Voice For Liberty

Category: Economics

  • The left flunks economics 101

    Who might you guess is better informed on issues of economics: liberals who promote government intervention in the economy, or conservatives and libertarians who oppose that?

    A recent study found some surprising — or maybe not surprising — results. The study is titled Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables: A Zogby Survey of Americans. At this link you can read an abstract of the study and the entire document, too.

    An article by one of the authors that appeared in the Wall Street Journal is Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

    In the study, researchers asked a series of questions designed to “gauge economic enlightenment.” Conclusions included these: First, and surprisingly, “for people inclined to take such a survey, basic economic enlightenment is not correlated with going to college.”

    Perhaps more importantly, who scored best: conservatives or liberals? Here’s the rundown:

    Adults self-identifying “very conservative” and “libertarian” perform the best, followed closely by “conservative.” Trailing far behind are “moderate,” then with another step down to “liberal,” and a final step to “progressive,” who, on average, get wrong 5.26 questions out of eight.”

    The authors say “we should acknowledge that none of the eight questions challenge typical conservative or libertarian policy positions.”

    The authors also note:

    At least since the days of Frédéric Bastiat, many have said that people of the left often trail behind in incorporating basic economic insight into their aesthetics, morals, and politics. We put much stock in Hayek’s theory that the social-democratic ethos is an atavistic reassertion of the ethos and mentality of the primordial paleolithic band, a mentality resistant to ideas of spontaneous order and disjointed knowledge. Our findings support such a claim, all the caveats notwithstanding. Several of the questions would seem to be fairly neutral with respect to partisan politics, particularly the questions on licensing, the standard of living, monopoly, and free trade. None of those questions challenge policies that are particularly leftwing or rationalized on the basis of equity. Yet even on such neutral questions the “progressives” and “liberals” do much worse than the “conservatives” and “libertarians.”

    Author Daniel B. Klein concludes in the Wall Street Journal piece: “Adam Smith described political economy as ‘a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator.’ Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.”

  • Europeans fear crisis threatens liberal benefits

    As the United States moves to a social welfare state emulating many European countries, this cautionary article from the New York Times ought to be read.

    PARIS – Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.

    Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.

    Continue reading at the New York Times.

  • Libertarian thinking discussed in Winfield

    A recent column in the Winfield Daily Courier illustrates just how difficult it is for some to grasp the ideas and principles of libertarianism. The column, titled Libertarians and Libertarians, makes a factual error and is wrong when describing several important aspects of libertarian thinking.

    For example, he mentions Milton Friedman’s proposal that medical doctors should not be licensed by government. Instead, markets could function as regulators. Showing his disdain for this idea, he writes: “As for a cut-rate appendectomy, let the buyer beware!” The facts are that our current medical system, partly but not totally because of physician licensing, is dysfunctional. There are some clinics and hospitals that choose to operate outside the usual medical orthodoxy, and by doing so, they can offer outstanding bargains to their customers.

    As an example, the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, while not offering appendectomies (at least not on its website) does offer the type of cut-rate prices that the author of this column warns us of. Its prices are very inexpensive compared to what most people pay. And in Wichita, Galichia Medical Tourism publishes its prices for surgeries such as knee replacement for $14,000, when it says the typical cost in the U.S. is $50,000.

    The real problem with this column, however, lies in this passage:

    Do Michael Jordan or Bill Gates owe any debt to the society which rewarded them so extravagantly? Despite the intuitive appeal of the self-ownership idea, there are complexities. Jordan worked hard to develop his skills, but he was lucky to have natural abilities and a physique that most of us do not possess. He was also fortunate to live in a society that prizes his particular ability and has leisure time and money to pay to watch him perform. Some compensation to such a society would seem appropriate.

    Should we as a society extract compensation from Michael Jordan for making him rich? First of all, I imagine that Jordan has paid a lot in taxes, so various governments have already extracted something.

