A Tribute to Walter Williams

The world lost a great man Wednesday morning, December 2: economist Walter E. Williams. He was 84. His death was sudden and unexpected; he had taught class, as usual, the day before. He'd always hoped to go that way.

Walter Williams, March 31, 1936 – December 2, 2020
Photo: The Heritage Foundation, found here

Next to Thomas Sowell, he is the economist I read and quote most. Thomas Sowell wrote a tribute to him today, mentioning even in the title that they were best friends. Sowell is now 90. He didn’t expect Williams to go first. He said,

He was my best friend for half a century. There was no one I trusted more or whose integrity I respected more.

Since he was younger than me, I chose him to be my literary executor, to take control of my books after I was gone. But his death at age 84 is a reminder that no one really has anything to say about such things.

Sowell mentions two of the books Walter Williams wrote (he wrote ten), which will always be worth reading:

·         Race & Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?

·         South Africa’s War Against Capitalism

Walter Williams, along with Thomas Sowell, is both black and conservative. Both grew up poor, Williams in the projects of Philadelphia, and then gained credibility through sheer genius combined with excellent research and communication skills. They have both street cred and scholastic credentials to say what their conclusions are, based on research, when it goes against the current political script. I have always thought of both of these men as great economists, great writers, and then notice they happen to be black. It’s handy that their skin color would give them the ability to challenge race assumptions that others would be called racist for stating.

I first discovered Walter Williams, I believe, when he substituted for Rush Limbaugh on the radio, and then started seeking his weekly column at Townhall or The Daily Signal.

In my tribute today, I’ll share what I’ve collected of his words. First come the quotes; I give sources where I have them. After that are the articles. There are places to find the entire archive of his weekly columns. The ones I’m listing are those I saved to my personal files because I wanted to keep them.

 

Walter Williams Quotes

I don't think that stupidity, ignorance or insanity explains the love that many Americans hold for government; it's far more sinister and perhaps hopeless.

I'll give a few examples to make my case. Many Americans want money they don't personally own to be used for what they see as good causes such as handouts to farmers, poor people, college students, senior citizens and businesses. If they privately took someone's earnings to give to a farmer, college student or senior citizen, they would be hunted down as thieves and carted off to jail. However, they get Congress to do the identical thing, through its taxing power, and they are seen as compassionate and caring. In other words, people love government because government, while having neither moral nor constitutional authority, has the legal and physical might to take the property of one American and give it to another.—"Americans Love Government” June 10, 2009

 

Political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict…. Interestingly enough, the very people in our society who protest the loudest against human conflict and violence are the very ones calling for increased government resource allocation.—“How Government Creates Conflict” March 31, 2010

 

If European governments and the U.S. Congress ceased the practice of giving people what they have not earned, budgets would be more than balanced. For government to guarantee a person a right to goods and services he has not earned, it must diminish someone else's right to what he has earned, simply because governments have no resources of their very own.—“Blame Government Handouts for the Financial Mess in U.S. and Europe” September 27, 2011

 

The fact that the civil rights struggle is over and won does not mean that there are not major problems confronting many members of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems and have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination.—“Blacks and Obama” December 4, 2013

 

People who denounce the free market and voluntary exchange, and are for control and coercion, believe they have more intelligence and superior wisdom to the masses. What’s more, they believe they’ve been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Of course they have what they consider good reasons for doing so, but every tyrant that has ever existed has had what he believed were good reasons for restricting the liberty of others.—“Tyrants Trying to Subvert Free Markets” July 18, 2007

 

What goes unappreciated is just why America's leftists' movement attacks the Founders. If they can delegitimize the Founders themselves, it goes a long way toward their agenda of delegitimizing the founding principles of our nation. If the leftists can convince the nation that men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were good-for-nothing slave-owning racists, then their ideas can be more easily trashed.—“Undermining America” October 28, 2017

 

For the most part, white bigots are no longer respected among whites and I look forward to the day when black bigots are no longer respected among blacks.—“Nonsense to Think Discontent with Obama is Racist” September 30, 2009

 

One does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one has to believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights.—“Liberals, Progressives and Socialists,” August 8, 2012

 

Let me offer you my definition of social justice. I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you—and why?

