Voice For Liberty

Tag: Capitalism

  • Sweatshops best alternative for some workers

    From April, 2010.

    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 them. 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.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Thursday August 11, 2011

    Kensinger, Brownback chief of staff, profiled. Kansas City Star reporter Dave Helling has written a lengthy profile of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s chief of staff David Kensinger. I do not know him well on a personal level, but I have attended several training session that he led, and they were very informative. I’ve also watched him preside over a contentious debate at Kansas Days, and it was remarkable to see him keep track of all the motions, substitute motions, etc. and keep the parliamentary process on track. … The article notes disagreements between Kensinger and Kansas Senators Tim Owens and John Vratil, two of the Senate’s most influential members, especially Vratil, who is Senate vice-president and vice-chair of two important committees. Both of these Republican members consistently vote contrary to economic freedom, and it is thought that Vratil, in his role of vice-chair of the Ways and Means Committee, exercises great influence over big-spending Senate budgets. So when Kensinger tangles with these two — and these two are no intellectual slouches in their own right — I’m glad the conservative cause is represented by someone as accomplished as he. … The piece in the Star is Brownback’s chief of staff is shaking up the Kansas Capitol.

    New York charter schools seen as success. The Wall Street Journal calls attention to the success of a series of charter schools in New York City, where minority students from Harlem are closing the achievement gap and far outperforming white students from across the state. The schools are Eva Moskowitz’s Harlem Success academies, which the Journal describes as “the most relentlessly attacked charter schools” — because of their success with students while operating outside the control of education bureaucrats and — importantly — the teachers unions. Concludes the piece: “Meanwhile, the battle to stop the movement continues. Ms. Moskowitz’s effort to open another school on Manhattan’s Upper West Side has met massive resistance. Actor Matt Damon is now throwing his celebrity against charters. Their students, meanwhile, continue upward.” Click on Arguing With Success: Eva Moskowitz’s aptly named Harlem charter schools to read. … The government school education establishment vigorously resists any expansion of charter schools in Kansas. As it is, charter schools are virtually nonexistant in Kansas. The Center for Education Reform gives Kansas the grade of “F” for its restrictive charter school law, calling a “law in name only.”

    Morality of capitalism. Tom G. Palmer, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, speaks about capitalism and a new book — The Morality of Capitalism — that he edited. “One of the things that’s quite striking is when you look at criticisms of the market, in many cases what they’re complaining about is interventionism and cronyism, not really capitalism. That’s a very important distinction to make. … The financial crisis in particular is just quite evidently a failure of interventionism — trying to steer the market, and it ended up going off the rails. Now markets are trying to correct themselves and governments are struggling to not allow that to happen, with more stimulus and trying to pump up property prices, and so on.” … Palmer said now it’s time to go on the offensive for free market capitalism. That has not been responsible for the failed policies of government. … On the morality of capitalism, Palmer said that capitalism has been identified exclusively with self-interest, as though that was its defining feature. But people in other economic systems pursue self-interest, too. Capitalism is distinguished, he said, by a legal and moral relationship among persons: “People have the right to pursue their dream, they have the right to do what they want, with what is legitimately theirs under a system of the rule of law and equality before the law — for everybody. Not privileges for some with special powers as planners and dictators and so one, but all of us meet in society as moral and legal equals. And we trade and we exchange. The outcome of that is morally just.” … It’s not just the greater productivity of market exchange, Palmer said. People have a right to exchange and transact freely, and the state and planners don’t have the right to tell them otherwise. … The podcast also addresses the nature of economic competition in capitalism, which Palmer described as “constructive, peaceful cooperation.” … On the rich, who are often criticized for exploiting others under capitalism, Palmer said that in the past and in legally under-developed countries today, rich people almost always became rich by taking or through cronyism. But under capitalism, people become rich by creating and producing, satisfying the needs and desires of others. … Click below to listen to Palmer in this 11 minute podcast.

  • Wichita city council to decide between rule of law, or rule by situation

    Tuesday’s Wichita City Council meeting will provide an opportunity for the mayor, council members, and city hall staff to let Wichitans know if our city is governed by the rule of law and proper respect for it, or if these values will be discarded for the convenience of one person and his business partners.

