Tolerance

Tolerance is an essential feature of a flourishing society, but it is a low bar. Jesus of Nazareth told his followers that they should “love thy neighbors as themselves.” This view is widely shared among most religions.

My Afghan friends say Islam is rooted in both love and peace. The Qur’an and Islamic teachings emphasize God’s love and compassion as central, motivating principles, with believers encouraged to love God and one another in return. The Prophet Muhammad is portrayed as a model of mercy, kindness, and tolerance, teaching forgiveness and respect for others, regardless of their beliefs. But the Quran also demands harsh punishments of transgressors, and we have seen horrible acts perpetrated in the name of Islam by radical wings of the religion (e.g. Wahabis in Saudi Arabia and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan).

Like the Qur’an, the Christian Bible also demands harsh punishments of transgressors. Radical wings of Christianity have also undertaken horrible acts. For example, the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol involved participants motivated by radical Christian nationalist beliefs, blending religious rhetoric with calls for violence and anti-democratic actions. Leaders within certain Neo-Charismatic Pentecostal movements promoted the idea of “spiritual warfare,” which helped justify extreme actions among followers.

Most Christians and Muslims ignore these demands in their holy books, which would send them to jail most anywhere in the world. My favorite presentation of the bible’s horrible demands was a scene in the TV series “West Wing”:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CPjWd4MUXs.

My question here is how best to promote Jesus’s call to love our neighbors. We are born with the protective instinct to trust those we know and distrust “others”. But with the huge increase in wealth from trade and other interactions and cooperation, dealings with “others” increased. The siloing of religious and racial groups gave way to tolerance, and with greater exposure, tolerance gave way often to friendship. Though some of us were born with an urge to explore and meet new and different people, most are not. Their natural aversion to “others” requires social encouragement to overcome it.

Look at almost any of today’s TV series (especially British). The total mix of black, white, brown and yellow has now become the norm and feels natural. A white man’s boss is as likely to be a black woman as the other way around. This is a wonderful development in which each person is judged on their own talents and character. It is also a more interesting world. But how did we get from the culture of tribalism to our more exciting world of today?

Teaching our children the rightness of treating each person individual on the basis of their talents and character and then exposing them to those not like them was the path. As more white people encountered blacks, they became more relaxed around them. TV shows like the Bill Cosby Show were incredibly important in making normal blacks seem “normal” to whites.

Gays became more fully accepted as more and more families discovered that one of their members was gay. But the TV show Will and Grace played the incredibly important role played by the Bill Cosby Show of demystifying Gays and making the straight public more understanding and comfortable with them. Combined with Jesus’s call to love our neighbors, actual exposure to all types does the job. Companies that want a more interesting (and productive) work environment will go out of their way to hire from all races and creeds. This is an area in which real progress has been made toward a fairer, and more interesting society.

Trump’s Chainsaw

I assume that I approve of many of Trump’s cuts or closers. But how can I know? His executive orders do not include or are not preceded by a discussion of the issues involved and the pros and cons of alternatives, as is customary in free societies.  As our government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, it is essential that “the people” debate the desirability of polices and their adoption. In the end they need to be accepted by us as desirable or at least OK. My goal is a federal government limited to powers granted in our constitution, delivering only those services that are wanted and doing so as well and efficiently as possible.

But Trump takes a different approach.  Lindsey Halligantold Trump that the Smithsonian needs to remove “improper ideology”. He’s ordered her to do it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2025/04/21/lindsey-halligan-smithsonian-executive-order/.

Of course we want our museums to reflect our history accurately. But the many controversies about historical facts and their implications have been publicly and transparently debated by historians for decades. It is quite proper to review such representations. Trump’s executive order stated that Halligan “will consult with Vice President JD Vance to ‘remove improper ideology’ from Smithsonian properties.”

The first question is: What is improper ideology, exactly?