Image from Bastiat Institute, found on Facebook

 

How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; Apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the Talisman of moral people.

 

Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.

 

Walter Williams Columns

·         “Why We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy” January 19, 2018 

·         “Scientists: Dishonest or Afraid?” Nov. 23, 2019 

·         “Minimum Wage Cruelty” July 12, 2017 

·         “Culture and Social Pathology” July 17, 2015 

·         “Global Warming” March 11, 2015 

·         “What Egyptians Need” July 17, 2013 

·         “True or False: Global Warming, Manufacturing Decline” January 5, 2011 

·         “Getting Beyond Race” November 12, 2008 

·         “Lessons from the Bailout” October 8, 2008 

·         “Liberty Versus Socialism” March 5, 2008 

·         “Our Irreconcilable Differences” January 2, 2014

What a Minimum Wage Should Be

Yesterday, economist Walter Williams wrote about the minimum wage. As usual, he explains things very clearly.

Walter Williams
photo from here

This is how he describes the current situation for a cashier-job worker:

The average wage for a cashier is around $10 an hour, about $21,000 a year. That's no great shakes, but it's an honest job for full- or part-time workers and retirees wanting to earn some extra cash. In anticipation of a $15-an-hour wage becoming federal law, many firms are beginning the automation process to economize on their labor usage.

He didn’t mention, but he could have, that two $21,000/year jobs put a household well out of poverty.

What those who favor a $15/hour minimum wage picture is a single parent trying to rent a place for herself and a couple of kids in an urban area. That’s not going to happen at $15 an hour either.

One recent study reported this data point for San Francisco and a couple of other cities:

Average rent on a two-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is $4,650, $1,000+ more than the number two city (New York) and $2,000 more than the rest of the biggest cities in the country.

If we do the math, then it takes $55,800 a year just for rent. Forget about food, clothing, entertainment, medical care (insurance for which, alone, is beyond what a $15/hour worker could pay, thanks to Obamacare). So, we still have to feel pretty sorry for any $15/hour worker.

The thing is, most minimum-wage workers are not mothers trying to manage an entire household on their income. In those few cases, we do have a safety net of social services to help out—and we can suppose that minimum wage is temporary, because with experience and hard work come raises, promotions, and better opportunities.

Williams points out the obvious:

Why would anybody work for $21,000 a year if he had a higher-paying alternative? Obviously, the $21,000-a-year job is his best known opportunity.

He does this in the context of what is really compassionate. Because raising the minimum wage has consequences. He names three likely outcomes for business owners forced to raise pay to a level above what the worker is worth to the business.

·         The business raises the pay without getting more output from the workers, so profit margins drop to below survival rates, and the business closes—including all the $15/hour workers.

·         The business invests capital in technology that can do the work of minimum-wage workers, such as self-serve kiosks in many fast food chains; the business might get enough return on the investment to stay in business, but those $15/hour jobs are permanently lost.

·         The business can raise its prices to compensate for the higher labor costs, which puts them in a losing position once shoppers compare prices to a business that kept prices low with technology; eventually the business closes, and all jobs are lost.

      

photo from here

Williams looked at San Francisco, which has been implementing its “compassionate” $15/hour policy for a while now. He quotes a study:

A recent study by Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research calculated that for every $1 hike in the minimum hourly wage, there is a 14 percent increase in the likelihood that a restaurant rated 3 1/2 stars on Yelp will go out of business.

This was looking at actual restaurants in the Bay Area that had closed between this past September and January. Even some of the better restaurants have fallen prey. A restaurant needs a 3-5% profit to keep going. The minimum wage hike dropped one example restaurant from 8.5% in 2012 to 1.5% in 2015.

So, is outlawing all jobs that bring in less than $15 of worth to a business actually compassionate to entry-level workers?