    Here’s the situation: a person wants to gain approval of a tax increment financing (TIF) district project plan. This requires a public hearing, which the city has scheduled for September 13th.

    But this schedule doesn’t suit the applicant. He has a personal business need — an expiring purchase option — and wants the city to issue a letter of intent stating that the city intends to do all the things that are the subject of the September public hearing.

    The letter of intent is not binding, city officials tell us. The council will still have to hold the September public hearing and vote on the incentives the developer wants. And the list of incentives is large, amounting to many millions of dollars. Whether to issue these incentives deserves discussion and a public hearing.

    But the letter of intent, in effect, circumvents the public hearing. It reduces the hearing to a meaningless exercise. No matter what information is presented at the September public hearing, no matter how strong public opinion might be against this project, is there any real likelihood that the council would not proceed with this plan and its incentives, having already passed a letter of intent to do so? I imagine that persuasive arguments will be made that since the city issued a letter of intent, and since the developers may have already taken action based on that letter, it follows that the city is obligated to pass the plan. Otherwise, who would ever vest any meaning in a future letter of intent from this city?

    And the developers are planning to take action based on this letter of intent. To them, the letter does have meaning. If it had no meaning, why would they ask for it?

    That bears repeating: If the letter of intent is non-binding, why issue it at all?

    The last time someone felt the city reneged on a letter of intent, it resulted in a court case that went all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court. I imagine the city is not anxious to repeat that experience.

    Part of the purpose of public hearings and their advance notice, usually 30 days or so, is to give interested parties time to prepare for the hearing. But citizens are given just a few days notice of the proposed letter of intent. The parties who will receive the subsidies, of course, have known about this for some time. Their bureaucratic and political enablers have, too.

    The issuance of the letter of intent on Tuesday, if the city council decides to do so, is an affront to the rule of law. It would be a powerful statement by the council that it intends to go ahead with the project and its subsides, public hearing — and citizens — be damned. It is a striking show of arrogance by the city and its political leadership, which is to say Mayor Carl Brewer.

    After Tuesday’s meeting we will know one thing. We will know if the Wichita City Council and city staff value the rule of law more than the needs of one small group of people. We won’t really know about individual city staff, but the council members and mayor will have to vote on this item. We’ll know exactly where each of them stands. Expect waffling.

    Tuesday provides citizens a chance to learn exactly how the mayor and each council members value the rule of law as compared to the needs of one person and his business partners. It is as simple as that.

    The project

    The project is the development of a new hotel in an existing building downtown. It sounds like a neat project and would be a great addition to Wichita. But — this project is a product of central government planning backed by massive government intervention in the form of millions of dollars of subsidy. Pretty much all the tools have been tapped in the proposed corporate welfare, even one form that will require the city to pass a special charter ordinance.

    The lead developer, David Burk, is well known in Wichita and has produced a number of successful projects. (We must qualify this as “seemingly successful,” as it seems as all of Burk’s projects require some sort of taxpayer involvement and subsidy. So we don’t really know if these projects would be successful if they had to stand on their own.)

    I’ve written extensively on the problems with government-directed planning and taxpayer-funded investment in downtown Wichita. See Downtown Wichita regulations on subsidy to be considered or Downtown Wichita revitalization for examples. This project suffers from all these problems.

    Furthermore, we see the problems of the public choice theory of politics at play here. Perhaps most prominent is the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. In this case Burk and his partners stand to garner tremendous benefit, while everyone else pays. This is why Burk and his wife are generous campaign donors to both conservative and liberal city politicians.

    Burk and past allegations

    The involvement of Burk in the project, along with the city’s response, is problematic. City documents indicate that the city has investigated the backgrounds of the applicants for this project. The result is “no significant findings to report.” Evidently the city didn’t look very hard. In February 2010 the Wichita Eagle reported on the activities of David Burk with regard to property he owns in Old Town. Citizens reading these articles might have been alarmed at the actions of Burk. Certainly some city hall politicians and bureaucrats were.