The second: Who is Lindsey Halligan, Esq.? (Washington Post above)

The established process of review, appropriate to a free society, has been replaced by a top-down order typical of autocracies.

The point here is that the manner and process of review and reform appropriate to a free society is discarded in the top-down orders of an autocrat.

Some of Trump’s orders reveal enough to know that I oppose them. Trumps tariff proposals reveal a lack of understanding of trade, quite aside from the rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Trump condemns countries with trade surpluses with the US. These are irrelevant—as it is the US trade deficit with the rest of the world that matters—if anything. My trade deficit with Safeway is irrelevant.

Not only is Trump’s reciprocal tariff calculation laughable for its many errors, but other policies directly counter the presumed purpose of his tariffs (though who really knows what that is). His unlawful deportation attempts and cancelling student visa has produced a sharp fall in foreign visits to the US (foreign students studying here has many other benefits for the US as well). These are US exports, generating the money needed to pay for our imports. Why would he do this? This was later reversed, and the student visa reestablished. Or doesn’t he even understand what he is doing? His targeting for deportation those critical of him or Israel is a frightening attack on our First Amendment rights.

His tariff threats, on again, off again, actually seem unrelated to trade objectives. They seem to be bargaining chips for other objectives, whatever those might be. Their unpredictability itself is inflecting damage to our trade and investments. It is a very different (autocratic) approach to trade agreements than provided by the WTO.

Trump’s bargaining style re tariffs may well produce good results six months or a year down the line. But the cost has been the alienation and isolation from our traditional allies (not in our interest), and economic damage in the interim. More alarming it has strengthened China’s world leadership, driving many into closer alliance with it. The proper question is whether his approach or the traditional working though the WTO would have produced better results.

Education, whether in schools or the public square, is vital in free societies. Closing the Wilson Center was a big mistake in my view. I attended many very informative presentations there, often with Abdul Fitrat, former governor of the central bank of Afghanistan (DAB). But most of our think tanks, also presenting excellent and important seminars, are private. Trump wants to dictate what schools teach and what parents must allow or can opt out of for their children. His demands are being challenged in court. What the state can require, and parents can choose, is a challenging issue. Our traditional and more effective approach to its resolution is via public debate—not executive order.

Our cultural scene (opera, ballet, theater, etc.) is an important aspect of a flourishing society. It is quite proper to debate the extent to which our government should help finance it, but not its importance for a healthy, flourishing society. From the settlement of hunter-gatherers into tribes, such culturally binding activities have flourished. I recently watched a very painful film “A Day in the Life” of a woman (former violin player) working seven days a week to remove the rubble left in Dresden after WWII. Anyone contemplating war should examine what was left after previous wars before starting a new one. After the war, Dresden was occupied by the USSR. Interestingly the Russians set up theaters and concert halls to display the richness of Russian culture.

In the US our cultural events are largely financed by the private sector. The Kennedy Center is a federal building and the only U.S. national cultural center. The federal government covers facility operations, maintenance, security, and capital improvements, as the Center is a federal building and national memorial. About 20% of its annual operating budget is paid by the government. The government is not allowed to fund any of its performance activities and costs. Though he has never set foot in the Kennedy Center, Trump replaced its board with his friends and made himself chairman. ???

I strongly opposed Trump’s shut down of USAID, for example. https://wcoats.blog/?s=usaid. I worked for USAID in Iraq and with it in Afghanistan and other post-conflict counties. Their role was vital. The closing of USAID harms American interest.

Let me add one more example of a USAID activity. Its support of the G-17 in Serbia provides one of many examples. In the late 1990s an IMF collogue from Serbia (former Yugoslavia) pulled me aside to explain the group of center-right, free-market economists from Serbia that he was part of—they called themselves the G-17. He explained that the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID helped organize and fund seminars at which G-17 members could discuss the policies they wanted to support and how to achieve them.