Let’s repeat this Spherical Model point:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

The minimum wage issue is maybe a quintessential example. But, then, there are so many examples around these days.

I’ve written about the minimum wage a number of other times. So, let’s make this a “best of” on the minimum wage:

·         Beware Government with Good Intentions, May 11, 2011 

·         Outlawing Entry Level Jobs, July 27, 2015 

·         Unfair Egalitarianism, July 9, 2015 

·         Predictions, January 5, 2015 

As I’ve said before, employment is an agreement between two people: employer and worker. If the arrangement is agreeable to both, what business does government have inserting itself between them?

 

An unpaid internship, for example, is an agreement that looks economically disastrous for the worker—but if that worker gets some experience out of it that she values, both business and worker are benefitting. And government ought to just get out of the way.

Random Quotes

My quote file continues to grow. I add a quote every few days. Over eight years or so, that adds up. It’s the length of a short book. I don’t think I’ve done a post straight from the quote file since last November. So maybe it’s time for another sample.

I thought I’d offer up the last several. As always, they are somewhat random. Not so random that some are on cooking or cleaning. But random while related to The Spherical Model somehow, which covers the political, economic, and social spheres, so that covers a lot of ground. I collect them so I can read and think through these thoughts again. I hope you find them worth reading, and maybe keeping, as well.

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”—James Madison, Federalist 51

“A sick society must think much about politics, as a sick man must think much about his digestion; to ignore the subject may be fatal cowardice for one as for the other. But if either comes to regard it as the natural food of the mind—if either forgets that we think of such things only in order to be able to think of something else—then what was undertaken for the sake of health has become itself a new and deadly disease.”—C.S. Lewis

“Truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny.”—Frank S. Meyer

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers."—John Adams

“How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively. Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; Apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the Talisman of moral people.”—Walter E. Williams

“[T]he whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”—Henry Hazlitt

"The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."—Will Rogers

“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government—in pursuit of good intentions—tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”—Milton Friedman

“The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”—Justice Antonin Scalia

One doesn't fight only when one is optimistic. One fights because it is the right thing to do, and because America remains, as Lincoln said, "the last best hope of earth."—Dennis Prager, “A Dark Time in America,” May 3, 2016

It’s easy to be an American liberal. All that is required are hypocrisy and ignorance.

Ignorance is an absolute must, but especially ignorance of three things: economics, human nature and all of recorded history.—Matt Patterson, American Thinker, 9-5-2016 “How to Be a Liberal”

“Who in their right mind looks at the Internet and says ‘You know what we need? We need Russia, China, and Iran to have more control over this.’”—Ted Cruz

“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.”—Walter Williams

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again.”—Daniel Webster

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.”—Samuel Adams (1776)

Aims and Intentions of Socialism

Mr. Spherical Model has collected, over time, old talks to listen to during workouts or long commutes. We were listening to some of those during a road trip last month, and one of those I knew I’d want to come back to, to share here. It has me thinking about socialism, what that is, and how that contrasts with what we want as free human beings.

We’ll start with a few portions of this speech. It’s Marion G. Romney, in March 1966, in a speech at Brigham Young University. He was at that time one of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [Yes, he is related to Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure of the exact relationship, probably cousins.]

Marion G. Romney

The title of the speech is “Socialism and the United Order.” We’ll mostly deal with the definition of socialism here. But, simply, the United Order is a way of caring for the poor, the way it was done in the days of Enoch. In today’s terms, it will suffice to understand that in our Church, we pay a tithe (a tenth), plus fast offerings (approximately the cost of meals we miss while fasting), plus welfare activities.

I’ve said before, sometimes it helps to use definitions from older dictionaries, and that’s what he provides for us, along with a few other references giving us background and history:

Webster defines socialism as a political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership, and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods. Also a policy or practice based on this theory.

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian socialist, said that socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property, and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.

