not intelligent enough or self-motivated enough to maximize their potential and needs to be guided by smarter, wiser people.
A society in which each individual enjoys the maximum freedom of choice hardly means that the government has little or no role in our wellbeing. In addition to providing public safety, shared institutional and physical infrastructure development, and the adjudication and enforcement of contracts (the rule of law), government can contribute to the provision of the knowledge to help inform the individual choices we each make. I want to review two very different areas of government involvement that have reflected the above conflicting attitudes of the government’s best role—monetary policy and public health policy.
Section 8 of the US Constitution gives the federal government the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,…” Our twelve Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System carry out that mandate via a system of market determined prices of goods and services and an inflation target of 2%. While I would prefer a monetary policy in which currency was issued or redeemed at a fix price for a hard anchor (traditionally gold) in response to market demand (currency board rules), the Fed has behaved very well within its inflation targeting regime over the past two years (after keeping its policy interest rate too low until two years ago).
A successful inflation targeting policy requires keeping inflation expectations anchored to the target (2% in the US) so that economic wage and price decisions are made in light of that expectation. But todays’ policy actions are only fully felt over the next year or two (what Milton Friedman called “long and variable lags” in the effects of policy). Federal Reserve policy is implemented largely by setting the rate at which it supplies the money it creates to the market. If it sets that rate below the so called neutral rate, it must supply money to keep the rate low. If it sets the Fed Funds (and related) rate above the neutral rate, it must absorb money from the market to keep the rate high. Setting its policy interest rate is the lever by which it controls the rate at which the money supply grows. Each Federal Reserve President and Governor must evaluate all available information about economic activity most likely over the next one to two years and determine in like of that what monetary growth is most likely to result in 2 percent inflation over that period. If market participants believe that the Fed’s choice is most likely to result in achieving the stated target in the future, their wage and price decisions will anticipate that inflation and thus bring it about.
It should be obvious that if Fed officials are honest it attempting to achieve their target and explain as fully as they themselves understand the prospects to the public and the public has confidence in the Fed’s commitment, this is the best that can be done. In fact, the Fed deserves high marks for such transparency in our uncertain and evolving world. Each person and firm make their own forward looking decisions in light of their best guesses of future conditions. The Fed’s guidance is the best and most the Fed can do to bring or keep inflation on target.
When governments don’t trust “the people” to make their own decisions (they are not smart enough or are two lazy or whatever), they must mandate the “proper” behavior. Consider our approach to the public’s health during the Covid pandemic. Whether government should offer advice and provide information on what is known about a disease such as Covid-19 is complicated by the fact that we should not be free to expose others to communicable diseases. In the case of Covid the government’s understanding of its nature and best protection grew and evolved over time. But the US public heath agencies lost credibility from the beginning by telling well intentioned lies.
“In early March 2020, Dr. Fauci said ‘there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.’ In the same interview he said people could wear masks if they liked, but they wouldn’t get perfect protection, and it would further pinch what at the time was a short supply of masks for doctors and nurses.” PolitiFact | Marco Rubio says Anthony Fauci lied about masks. Fauci didn’t.
But more to my point, CDC officials thought that their shut down and isolation mandates would be more effective than allowing individuals to determine how best to protect themselves and others. The subsequent evidence suggested that they were wrong. Any benefits were outweighed by very substantial costs. Read the following articles and studies for examples.
“I explore the association between the severity of lockdown policies in the first half of 2020 and mortality rates. Using two indices from the Blavatnik Centre’s COVID-19 policy measures and comparing weekly mortality rates from 24 European countries in the first halves of 2017–2020, addressing policy endogeneity in two different ways, and taking timing into account, I find no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development.” https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605?login=false
“The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less-restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs)….
“After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country…. While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.” January 2021 study
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently stated that: “I don’t think people are voting for Trump because of his family values. If you just take a step back and are honest, he’s kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration, he grew the economy quite well, tax reform worked. He was right about some of China…. I don’t like how Trump said things, but he wasn’t wrong about those critical issues. That’s why they’re voting for him. People should be more respectful of our fellow citizens. When you guys have people up here [on a CNBC panel] you always ask them why — not like it’s a binary thing that you’re supporting Trump or you’re not supporting him– but why are you supporting him.” “Jamie Dimon on Trump”
In addition, during Trump’s administration many excessive regulations were revoked or reduced. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos promoted school choice and restore due process to college rape cases. Andrew Wheeler, Trump’s administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved water quality, and cleaned up contaminated sites while strengthening cost benefit assessments of environmental regulations. And much more.