“During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, [Yugoslavia’s President Slobodan] Milošević was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes connected to the Bosnian War, Croatian War of Independence and Kosovo War. After resigning from the Yugoslav presidency in 2000 amidst demonstrations against the disputed presidential election, Milošević was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities in March 2001 on suspicion of corruption, abuse of power, and embezzlement.] The initial investigation faltered, and he was extradited to the ICTY to stand trial for war crimes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87.

In the turmoil following Milošević’s replacement, Jimmy Barton (Chief National Bank Examiner of the United States, Retired) and I entered Belgrade on 9/10/2001 (I think—I am no longer sure of the date) to singing and dancing in the streets. As we met with the new government officials, they often gave us their G-17 card with the apology that they had not had time to get new official cards. Thank you EFD and USAID.

Trump also claimed to shut down the Millenium Challenge Corporation, the best foreign aid program we have ever had. He has withdrawn from several international organizations and agreements, and angered our friends and allies, further isolating the US. These are not in American interests.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised no more wars. In his first 100 days in office, he threatened to invade Panama and Greenland and to annex Canada. He has started bombing Yemen without Congressional authorization. He continues to support and help finance Israel’s wars in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. He has withdrawn the US from many international organizations and agreements. We are increasingly isolated with fewer and fewer friends. The US voice in the world no longer carries its earlier weight—all of which has made China stronger and more influential.

To repeat, the longer-run outcome of all this may well be good for us all. There is no knowing that at this point. But the real question is whether good results achieved in this way are better than if achieved via public debate and normal diplomacy?

The courts are increasingly challenging Trump’s disregard for law and due process. What I want to emphasis is that Trump’s autocratic actions via executive orders is very different from our usual public debate over policy seeking as much public understanding and common ground as possible. Such public debate is important for what a policy (or goal of an agency) should be. The internal efficiency with which that policy is implemented is a separate issue and something that a DOGE might well help achieve.

In a letter to U of Chicago alumni, its President Paul Alivisatos stated “As the broader higher education compact is reordered, we should not fear change for its own sake. There is reform to be had—and great opportunity to improve and to achieve more. Yet, how a period of reform unfolds can also cause enormous damage; federal and political overreach and intervention without regard to due process produces profound damage…. We have important interests at stake at this moment, as well as a set of obligations that we must and will honor.”

Trump’s executive order dictates are not an appropriate approach to reforming the scope of government.

Econ 101: How much should we tax the rich?

Should the wealthy pay more taxes than the rest of us? Of course, no one disagrees with that. But how much more? Based on 2022 tax year, the latest available, the top 10% of income earners (those with adjusted gross income above $178,661) paid 72% of the total of $2.1 trillion taxes collected. Is that too much or too little or about right. The bottom 50% of income earners (less than AGI of $50,339) paid 3.0%. What is a “fair” distribution of the tax burden and/or an economically efficient distribution? Corporate income taxes raised $0.42 trillion that year and should really be abolished in our globally trading world.

I have written earlier (many times actually) that I support abolishing all income taxes (personal and corporate) and relying fully on consumption taxation. While it can be challenging to determine where things are produced, there is no question about where we consume them. But while waiting for that miracle to happen, how much more should higher income people pay in taxes than lower income people?

Fair Tax Act of 2023
Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income

My sense of fairness (and economists norm for tax neutrality) says that the tax rate should be the same for everyone. In other words, if your income is twice mine, you should pay twice the tax. If all income taxes and welfare payments were replace with a Universal Basic Income for all and flat consumption tax (VAT) the result would be mildly progressive tax rates on income.