    Beyond that, Jordan doesn’t owe us a thing. All the transactions that people undertook with Jordan — attending a basketball game, watching one on television, buying a product that Jordan endorsed — these were all voluntary, market transactions. Neither party was coerced or forced. By definition, both parties — Jordan and each individual person — entered into the transaction voluntarily, believing that they would be better off if the transaction took place.

    In 1998, Fortune magazine estimated the “Jordan effect” at $10 billion. Jordan has created wealth for himself and an entire industry. He has given pleasure to his millions of fans. This is something to celebrate, not to be concerned about.

    For more about the economics of Michael Jordan, see columns by Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.

    Sowell writes about the problems with trying to equalize the outcomes of human endeavor:

    The problem with trying to equalize is that you can usually only equalize downward. If the government were to spend some of its stimulus money trying to raise my basketball ability level to that of Michael Jordan, it would be an even bigger waste of money than most of the other things that Washington does. So the only way to try to equalize that has any chance at all would be to try to bring Michael Jordan down to my level, whether by drastic rule changes or by making him play with one hand tied behind his back, or whatever.

    The problem with this approach, as with many other attempts at equalization, is that it undermines the very activity involved.

    Williams writes about the sources of income: “The reader’s inference is that there’s something unfair about income differences of such magnitude. It also reflects ignorance about the sources of income in a free society; that’s music to the ears of political demagogues with an insatiable taste for command and control.”

    Another column by Williams writes about the discrepancy between teachers’ salaries and Jordan’s: “Schoolteachers are more important to society than professional basketball players. … The reason why professional basketball players earn more money is both a result of reality and decisions made by millions of decision-makers.”

    If we want to let government override the decisions made by people making free decisions in markets, we could equalize Michael Jordan’s pay with that of the local fourth-grade teacher. The cost of doing that, however, is very high.

    (The factual error in this Winfield Daily Courier column is the author’s statement that Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party’s 2008 Presidential Candidate. Ron Paul ran for the Republican Party nomination. Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party candidate.)

  • Supply-side economics, not taxes, cure for recession, audience told

    Sound money and income tax cuts — the elements of supply-side economics — have produced economic growth in America, according to Dr. Brian Domitrovic of Sam Houston State University. When our country imposes inflationary loose money policies and high income taxes, economic growth suffers, as in the period from 1973 to 1982. Unfortunately, these are the policies of President Barack Obama and his administration.

    Domitrovic lectured on principles in his book Econoclasts: The Rebels Who Sparked the Supply-Side Revolution and Restored American Prosperity last night at Friends University. His lecture was part of the Law, Liberty & the Market lecture series, which is underwritten by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation in Wichita.

    “Unemployment at nine percent, five grueling quarters of decline in GDP growth, the stock market snapped back from its horrid 50 percent decline, but still needing a good 25 percent to get back to its old high: this has been some economic contraction.” While this may sound like a description of the current recession, it’s not. Instead, Domitrovic was describing the recession of 1974 and 1975. The stagflation period from 1973 to 1982, characterized by both high unemployment and high inflation, was a dark period in American history.

    There was also a mortgage and foreclosure crisis during that decade, but it affected the most prudent homeowners the worst. Property taxes in California went up five-fold in a period of ten years. Selling your house resulted in the loss of half your equity because of the capital gains taxes that were in effect then.

    While unemployment is high today, inflation is low, with prices even declining slightly last year. Being unemployed while prices are rising at nine percent per year — or 33 percent during one two-year period — is much worse than being unemployed today.

    In 1980 the bank prime interest rate reached 22%. (It’s 3.25% today.) It was impossible to save money in the 1970s, as the real tax rates on saving exceeded one hundred percent.

    Our economic crisis today is the “junior partner” to the stagflation decade. Our current political leaders should not be comparing the current situation to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Instead, the stagflation period has better lessons to teach us. It took 20 years for American living standards to recover to the level attained before the Great Depression started, Domitrovic told the audience, so we should not implement the same policies in response to the current recession.

    Instead, we have a fairly recent crisis — the stagflation period — which was solved “so firmly, so efficiently, so permanently” that the quarter-century following this period is known as the “Great Moderation.” There was economic growth year after year, inflation nearly vanished, unemployment was low, interest rates settled, businesses started, and stocks and bonds boomed.