George Douglas Howard Cole, noted author and university reader in Economics at Oxford, defining socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that “because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, a short and comprehensive definition of socialism is impossible. We can only say,” he concludes, “that socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interests of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange.”

Socialism arose out of the economic division in society. During the 19th Century, its growth was accelerated as a protest against the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories, and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system.

The Communist Manifesto, drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848, is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various socialist and labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy, rather than of objective. Communism is only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith.

Communists, like other socialists, believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and seek to achieve, through state action, the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured and its use in the interests of the workers insured only by revolutionary action, leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change.

A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic Party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the Bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic Party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.

In the 1880s, a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands for the evolutionary concept of socialism, endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries to turn the existing state into a welfare state. Somewhat on the order of the Social Democrats in Germany, Fabians aim at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas, rather than by creating a definitely socialistic party. They appeal to the electorate, not as revolutionaries, but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system.

The difference in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories. They all advocate the same things, in this respect at least. First, that private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished, and that all such property pass under some form of coordinated public control. Second, that the power of the state be used to achieve their aims. And third, they all claim that with the change in the control of industry will go to a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system.

I highlighted the summary there at the end. Let’s put them in bullet points, to see them clearer:

1.       Private ownership abolished, all property under public control.

2.       State coercive power used to accomplish its aims.

3.       The change in control of industry will bring about a change in motives for productivity.

What are the aims and intentions? The purported aim is to even things out, to do away with poverty. The way they're going about it will never hit that target. But, should we, as a good people, want to do away with poverty? Yes. In the Spherical Model, the economic goal is prosperity—the polar opposite of poverty. But you don’t get north by going south, or east.

I came across a quote from economist Walter Williams yesterday:

Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.

Capitalism is essentially never evil; it is about using the fruits of your own labor. Capitalism requires private property. It comes down to the contrast between freedom and slavery. A free man lives his life, and pursues his goals without coercion. What he accumulates, his wealth—the surplus beyond what he needs to get by right now—is the fruit of his life. To take that takes away that part of his life he spent accumulating that wealth. To force a person to work to accumulate someone else’s wealth is slavery.

We need clearer ways to say things. Bernie Sanders appealed to many young voters this year by telling them they deserve things like free college tuition, free health care, much high minimum wages, and less difference between them and the rich. Donald Trump this week is promising six weeks of paid maternity leave.

So let’s translate these a little more accurately:

·         If government gives you free college tuition, government enslaves some other worker(s) to pay for your tuition.

·         If government gives you free health care, government enslaves some other worker(s) to pay for your health care.

·         If government guarantees you a minimum wage, government outlaws jobs worth less than that minimum amount. If a business owner is forced to pay more for a worker than the worker provides to the business, the business owner is enslaved to work without his due income—he is enslaved.

·         If government promises you six weeks of paid maternity leave, government either outlaws jobs that don’t bring in to the business enough surplus to pay for the leave, or government enslaves the business owner to provide that leave, even if it causes the bankruptcy of the business.

·      As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” She also said,

People want to live in peace…real, lasting peace…the peace that comes from independence of the state and being able to run your own life, spend your own money, and make your own choices (1925—April 8, 2013).

Marion G. Romney acknowledges that, even in 1966, America had already gone a long way toward socialism. He says,

We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to the government. Well, be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.

Socialism claims to be for equality, and for freedom from poverty. But socialism is really about slavery: coercing some people to work for the benefit of other people. And there will be slaveholders—those who want to rule. The power-mongers. The tyrants.

Whatever socialism claims to intend, it can’t get anywhere positive by taking away our God-given freedom. Freedom, prosperity, and civilization are better alternatives every time than slavery, poverty, and savagery.

The Rhetorical Question

On Monday I ended the post about economics in Venezuela with a somewhat rhetorical question:

Does government’s disrespect of property lead to the people’s disrespect of property—the looting? Or does a people who fail to live the rules of civilization naturally end up with a life-controlling government? It may be a chicken/egg question. But my guess is that imposition of tyranny—taking away God-given rights—demoralizes a people, quite literally.