A note on Social Security: it is not a saving plan in which what you saved is there to pay out to you when you retire. https://wcoats.blog/?s=social+security

Ukraine Russian Peace Treaty

I am a monetary, not a foreign policy, expert. But after spending good bits of the last two decades in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, South Sudan and Israel/WBGS I have some questions:

  1. Why did we expand NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
  2. Why didn’t we discuss Putin’s Dec 2021demands to avoid Russia invading Ukraine? https://wcoats.blog/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-nato/
  3. When Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb 24, 2022, why didn’t we give Ukraine all the military equipment they wanted?
  4. When Russia and Ukraine were ready to sign a peace agreement negotiated in Turkey in March 2022, why did UK PM Boris Johnson tell Ukraine President Zelenskyy not to sign?
  5. Why do Americans, and especially Congressmen, tolerate President Trump’s threats to invade Panama, Greenland, Mexico and expel all Palestinians from their homes in Gaza and break so many American laws?

DEI—a nuanced assessment

DEI — “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs or policies are efforts to promote fairness and full participation of people who have been historically underrepresented or subjected to discrimination. The normal standard of fairness when employing workers is that they are hired (or admitted to college) on the basis of merit—who best satisfied to the requirements for the job. This is what taxpayers who want the best results from their tax dollars, want as well.

Many universities set aside the admission of the best qualified students to reflect the fact that may blacks who might have greater potential than their past performance test score indicated because of racial discrimination should be given preferential treatment. But these “affirmative action” programs where struct down by the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina, which effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

To make room for more blacks, Harvard had raised the bar and thus discriminated against Asian applicants with higher scores. It is appropriate that the standards of equal treatment and merit should be observed for government jobs and public universities.

But private firms and colleges should be able to hire or admit whoever they want. Both firms and colleges may well want the social benefits from greater diversity. Not only can it make the workplace more interesting but the broadened understanding of different racial and religious groups generates greater social harmony as well.

I don’t know what DEI programs generally did or aimed for and am quite willing to believe that they wasted human resources. However, that is quite different from the desirability of properly educating our children about different races and cultures and the history of slavery and harms of racial discrimination. Along with civics, such instruction belongs in elementary school curriculums. Just as the enlightened treatment of gays, blacks, Muslims and other groups in movies and TV shows has led the way toward better understanding, exposure and education are important for building a better and more accepting society.

The government should not interfere in the choices of private firms and university about the composition of their work forces and student bodies.

Econ 101: On-Shoring

What would be the consequences of on-shoring the production of all of our military needs? We would gain supply resilience in exchange for being poorer.

If the US makes everything it needs at home rather than buying it at lower cost abroad, it will reduce the risk of supply interruptions. The risks of domestic interruptions from natural disasters or labor strife are much smaller than the risk of foreign suppliers cutting us off for one reason or another.

But like insurance more generally this increase in resilience does not come free. Moving the capital and labor from what it was producing before to produce what we used to buy abroad means it moves from more productive to less productive activities. Our overall income will be lower.

This is the basic story of specialization in the production of our comparative advantage and trade for the rest versus self-sufficiency I have written about so many times before. Both are valuable—resilience and income. The US and the rest of the world have grown wealthier at a dramatic pace over the last several centuries because of the growth in trade from neighbors to the rest of the world following millennia of no growth. Where do you want to be in this trade off and who do you want to make that decision for you?

US Crypto Reserve

The establishment by the Federal government of a fund to invest in crypto assets is a terrible idea. First the US has no surpluses to invest. It would need to borrow the money to invest. While the fund might be stocked to some extend with confiscated bitcoin and other digital assets “The use of seized cryptocurrencies, however, could run into roadblocks as these assets often go back to the victims of financial crimes”  “The Hill”   Second it is a terrible precedent for the government to support and manipulate the private market for private assets. Third crypto assets yield no benefit to the American economy. They do not represent or fund investments in productive capital in our economy. They are simply a toy for those who like to gamble.

Crypto assets should not be confused with technical improvements in payment technology (improvements in the speed, efficiency, and/or cost of making payments with “real” money). Such improvements are welcomed.