    It was supply-side economics that ended the stagflation and lead to the long period of prosperity, the Great Moderation. Failing to embrace supply-side economics as a response to the economic problems that arose in 2008 was one of our greatest mistakes.

    As the current crisis enters its third year, we should not be surprised that recovery is slow to arrive. “Tepid and incomplete recovery was, in fact, the record of the New Deal, which our policymakers have looked to for inspiration,” Domitrovic explained.

    Supply-side economics consists of stable money and marginal tax cuts. These are the policies that defeated stagflation and lead to the Great Moderation.

    Domitrovic explained that in 1913, two great institutions of macroeconomic management were created, the Federal Reserve system and the income tax. Prior to this time, the United States had no ability to conduct macroeconomic policy, either fiscal or monetary policy.

    Since 1913, the economic history of the U.S. has been that of “serial disaster.” From 1913 to 1919, prices increased by 100 percent. Prior to that, there had never a peacetime inflation in the U.S. The top rate of the income tax, which started at a rate of seven percent, had increased to 77 percent by 1917. From 1919 to 1921, the U.S. experienced its worse recession up to that time. Unemployment rose to 18 percent. Prior to this time, unemployment was not a problem.

    The fix was President Warren Harding’s Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon telling the Federal Reserve to keep the dollar stable instead of trying to manipulate the price level, and the income tax rate was cut by two-thirds. As a result, from 1921 to 1929 inflation was low, less than one percent, and that nation experienced the boom known as the Roaring Twenties. Economic progress boomed.

    But in 1929, the Federal Reserve started to deflate the currency in an attempt to get prices back to the 1913 level. In 1932 the top income tax rate was raised to 63 percent from 25 percent. “There you have the Great Depression,” Domitrovic said. It was a crisis of macroeconomic management, not a failure of capitalism, as is commonly believed.

    Franklin Roosevelt instructed the Federal Reserve to keep the price level steady, which was one good policy he implemented. But he increased income tax rates.

    In 1947 income tax rates were cut and the Federal Reserve pursued stable prices after the inflation of World War II.

    A pattern emerged: stable prices coupled with income tax cuts lead to recovery. When these policies are not applied, recovery was weak and collapsed. These patterns repeated through the rest of the century.

    During the Eisenhower Administration, the top tax rate was 91 percent. Eisenhower refused to cut taxes, and there were three recessions during his presidency.

    John F. Kennedy wanted to solve the crisis. His advisors told him to loosen money and raise taxes, even though the top marginal rate was 91 percent. The idea, according to recently-deceased economist and Kennedy adviser Paul Samuelson, was that by increasing the money supply people would spend money, which would cause production to increase and workers to be hired. But increasing the money supply produces inflationary pressures. The solution was very high income tax rates, which sops up the extra money that causes inflation.

    But Robert Mundell, only 29 years old at the time, wrote a memo that advised the opposite, advocating stable money and low taxes. Kennedy adopted this policy, and a great boom resulted for seven years.

    But Lyndon Johnson asked his Federal Reserve Chairman to increase the money supply, and passed an income tax surcharge to attempt to control the danger of inflation — the “neoclassical synthesis.” Inflation rose. Nixon increased the capital gains tax and established the alternative minimum tax. The result was the double-dip recession of 1969 to 1970, which cost more in economic output than the cost of the entire Viet Nam war.

    Still, the Federal Reserve kept increasing the money supply, and the income tax rate was increased. Nixon insisted that printing money would save the economy, and in order to control inflation, Nixon imposed price controls. The result was an investment strike. If businesses could not charge the prices they needed, they would enter other fields of businesses, such as commodities. The prices of commodities rose rapidly, and there was the terrible double-dip recession of 1974 to 1975.

    Mundell, along with Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal and others, started to encourage government to tighten the money supply and lower taxes. At the same time United States Representative Jack Kemp introduced a bill calling for a large tax cut and stable money. Kemp’s bill passed both houses of Congress with a veto-proof majority. But Jimmy Carter had it killed in committee.