    The opening sentence of the Wichita Eagle article (Developer appealed taxes on city-owned property) raises the main allegation against Burk: “Downtown Wichita’s leading developer, David Burk, represented himself as an agent of the city — without the city’s knowledge or consent — to cut his taxes on publicly owned property he leases in the Old Town Cinema Plaza, according to court records and the city attorney.”

    A number of Wichita city hall officials were not pleased with Burk’s act.

    According to the Eagle reporting, Burk was not authorized to do what he did: “Officials in the city legal department said that while Burk was within his rights to appeal taxes on another city-supported building in the Cinema Plaza, he did not have authorization to file an appeal on the city-owned parking/retail space he leases. … As for Burk signing documents as the city’s representative, ‘I do have a problem with it,’ said City Attorney Gary Rebenstorf, adding that he intends to investigate further.”

    Council member Jeff Longwell was quoted by the Eagle: “‘We should take issue with that,’ he said. ‘If anyone is going to represent the city they obviously have to have, one, the city’s endorsement and … two, someone at the city should have been more aware of what was going on. And if they were, shame on them for not bringing this to the public’s attention.’”

    Council member Lavonta Williams, now serving as vice mayor, was not pleased, either, according to her quotations: “‘Right now, it doesn’t look good,’ she said. ‘Are we happy about it? Absolutely not.’”

    In a separate article by the Eagle on this issue, we can learn of the reaction by two other city hall officials: “Vice Mayor Jim Skelton said that having city development partners who benefit from tax increment financing appeal for lower property taxes ‘seems like an oxymoron.’ City Manager Robert Layton said that anyone has the right to appeal their taxes, but he added that ‘no doubt that defeats the purpose of the TIF.’”

    The manager’s quote is most directly damaging. In a tax increment financing (TIF) district, the city borrows money to pay for things that directly enrich the developers, in this case Burk and possibly his partners. Then their increased property taxes — taxes they have to pay anyway — are used to repay the borrowed funds. In essence, a TIF district allows developers to benefit exclusively from their property taxes. For everyone else, their property taxes go to fund the city, county, school district, state, fire district, etc. But not so for property in a TIF district.

    This is what is most astonishing about Burk’s action: Having been placed in a rarefied position of receiving many millions in benefits, he still thinks his own taxes are too high.

    Some of Burk’s partners have a history of dealing with the city that is illustrative of their attitudes. In 2008 the Old Town Warren Theater was failing and its owners threatened to close it and leave the city with a huge loss on a TIF district formed for the theater’s benefit. Faced with this threat, the city made a no-interest and low-interest loan to the theater. The theater’s owners included David Wells, who is one of Burk’s partners in the project being considered by the council for the letter of intent.

    Entrepreneurs are not always successful. Business failure, if handled honestly and honorably, is not shameful.

    But when a business is already receiving taxpayer subsidy, and the response to failure is to demand even more from the taxpayer — that is shameful.

    Burk and Wells, by the way, played a role in the WaterWalk project, which has a well-deserved reputation as a failed development. In 2011 the city’s budget includes a loss of slightly over one million dollars for the TIF district that has benefited its owners to the tune of over $41 million.

    Burk has been personally enriched by city hall action before. An example from the same article: “A 2003 lease agreement gave Burk use of the retail strip at the front of the parking garage for $1 a year for the first five years.” Nearly-free property that you can then lease at market rates is a sweet deal.

    These gentlemen have had their bite at the taxpayer-funded apple. Now they want another bite, on their own schedule, without regard to rule of law and the public.

  • Job creation at young firms declines

    A new report by the Kauffman Foundation holds unsettling information for the future of job growth in the United States. Kauffman has been at the forefront of research regarding entrepreneurship and job formation.

    Previous Kauffman research has emphasized the importance of young firms in productivity growth. Research by Art Hall found that for the period 2000 to 2005, young firms created nearly all the net job growth in Kansas.