Economist Walter Williams

My son Economic Sphere took on the challenge of responding to the question from the economic point of view. He passed along a piece written in July by economist Walter Williams. Williams’s point is that “political liberty thrives best where there's a large measure of economic liberty.” He shows that some people, essentially the same culture, are different living in different countries. Egyptians do well in the US, but not in Egypt. Nigerians do well in the US, but not in Nigeria. Indians suffer severe poverty in India, but in the US they “start more Silicon Valley companies than any other immigrant group.” And they succeed not just in relatively “red” places like Texas and Florida, but also in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey.

It’s something like the economic version of the Bush assertion—“I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.” Given circumstances that grant economic freedom, a good people will eventually prosper.

Looking more closely at Egypt, Williams emphasizes the need for property rights. They don’t have clear titles to their capital property, so they can’t use it as leverage or investment to grow businesses.

Government is a major employer in Egypt—almost equal to the private sector. Only the underground economy is a bigger employer. Government size means greater government interference, which is another hindrance to prosperity. Williams quotes a Wall Street Journal article by Hernando de Soto:

To open a small bakery, our investigators found, would take more than 500 days. To get legal title to a vacant piece of land would take more than 10 years of dealing with red tape. To do business in Egypt, an aspiring poor entrepreneur would have to deal with 56 government agencies and repetitive government inspections.

There are states in our country where government interference, while not that extreme, feels onerous enough to prevent opening a business, but there are other states where the process is streamline to welcome business.

Williams uses the nation of Chile as a comparison—one of the few modern nations to move from controlled economy to free market economy, rapidly enough that we can see it as a lesson. Chile also helps in answering our question about the influence of economic freedom on political freedom. In 1973 Chile had a military coup—not that uncommon in those decades in Latin American countries. However, the new military dictator, Pinochet, did a surprising thing for a tyrant: he instituted, by edict, free market reforms. Pinochet eliminated “thousands of restrictive laws governing labor, mining, fishing, vineyards, startups and banking.” The economy turned around, and has thrived since—despite some of the expected savagery over the years that you expect in a tyrannical regime. Nevertheless, even decades later Chile rates in the top quartile of nations for economic freedom. Also today, political freedom ratings for Chile are mixed but mostly toward the free end of the scale.


World Economic Freedom Report 2013

Venezuela, which we talked about on Monday, lags at the bottom of the economic freedom scale, along with the least free African nations. The five subjects of economic scrutiny in this report are:

1)      Size of government.

2)      Legal system and property rights.

3)      Sound money.

4)      Freedom to trade internationally.

5)      Regulation.

We could spend a day covering each of these. But we can summarize, by number, what we know:

1)      Bigger government is not better government, but is in most cases worse government.

2)      Government’s main purpose is to protect life, liberty, and property—and almost any additional governmental role is likely to interfere with those rights, rather than protect them.

3)      Messing with the money supply is a hidden form of tax—or “authorized” theft.

4)      Trade tends to improve the economic lifestyle level for both sides of the trade; the only possible exception might be receiving trade from a country that refuses to receive trade the other direction. But sometimes even in those worst cases, being the free-trade country is better than being the trade-protection country.

5)      Regulation is often code for protection of those in an economic sector from competition, preventing entry for starting businesses. Often this is a combination between politicians and the businesses which financially support their security in office. If there is a real need for regulation, it is arguable that every such case would be handled better in the private sector.

Back to the original question, which was not limited to whether political problems led to economic problems—they do. The question is a bit more existential—whether immorality follows from the interference with life, liberty and property rights.

Maslow’s hierarchy probably comes into the question. It’s harder to maintain integrity when hunger is an urgent and ever present need. (Stealing a loaf of bread was the beginning of the miseries for Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s epic story.) It’s harder to maintain integrity when surrounded by others who cheat on their taxes or in their businesses, where others do not respect life, liberty, and property rights. It’s harder to maintain marriage and family integrity—among the best predictors of economic prosperity—when divorce and infidelity get normalized around us. Morality is more difficult, but not impossible.