    If not for Carter’s action, the Kemp-Roth tax cuts would have become law in November 1978. These tax cuts, had they been passed and been coupled with Carter’s appointment of Paul Volcker — an advocate of stable money — as chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979, would have found the policy elements of “Reaganomics” in place at that time. Domitrovic said the economy would have recovered rapidly, and it is likely that Ronald Reagan would not have run for president in 1980.

    Instead, the period from 1979 to 1981 was a brutal period of economic history, with high unemployment, high inflation, and tanking markets.

    Upon entering office, Reagan was able to implement sound money policy and tax cuts — by then called supply-side economics — and the economy started the boom that lasted for 25 years. During this time there was only one recession, in 1990 and 1991. This is in contrast to the three recessions during Eisenhower’s eight years in office.

    Supply-side economics is one of the greatest success stories in economics and government, Domitrovic said. Despite evidence of its success, despite the fact that every objection to it has collapsed, policymakers did not follow its policies in 2008. Objections to supply-side economics that have proven to be unfounded include:

    It is inflationary. This is the basis for George H.W. Bush’s characterization of supply-side economics as “voodoo” economics. But inflation since 1982 has been very low.

    It would cause crowding-out. This refers to the fact that tax cuts can cause budget deficits, and the government would have to borrow so much money that none would be available for private business investment. But the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s were a period of historic expansion, with the Dow Jones stock market average increasing by a factor of 15 during this time.

    Government debt is a burden to future generations. But the nation experienced great prosperity and economic expansion during the Great Moderation, and interest payments on the debt were not a major burden.

    Tax cuts would place the U.S. in a “fiscal hole,” with budget deficits forever. But by the 1990s we were running budget surpluses. Domitrovic said that when Clinton balanced the budget in 2000, the total level of government expenditure was 18.4 percent of gross domestic product. In Reagan’s last year in office (1989) revenues were 18.4 percent of GDP. “In other words, Reagan’s tax policy plus Clinton’s spending policy was exactly sufficient for a perfectly balanced budget.”

    Supply-side economics causes inequality. But Domitrovic said that tax cuts mean that wealthy people don’t have to hide their income from taxes, making their income more productive publicly. Inequality has decreased.

    Summarizing, Domitrovic told the audience that the lessons of the Great Moderation are that when the institutions of 1913 — Federal Reserve and the income tax — are tamed, the American economy does wonderful things. Stable money and low taxes, combined with the entrepreneurial knack of Americans, produces remarkable economic growth and job opportunities. But when the macroeconomic institutions of 1913 run a muck the economy will suffer. The current policies of the Obama Administration — loose money and rising taxes — are not going to produce prosperity.

  • Primer on Mises and Austrian economics published

    If you’ve heard of Ludwig von Mises and wondered why his ideas are important to freedom, here’s a chance to easily and quickly gain understanding of this important thinker and the field of Austrian economics.

    Or if you’ve not heard of or read about Mises and Austrian economics, here’s your chance. The Institute for Economic Affairs, a free-market think-tank based in London, has just published a short book titled Ludwig von Mises — A Primer. The author is Eamonn Butler.

    Butler explains why Mises is important: “Ludwig von Mises was one of the greatest economists and political scientists of the twentieth century. He revolutionised the understanding of money, inflation and recessions; comprehensively refuted the arguments for socialism; and provided a devastating critique of the methodologies of mainstream economics. His contributions to the Austrian School laid the intellectual groundwork for thinkers such as F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Israel Kirzner.”