    So young firms — these are new firms, and while usually small, the category is not the same as small businesses in general — are important drivers of productivity and job growth. That’s why the recent conclusion from Kauffman in its report Starting Smaller; Staying Smaller: America’s Slow Leak in Job Creation is troubling: “The United States appears to be suffering from a long-term leak in job creation that pre-dates the recession and has the potential to persist for an unknown time. The heart of the problem is a pullback by newly created businesses, the economy’s most critical source of job creation, which are generating substantially fewer jobs than one would expect based on past experience. … This trend has only worsened since the onset of the most recent recession. The cohort of firms started in 2009, for example, is on track to contribute close to a million jobs less in its first five to ten years than historical averages.”

    The report mentions two assumptions that are commonly made regarding employment that the authors believe are incorrect:

    First, policymakers’ focus on big changes in employment because of events such as a new manufacturing plant or the recruitment of a business to a community ignore the more important fact that our jobs outlook will be driven more by the collective decisions of the millions of young and small businesses whose changing employment patterns are not as easy to see or influence. Second, it is just as easy to be deluded into thinking that the jobs problem will be solved by growth in the number of the self-employed.

    The importance of young firms is vital to formulating Kansas economic development policy. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has incorporated some of the ideas of economic dynamism in his economic plan released in February. The idea of dynamism, as developed by Dr. Art Hall, is that economic development is best pursued by creating a level playing field where as much business experimentation as possible can take place. The marketplace will sort out the best firms. The idea that government economic development agencies can select which firms should receive special treatment is sure to fail. It is failing.

    While the governor’s plan promotes the idea of economic dynamism, some of his actual policies, such as retaining a multi-million dollar slush fund for economic development, are contrary to the free marketplace of business experimentation and letting markets pick winning firms.

    At the City of Wichita, economic development policy is tracking on an even worse direction. Among city hall bureaucrats and city council members, there is not a single person who appears to understand the importance of free markets and capitalism except for one: council member Michael O’Donnell, who represents district 4 (south and southwest Wichita).

    The policy of Wichita is that of explicit crony capitalism, with city leaders believing they have the wisdom to develop policies that recognize which firms are worthy of taxpayer support. And if they want to grant subsidies to firms that don’t meet policies, they find exceptions or write new policies. Elected officials like Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and city council member Jeff Longwell lust for more tools in the economic development toolbox.

    At the Sedgwick County Commission, two of the five members — Karl Peterjohn and Richard Ranzau understand the importance of free markets for economic development. But the city has a much larger role in targeted incentives for economic development, as it is the source of tax increment financing districts, industrial revenue bonds, economic development exemptions, community improvement districts, and other harmful forms on economic interventionism.

  • In Kansas, P.J. O’Rourke promotes free markets

    From May, 2010.

    Last month Americans for Prosperity-Kansas hosted a summit in Topeka where 400 citizens gathered to learn more about free markets and Kansas politics. It wasn’t all instruction, however, as political satirist P.J. O’Rourke was on hand to entertain the audience while also providing insights into politics and economics.

    O’Rourke is the best-selling author of 12 books and contributor to many magazines. He is H.L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute.

    An Easterner, he told the audience that people on the east coast are skeptical of the Midwest, saying it’s awful flat out there. “That’s so we can see you coming,” he said.

    The free market, he said, is the greatest repository of our freedoms. He told the audience that “economic freedom is the freedom that we exercise most often and to the greatest extent.” Freedom of speech is important — if you have anything to say.

    The free market is a measurement, he said. It tells us “what people are willing to pay for a given thing at a given moment.” While people may not always like the results the free market produce, it isn’t possible to legislate perfect results.

    He said that while we may not understand the causes of the recent economic crisis, we do understand business investment, “something the Obama Administration seems to be doing everything it can to prevent.” Business investment defines humanity and civilization.

    While O’Rourke heaped criticism on Democrats, he said that Republicans deserve criticism too. “Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, and then they get elected and prove it.”

    Bush policies such as No Child Left Behind, immigration reform, and social security reform are examples of failed programs or proposals that didn’t make it into law. “Bush said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship, they’d have to do three things: pay taxes, learn English, and work at a meaningful job. Bush didn’t meet two out of those three qualifications.”