Conversely, communities of healthy families, with stable fair laws protecting life, liberty, and property, thrive culturally—and prosper economically. I think there is an inextricable connection between property rights, along with protection of life and liberty, and living the laws of civilization. Telling the truth, refusing to steal, refusing to lie, and even controlling one’s thoughts to prevent coveting—these are all among the rules for civilization. And they are also essential for economic prosperity. So every effort to make the moral choice adds to the likelihood of prosperity.

Williams and Sowell

Last night I spent some time (virtually) with two of my favorite economists: Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. This always makes for a good evening. I listened to Walter Williams speaking to a group of college students on the proper role of government; it’s hard to get better than that. The lecture is from Intercollegiate Studies Institute, linked in their newsletter. I believe you’ll be able to access the whole speech (plus 20 minutes of Q&A) here. (You can sign up for the ISI newsletter, free, at www.ISI.org.)

I wrote down a few quotes: 

For moral people, we cannot allow legality alone to be our guide. 

Economic planning is nothing more than the forcible superseding of somebody else’s plan by the powerful elite. 

[This one is paraphrased only, and refers to what elected officials should be asking]: The relevant question is not “Is it a good idea?” The relevant question is, “Is it permissible by the Constitution?” 

Ah, good times! 

Also last night I read Thomas Sowell’s latest Townhall piece, “Debt-Ceiling Chicken,” which has given me something to think about. 

I am against government spending on anything not listed in the Constitution as powers granted to the federal government. The only caveat to that is that we have, unfortunately, made many promises, by way of elected officials who don’t carefully and respectfully read the Constitution. And these promises have affected people’s lives. When you have taken a sizable chunk out of someone’s paycheck for their entire lives, while simultaneously promising them a certain amount (tied to inflation) to cover their basic living income in their retirement years, you can’t after-the-fact suddenly say, “Since we have to cut back, you’re going to have to do without.” It was immoral to take their money (and continue to take our money) in the first place; but it is even more immoral to suddenly refuse to give them what they’ve been promised—at a time when they have no way to make up the difference. 

Some Medicare and Medicaid expenses also fit into these categories. That doesn’t mean these programs can’t be reformed; they must be reformed. But they must be reformed in a way that doesn’t starve or otherwise deprive the elderly and infirm. (The long-term solution will include encouraging thrift and savings, as well as taking care of one another through families and philanthropy. Depriving the most vulnerable is not part of any conservative’s long-term plan.) 

So, I continue to be very much against unconstitutional spending, and running up the national debt. And in that vein I have been against yielding on the debt ceiling. 

But Sowell points out that the debt ceiling, while a good idea in theory, as many things seem to be, has not done what it was meant to do in reality. Namely, it has never limited spending nor forced accountability for spending. In fact, he believes it is harmful; it allows the party in power to spend recklessly on anything they want to “give” to their voting constituents, and then, periodically when the ceiling is approached, bring in the nonparticipating party and share the duty and responsibility of cutting back. In other words, they give themselves credit for “giving” goodies to buy votes while simultaneously blaming their opponents as the bad guys who want to “take” those goodies away from those same voters. It’s a scam—at our expense. 

The scam has the additional affect of upsetting worldwide markets, simply because of the insecurity of the argument times surrounding the debt ceiling dates. 

So, here’s what I’m rethinking: The Republicans (and any Democrats with either integrity or an understanding of economics) must stand firm and use this moment to cut back on spending. We have to know that it is possible to both stand firm and stop the profligacy. And much of the predicted harm that comes from the debt ceiling has already happened.

So, stand firm this time. Then, sometime in the future, maybe we need to rethink the arbitrary debt ceiling. Not because limiting debt is a bad idea—we need to actually get rid of it over time. But because the debt ceiling simply doesn’t do what it is meant to do, and does instead quite a lot of harm.