    The book’s summary gives several points that show why Mises and his ideas are important:

    • The market system is much more efficient at allocating resources than political elections, where people get the opportunity to vote only every few years and have to choose between packages of disparate policies. Every penny spent by consumers, in countless daily transactions, acts like a vote in a continual ballot, determining how much of each and every good should be produced and drawing production to where it is most urgently required.
    • Free markets have no natural tendency to monopoly or monopoly prices; on the contrary, they have a powerful tendency towards diversity and differentiation, which bid quality up and prices down. Few cartels and monopolies would ever have come into being had it not been for government and the efforts of those with political power to stifle competition. Monopoly would be at its zenith under socialism, where all production is in state hands.
    • Policies that are intended to “improve” the market economy may in fact strangle it. Intervention may lead to unwelcome side effects that are then wrongly used to justify further interference, which in turn creates new problems, and so on. Eventually, although the economy still looks capitalist, it ends up being completely controlled by the authorities.
    • The belief that state institutions can improve on the market by taking what it does and somehow doing it better is a dangerous conceit. In the absence of the profit motive, there is no obvious way of measuring the success of public agencies in delivering their objectives. Incentives for entrepreneurship are weak, and managers are likely to become risk-averse and bureaucratic.

    One of the greatest contributions of Mises was explaining that under socialism, the lack of prices and profits lead mean there is no efficient way of allocating resources. Without markets, he said, economic calculation is impossible.

    The book may be purchased or downloaded on this page.

  • Response to economic crisis to be subject of Wichita lecture

    Tomorrow night at Friends University Dr. Brian Domitrovic of Sam Houston State University will deliver a lecture titled “Economic Crisis: Have We Learned from History?” Domitrovic is the author of the book Econoclasts: The Rebels Who Sparked the Supply-Side Revolution and Restored American Prosperity.

    In an email message Professor Domitrovic gave a preview of his lecture: “I’ll discuss the history of policy responses to economic crisis over the last century. The unbroken record of that history is that when the crisis was met with stable money from the Fed and income tax cuts, the crisis was dispatched; and that when solutions other than this supply-side policy mix were applied, the crisis festered until the proper cure came. I’ll devote special attention to the 1919-21 and 1961 crises, before reserving words for the stagflation era and the supply-side solution that ended it. The lessons for today should jump off the page.”

    Domitrovic’s website is Econoclasts.

    This free lecture and following reception is Tuesday April 20, from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm, in rooms 101-102 of the Marriage & Family Therapy facility on the Friends campus. It’s building number 10 on this map, just north of Kellogg Drive on Hiram Street.

    This event, which is part of the Law, Liberty & the Market lecture series, is underwritten by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation in Wichita.

  • Sweatshops best alternative for workers in many countries

    While sweatshops are not the place most Americans would choose to work, they are often the best alternative available to workers in some countries. Pay is low compared to U.S. standards because worker productivity is low, and the process of economic development will lead to increases in productivity and pay. But most policies promoted to help the purported plight of sweatshop workers actually lead to harm.

    That’s the message of Benjamin Powell, who spoke to a group of university students and citizens last night in Emporia on the topic “In Praise of Sweatshops.” Powell is a professor of economics at Suffolk University in Boston and is affiliated with The Beacon Hill Institute. His appearance was part of the Emporia State University “Lectures on Liberty” series.

    “Often when people say there’s something wrong with sweatshops, implicitly what they’re saying is ‘while this is bad, the alternative must be better.’ Often the alternatives in these countries are much, much worse.” The alternatives are often subsistence agriculture and working in farm fields, Powell said.

    A sweatshop, according to Powell, is a workplace with low wages (compared to U.S. standards), and poor, possibly unsafe, working conditions and benefits, again compared to U.S. standards. The sweatshops that Powell is defending are those where people voluntarily choose to work. Sweatshops where workers are forced to work under the threat of violence constitute slave labor, which cannot be defended. These are not better than the alternatives available to the forced workers, the evidence being that the workers are forced to work in these sweatshops.

    As evidence of non-sweatshop working conditions is some countries, Powell mentioned the case of a Cambodian girl and her working conditions, as reported by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times in 2004:

    Nhep Chanda is a 17-year-old girl who is one of hundreds of Cambodians who toil all day, every day, picking through the dump for plastic bags, metal cans and bits of food. The stench clogs the nostrils, and parts of the dump are burning, producing acrid smoke that blinds the eyes.