    While the Bush Administration disappointed, he said the Obama Administration has just began to disappoint.

    Speaking on the role of politics and government in society, O’Rourke said that we keep blaming political problem on politicians. People believe that only if we had better politicians, the world would be better. He countered: “The problem isn’t politicians. The problem is politics.”

    O’Rourke told the audience that all society’s ills can’t be cured through politics. “Politicians lie to us, but it’s not like they’ve got much choice. Think about what the truth would sound like on the campaign stump. Even a little, bitty bit of truth. Imagine the politician who said to the voters ‘No, I can’t fix public education. The problem isn’t funding, or overcrowding, or teachers unions, or lack of computer equipment in the classroom. The problem is your damn kids.‘”

    He said that after 40 years making fun of politicians, he realized he hates politics — all politics. We use the word “politics” in ways that reveal our true attitude, he said: “office politics,” “plays politics,” someone is a “real politician” — all these have negative connotations. True conservatism, he said, is a room deodorizer, trying to get the bad smell of politics out of our lives.

    While partisan political bickering is often viewed as a block to accomplishment, O’Rourke said “We want them to bicker. The two most frightening words in Washington — and right here in Topeka too — are ‘bipartisan consensus.’”

    There is a desire by many to stop worrying about politics, but that’s not possible, as we rely on politics for so much. Politicians of both parties want government to solve all our problems. But O’Rourke mentioned government’s poor record of accomplishment: “Government has trouble figuring out where mail goes, and mail has our address right on the front of it.”

    O’Rourke told the audience that corruption is ingrained in politics. “When buying and selling are controlled by voting, the first things that get bought and sold are votes.” Politicians understand this, he added.

    On the role of lawyers in politics, he quipped “Letting lawyers write laws is like letting pharmaceutical companies invent diseases.”

    On economics, O’Rourke said that “wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino’s box.” Wealth is not a zero-sum gain. In a free market there are no losers when someone gets rich, he added.

    The political quest for equality leads to fear and envy of the rich. The Biblical commandment to not covet your neighbor’s things needs to be applied to the nation: “don’t whine about what others have — go get your own.”

    In an interview after his talk, I was able to ask a few questions. Since much of his talk to the audience was on economic freedom, I asked why isn’t economic freedom more popular?

    He said that psychologically, freedom requires taking responsibility. The zero-sum idea — that when someone makes money, they’re somehow taking it from me — is hard to shake. It’s a relatively new idea in human history, and we have not adjusted, psychologically or politically. Also, he said that children today spend a long time in “socialist dependence” in the family setting. Although children are instinctively in favor of private property, they are brought up in a collectivist settings like families, churches, schools, scout groups, and universities.

    So have we as conservatives or libertarians not done a good job explaining wealth creation through voluntary transactions?

    He said no, this is not taught well at all. The moral aspect of economics is not taught. Economics doesn’t fit into the typical secondary school curriculum, he said, and so students usually don’t received much instruction. There is an element in the education establishment that either doesn’t understand the moral aspects of the free market, or they disagree.

    Responding about a question about the push for tax increases in Kansas, O’Rourke said that government spending advocates assume as a given that the spending needs to be done. He said that an adequate amount is being spent on education, but we’re not getting results.

    Since many of the people in the audience are activists, I asked what advice he had to start reducing the amount of government we have.

    He noted that the paradox is that political involvement is necessary to diminish the role of politics in people’s lives. Moving political power to the local or state level is one way. This requires people to become more politically active. More people need to be more engaged in the decisions that are now being made in Washington. But it’s easy to slough off problems to Washington, O’Rourke said, and this is one of the reasons why government has grown.

    I asked about the state sovereignty and tenth amendment movements: Do we risk replacing a tyrannical federal government with tyrannical state governments? He said the idea of sovereignty may apply to the health care issue, as all states are already involved in this area. But states can be just as oppressive as the federal government, referring to the new Arizona illegal alien law.