His administration did many bad things as well. His advisors Stephen Miller and Peter Navarro implemented protectionist, buy American trade policies that hurt our economy. His crazy withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership was an ill advised gift to China. He Imposed a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program, separated families at the US-Mexico border and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), which was designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Trump’s promise to leave Afghanistan was not kept (and was later very badly executed by President Biden). His initial love affairs with North Korea’s President Kim Jong Un and China’s Xi Jinping exploded into hostility. If reelected Trump promises revenge against his enemies. He promises to strip tens of thousands of career employees of their civil service protections in order to dismantle the “deep state.” He promises to impose tariffs on all imported good and to revoke the visas of students studying in the U.S. who are critical of the U.S. None of these is keeping with the traditions and policies that have helped make America great.
On the other hand, I hope that he would keep his promise not to send American soldiers to Taiwan should China attack it militarily, which would be insane. Whether we would get the better or worse policies under another Trump administration would also depend on the team that he would bring with him.
Trump’s small-minded pettiness, dishonesty, vindictiveness, and egotism are on daily display. He is not someone I would invite into my home. But we are right to look at the policies he pledges and is likely to pursue if elected President again in 2024. As with his previous administration, his next one, if reelected, will depend on those who join and run his administration.
My expectation is that Trump will be more careful next time to choose loyalists rather than the most capable. It is also likely that the most capable people would refuse to be part of another Trump administration. I expect the worst.
If the goal of public policy is to maximize society’s wealth, in the broadest meaning of wealth (economic and cultural), what should that policy be? The invention and production of goods and services that enrich our lives (by providing food, shelter, safety, and entertainment) require a mix of cooperation and competition. How that mix is determined is the critical factor providing varied results in different societies. The Soviet Union represented one extreme of central determination and enforcement of the mix. The United States represents the other extreme encouraging individual determination of when and how to cooperate and when and how to compete based on each person’s self-interest.
What form of cooperation and competition maximizes society’s wealth and how should that optimal mix be determined? The exploitation of our self-interest to maximize wealth that has such extensive scope in the U.S. is guided by each person’s understanding of how their interests are best served. Our moral code for how best to treat others and thus to be treated ourselves is a critical part of that understanding.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America (1835), marveled at the extensive degree of voluntary cooperation in America. Americans joined together in church groups, civic clubs, charitable organizations, and sports clubs as part of their pursuit of their self-interests to a greater extent than in any other country in the world.
The tightest cooperative unit is the family, were trust between members is very high in dividing responsibilities while sharing its fruits, as they compete with other families for jobs and markets. Firms divide up tasks and cooperate in producing the best possible products and services with which to compete with other firms for market share (see Ronald Coase’s The Nature of the Firm – Wikipedia). The Brooklyn Dodgers (now the Los Angeles Dodgers) cooperated within the club in order to better compete against other baseball clubs.
The wealth and success of America compared with the poverty and eventual failure of the Soviet Union reflects its better choices of the when and where and how much to cooperate vs compete. History has confirmed that those choices are best made by individuals pursuing their self-interest as they see and understand it. In Adam Smith’s foundational book: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) Smith argues that when individuals pursue their own self-interest in a free market, they are led by an “invisible hand” to promote the general welfare of society. However, these invisible hands operate within and through a society’s legal, institutional, and moral environment. Well defined and secure property rights are particularly important.
The dramatic increase in material wealth for the average family and decline in poverty in relatively free market, capitalist economies over the past 250 years followed thousands of years of unchanging incomes and general poverty. https://humanprogress.org/trends/
I hope that our next generation of innovators and workers understand this.