    The scavengers are chased by swarms of flies and biting insects, their hands are caked with filth, and those who are barefoot cut their feet on glass. Some are small children.

    Nhep Chanda averages 75 cents a day for her efforts. For her, the idea of being exploited in a garment factory — working only six days a week, inside instead of in the broiling sun, for up to $2 a day — is a dream.

    Generally, sweatshop workers are paid much more than most other workers in the country, and their working conditions are much better. Powell mentioned that working inside — rather than outside — is very desirable in most countries. The fact that sweatshops pay higher wages and have better working conditions than the workers’ alternatives is important to remember.

    Powell explained the factors that determine how much workers are paid. The upper bound that employers are willing to pay workers is based on the amount of value that a worker can create. In economic terms, this is called the marginal productivity of labor.

    The lower bound, the minimum employers can pay, is the value of workers’ next best alternative.

    If we want to increase the earnings of sweatshop workers, we have to create policies that raise both the upper and lower bounds, Powell said, adding that about three-fourths of the variation in earnings across countries is explained by the upper bound. This points to the importance of increasing worker productivity.

    In one debate, Powell said his opponent wanted to take the question of sweatshop wages off the table, admitting that pay is higher in sweatshops. Instead, she wanted to focus on worker health and safety. But it’s important to remember, Powell told the audience, that working conditions, even those related to health and safety, are part of a total compensation package. Wages and working conditions are interconnected and can’t be separated.

    Sometimes people ask why apparel companies — the largest users of sweatshops — can’t simply pay the workers more, pointing to large profits and highly paid executives at these companies. But Powell said that apparel companies usually aren’t excessively profitable.

    Additionally, businesses are not charities. Forcing them to pay workers more means that companies will begin to look at ways to reduce the amount of labor they use. They may replace workers with machines, or use more productive workers in other countries. The result is sweatshop workers will lose their jobs.

    Powell reminded the audience that it’s important to remember that in most countries where sweatshops are used, these jobs are much better — both in terms of pay and working conditions — than what the workers face as alternatives. Anything that causes companies to shut down sweatshops or employ fewer workers, then, means that workers lose these better jobs and return to harder work at lower wages, or perhaps no work at all.

    In discussing the anti-sweatshop movement, Powell said that some groups sincerely want to help sweatshop workers, but don’t understand the economic realities in sweatshop-using countries. But labor unions such as UNITE do understand economics. The policies they advocate to help sweatshop workers — international labor standards and minimum or “living” wages, for example — increase the cost of sweatshop labor, causing companies to use less of it. It also makes unionized garment workers more attractive, and may lead to more employment in developed countries like the United States.

    “So unions advocate this not out of love for third world workers. They do it quite maliciously, actually, to unemploy third world workers for the benefit of already relatively wealthy union members in the United States and Western Europe countries.”

    The worst thing that advocates for sweatshop workers can do is to call for boycotts of products produced in sweatshops. If a boycott decreases demand for a product, the company must reduce its price, and the upper bound of what sweatshop workers can earn goes down. Then workers either have their wages reduced, or they lose their jobs.

    Powell presented the results of his research examining sweatshop wages. In many countries that use sweatshops, wages are very low, compared to U.S. wages. But that isn’t the appropriate comparison. Instead, when comparing the wages of sweatshop workers to the average income in the workers’ own country, we find that sweatshop workers do very well, often earning from two to seven times as much as the average worker in each country.

    Powell said that “ethical branding” is an idea that might help sweatshop workers. This is a marketing strategy where a company uses the fact that products are produced in sweatshops as a way to increase demand and prices. This, in turn, would increase the demand for sweatshop workers and increase their wages. But this has to be a voluntary strategy, Powell said. Companies must see this as a business success. If it is not successful in increasing demand but companies are forced to implement this strategy, it will lead to less sweatshop employment.

    Also, demand — in terms of the number of units sold — must not fall. This is a problem with “fair trade” coffee, where people purchase less of the more expensive fair trade coffee.