Trump posted to Truth Social that: “A U.S. Crypto Reserve will elevate this critical industry after years of corrupt attacks by the Biden Administration, which is why my Executive Order on Digital Assets directed the Presidential Working Group to move forward on a Crypto Strategic Reserve that includes XRP, SOL, and ADA.” Trump had previously dismissed crypto as a scam. “The Hill–Trump announces US crypto reserve”

English

Until now, the US has not had an official language, though over 30 states have made English their official language. Yesterday Trump sighed an executive order that changed that. In many ways this seems a strange issue. Of course English is our language. It is what we speak to strangers and friends (unless you are Mexican or Polish or something). It is what street and highway signs use. It is what newspapers and magazines use (except for the Spanish, French, etc. papers).

It makes sense for it to be the official language in which laws and other official documents are stated. But I have always had somewhat mixed feelings about the issue. While of course it’s English, I always thought it was rather nice and in keeping with our individualist leanings that it was the common language because it is what people chose to use rather than because it was officially proclaimed. But no big deal.

Econ 101: Budget Cuts

What criteria should guild when to cut some program’s budget? We must first get beyond the fact the any cut will result in having less of something. If it is inefficiency or corruption that we give up—good riddance. But usually, it will be something that has some value. That does not necessarily mean that the cut should not be made.

Consider this example from my in-tray today:

“The Trump administration has made drastic cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that threaten to impact weather forecasting and other key services provided by the agency. 

In the wake of the wave of dismissals this week, lawmakers and former officials raised concerns about potential damage to services ranging from extreme weather responses to efforts to prevent objects from colliding in space.” “The Hill: Energy – Environment – NOAA cuts”

What should be considered when making such a decision is what other services were prevented by directing these resources to NOAA activities rather than alternative uses. Even if the government just increases it overall budget, the added taxes or borrowing will have alternative uses.

You will immediately understand the issue when you consider your own household budget. Your income is limited (unless you give up some leisure to work more hours). You might gain some pleasure spending more on X, but you can only do so by giving up some Y. If you benefit more from the extra X than you lose giving up Y, then you should do it. It passes the cost/benefit test of maximizing the benefit of your given income.  

In short, the fact that cutting the budget of some agency will cut some of its services is an incomplete argument for not cutting because if fails to take account of the rest of the cost/benefit assessment of the resulting reallocation of resources.

Such budget decisions are generally debated in Congress as it approves the government’s budget. It’s an imperfect process, like most of life, but it allows all views and pros and cons to be heard and considered. A body like Musk’s DOGE might be appropriate for evaluating the efficiency with which services are performed (perhaps proposing better information processing systems) and detecting corruption, but not for evaluating the desirability of such services themselves.

Berkeley in the 1960s

Before continuing with some of my recollections from U of Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement period, please read this penetrating article by Anatol Lieven:  “The mask of imperialism-Anatol Lieven”

In it he mentions Hans J Morgenthau, a great realist thinker of the last century. I listened to many, many speeches during my last year at Berkeley 1964-5 but very, very few that resonated with me and Morgenthau was one. The other two were Milton Friedman and Edward Teller, the so-called father of the H bomb.  

Edward Teller was a professor at Berkeley and after his speech I visited with him in his home near the campus. He explained why he had opposed dropping Atomic bombs on Japan. It was a fascinating day.

When I listened to Friedman, I vowed that I would die if I wasn’t able to study under him at the U of Chicago. I am still here so fortunately I did get my Ph.D. in economics from Chicago with Friedman as chairman of my dissertation committee. It transformed my life.

The most amusing recollection in my view was listening to Morgenthau. At the end of his fascinating speech, I was full of questions. If only, I said to myself, I could be in the room with him for an hour and ask them. A few years later as a grad student at Chicago I stepped into the elevator on my way to Friedman’s office and there, all alone, stood Hans J. Morgenthau. I couldn’t think of a single question and rode up to the 4th floor in silence.

If you would like to read more recollections of my—I must say—very interesting life, buy my autobiography.  “Life of Warren C. – From the River to the Sea-All Should by Free”