In contrasting our treatment of others as competitors or enemies in my blog on “What to do About China” I am reminded of the 120 days I spent in Baghdad as an advisor to the Central Bank of Iraq paid for by the USAID and supervised by the US Treasury. Our occupation of Iraq included staff from the US Treasury, USAID, Commerce Dept, State Department, and, of course, the Dept. of Defense. Competition by each of them to do a better job than the others would clearly be win-win making our overall occupation more successful. But too often one agency treated the others as enemies diminishing and undermining their efforts rather than supporting them. My biggest fear with my dual association with USAID and Treasury was that each would see me as on the other side, which would have undermined my effectiveness. Luckily the each saw me as on their own side. “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”
Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville might be right or wrong about opposing the defense Department’s policy “of providing travel expenses for service women seeking an abortion.” But President Biden is certainly right in claiming that Tuberville’s unilateral “blocking more than 300 military [nominations] with his extreme political agenda” is “jeopardize[ing] the country’s national security.” “Biden Tuberville military clash”
The DOD must determine the policies that will attract the solders that we need in our All Volunteer Military. Those policies should be open to public debate. But Tuberville has chosen coercion to impose his views rather than persuasion to seek consensus . This is not proper in a free society governed by publicly endorsed laws. It prevents the sort of public debate that will most likely find the best balance between the opposing views of people living in the same space. And it will certainly deepen divides that will diminish rather than enhance civility. In short, it bad for the nation.
But our liberal democracy has survived for two hundred and fifty years because when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it invariably swings back. Hopefully we are reaching the extreme of the pendulum swing of right-left antagonism. Efforts are growing to rebuild the civil dialog from which we can better live together in liberty. See for example groups like Braver Angles https://braverangels.org/ We should fight to preserve our freedom to live as we choose rather than to restrict the choices of others to live as they choose.
Back to my childhood in Bakersfield again. I was absolutely thrilled when I was able to earn money delivering the morning newspaper. I can’t remember my age exactly, but I think it was 14 or 15. I got up at 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning when a stack of the morning paper was dropped on our porch. I rolled them up and put them in a backpack, mounted my bicycle, and threw them as close to the porches of the subscribers on my list as possible. Bakersfield being semidesert was pleasantly cool in the summer mornings and very cold –freezing cold—in the winter. It virtually never snowed in Bakersfield because if virtually never rained, but it certainly froze any water around in the winter. The wide swing of temperatures between the night and the day is typical of deserts.
Having this job absolutely thrilled me more than the modest money I earned. Prior to qualifying age wise to deliver newspapers, I made money growing tomatoes in our back yard and selling them to the neighbors door to door. They were thrilled to buy my big red delicious and very fresh from the vine tomatoes. No one minded that I might have been breaking some law or other. When I became 16 and had a driver’s license, I went to work for Fedway Department store as an assistant to the parking lot attendant. The next year I was promoted to a salesclerk inside the store. These were weekend jobs.
The money I made was helpful (75 cent per hour if I recall correctly) but the experience was even more valuable. I loved having these jobs. They were indications of growing up. If for some reason and some how they were bad for me (exploitive?? Ha ha), it was rightly up to my parents to say no. Big Brother is overreaching into our lives again. Helicopter moms are bad enough.
“Writing for a 6-3 majority split along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled in Biden v. Nebraska that President Biden lacks the authority to enact his signature student loan cancellation plan by executive fiat.” “What’s going on with student loans?”
Please note that the Court said nothing about the merits of forgiving such debt nor that Congress could not do so if it so decided. It said that the President does not have the authority to do so without Congressional authorization. So, it is now back to Congress to debt the merits of the issue. I expressed my views on several occasions, most recently last November.
The United States has the largest economic output (GDP) of any country on earth and the eighth highest income per capita at $59,939, below Luxembourg, Macao, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Qatar. The world average per capita income is $17,100. The factors contributing to America’s prosperity would require volumes to fully explain. But the essence of our flourishing can be summarized in a few sentences.
Americans, individually or together in companies, have produced more than the citizens of other countries, because they trust in and rely on well defined and honestly enforced property and other individual rights that enable them to profit from their efforts—they believe in and follow the rule of law. That profit includes the freedom to live as they choose. We don’t always agree on which rules and laws would best facilitate our rights and interactions, but we trust in the process of public debate, adoption and enforcement of such rules.
Someone wanting to weaken American would attempt to undermine our trust in the above (trust in the institutions that formulate and enforce the rule of our agreed laws). Don’t confuse criticisms of weaknesses in our laws and their enforcement meant to strengthen and improve them with attacks on their legitimacy and fundamental honesty meant to undermine and discredit them. The former are from patriots and the later from our enemies. Look around you and see who is trying to improve American who is trying to tear it down and weaken it.
Warren's space 