    The real solution for improving sweatshop wages and working conditions, Powell said, is the process of economic development. Sweatshops existed in Great Britain and the United States at one time. As capital is accumulated, better technologies are developed, and workers become more educated, workers become more productive and earn more, both in income and better working conditions.

    This process took over a century in the U.S., but countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea, which were sweatshop countries in the 1950s and 1960s, made very rapid improvements in wages and working conditions. Capital and technology is available from abroad, Powell said, and this process can be repeated. But anti-sweatshop policies risk stalling this development, resulting in a permanent sweatshop country with low incomes.

    The real question, Powell said, is not why some countries are poor, but why some countries are rich. Rule of law, respect for property rights, and respect for individual liberty and economic freedom are policies that promote rapid economic growth. Countries that do not have these stagnate and do not increase their standard of living.

    In conclusion, Powell said that sweatshop wages and working conditions are better than what many workers face as alternatives, and that’s why people voluntarily choose to work in them. While wages are low compared to developed countries, this is because productivity is low. The process of economic development is the way to raise productivity and wages. Much of the work of anti-sweatshop groups risks undermining the economic development processes that will raise living standards.

    A question from the audience asked about the proliferation of sweatshops abroad leading to the loss of American jobs. Powell replied that sweatshops lead to the decline of the American apparel industry. But it is in the interest of America, he said, to get garments at lower cost overseas, freeing up high-skilled U.S. labor and capital to do what we’re relatively better at. This increases the wealth of America.

    Another question referred to the human costs of sweatshop labor, contrasting those workers to Nike executives who earn millions. What is the cost in terms of damage to human dignity? Powell replied that businesses are not charities, and they don’t pay executives high salaries simply because they want to. The extremely high pay of the top executive serves as an incentive for underlings to work harder in jobs that are hard to observe quality of effort. Most people do not understand this, Powell said.

    He also said that if we’re concerned about the dignity of sweatshop workers in third world countries, we should be even more concerned about those who don’t have sweatshop jobs. These people either have no jobs, or jobs with much lower pay and worse working conditions than sweatshop workers.

    Another question asked if it would help the economies of third world countries if we simply raised the wages of sweatshop workers, referring to companies that are making millions in profits. Powell said that laws mandating higher wages will change the behavior of sweatshop companies, resulting in a loss of sweatshop jobs. But voluntary programs like ethical branding could work.

    Related material on this topic by Powell includes a Christian Science Monitor op-ed Don’t get into a lather over sweatshops, a working paper titled Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards: Are the Jobs Worth the Sweat?, and an article In Defense of “Sweatshops.”

    The ESU Lectures on Liberty was conceived by Greg Schneider, professor of History at Emporia State University, to bring in important academics who support the idea of research and scholarship on critical issues regarding liberty in American history. The lecture series is underwritten by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation in Wichita.

  • The new road to serfdom and the continuing relevance of Austrian economics

    Here’s a video lecture recently given by Richard M. Ebeling titled The new road to serfdom and the continuing relevance of Austrian economics.

    Economic Liberty Lecture Series: Richard M. Ebeling from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

  • ‘In Praise of Sweatshops’ lecture

    The third in the series of three Lectures on Liberty will be held on Thursday April 8 at the historic Granada Theater in downtown Emporia. The speaker will be Benjamin Powell, professor of economics from Suffolk University in Boston. The topic is “In Praise of Sweatshops.” The lecture is free and open to the public and begins at 7:00 pm.

    The ESU Lectures on Liberty was conceived by Greg Schneider, professor of History at Emporia State University, to bring in important academics who support the idea of research and scholarship on critical issues regarding liberty in American history. The lecture series is underwritten by the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation in Wichita.

    For more information, contact Dr. Schneider, gschneid@emporia.edu, 620-341-5565.

    The Granada Theater is at 807 Commercial Street in downtown Emporia. Google maps shows that from Central and Rock Road in Wichita, it’s a 84 mile drive that should take one hour and 22 minutes. Click here for the Google map with driving directions.