    On climate change and global warming alarmism, O’Rourke said this is a tool people use to increase political power. There is a desire to increase the scope of political power, and “any excuse will do,” he said. Using an observation made by Milton Friedman, he added that solving problems through increasing political power relies on the “absurd assumption that we can somehow find honest and unselfish men to put in control of dishonest and selfish men.” There is a qualitative division between the type of people who go into politics and everyone else, he added.

    I asked about those who work for greater government power at the expense of economic freedom: Have they never been exposed to the ideas of free markets, or have they been exposed to these ideas and don’t believe them, or are they simply venal?

    O’Rourke said that — putting the best possible face on it, he said — many politicians regard politics as a “counterweight to what they think of as market failures.”

    He said that the small “l” left believes that man is good, but that the systems of power in the world are inherently bad. And for most of history, the systems of power have been bad. If the power structures of the world can be changed, the “goodness of people will shine through.” O’Rourke said that this idea is wrong: People are not not good, but they’re not evil; they have a capacity for both. The free market is a method to move power away from the political elite and aristocracy and toward ordinary people.

    This represents two different views of the world and human nature. He said that his point of view requires less interference in people’s lives, making it better — or at least less annoying.

    He told of a conversation with Cato Institute’s David Boaz, telling him that he is as over-certain in his libertarianism as anyone on the left is in their beliefs. Boaz replied “Yes, but I’m not prescriptive in my over-certainness.”

  • Public-private partnerships: the problems

    As the City of Wichita undertakes the revitalization of downtown Wichita, we need to make sure we understand the many problems inherent in the “public-private partnership.” The following commentary by Fred L. Smith, Jr. President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute originally appeared on OpenMarket.org, and it does an excellent job explaining these problems. Some of these I and others have brought to the attention of the Wichita City Council.

    The Problem With Public-Private Partnerships

    by Fred Smith

    In our half-political, half-private world, there are a growing number of public-private partnerships. Almost nothing in the current world can be done without implicit or explicit permission by local, state, federal or (increasingly) global regulators. But the term, public-private is normally used to denote the joint funding and, sometimes, joint management of some “public” facility — streets, water systems, and so forth.

    The rationale for “public” investments is that they are “public” goods, whose benefits are not adequately captured by the provider. There are many problems with this concept — in practice, it means that someone wants something and nobody seems to be providing it. Note, from a Coasian/Schumpeterian free market perspective, these are exactly the “lures” that lead mankind to pursue the unexplored entrepreneurial paths to the future. Rushing in with government assistance distorts and preempts those creative forces.

    Sometimes, public-private partnerships can be a transitional step toward privatization. The concept of “corporatization” that is, reorganizing an activity now performed by some political agency so that its inherent economic realities become more understandable and transparent, may be a useful step in privatizing the activity.

    In most cases, however, public-private partnerships are simply a means of using tax breaks, regulatory easing, taxpayer support and so forth to subsidize some private activity: stadia, light and heavy rail — mass transit generally, sometimes (for God’s sake) hotels and malls, downtown development districts. Where I live in Washington, D.C., businesses are allowed to add a “special tax” to pay for services the city supposedly pays for with normal tax revenues. Such public-private partnerships suffer from the full array of government failures:

    • Log-rolling and pork-barrel politics: I’ll vote for your PPP if you vote for my PPP.
    • Weakened market tests: resources are devoted to a project not because it benefits the citizenry but rather because it benefits a powerful interest group and/or because a creative referendum entices a majority of voters to support their special interests.
    • Weaker Management: Absent market tests, managers are less motivated to find that mix of services and creative array of financing tools to ensure that it proves “profitable” (that is, a rational allocation of capital). Roads, even charter schools, etc all have suffered here immensely.
    • Lack of innovation: No institution in the private world can allow itself to stagnate – the creative forces of destruction will soon make it obsolete. PPP managers face much weaker innovative forces — if things go wrong, they can always appeal to their “public” nature for taxpayer bailouts.
    • Corruption: Crony capitalism abounds in the PPP world.
    • Faddism: Markets sometimes go on kicks — the tech boom, for example — but these soon collapse. Governments go on kicks for many decades — “renewable energy” and “mass transit” being perhaps the best examples but “magnet” investments in downtown malls, stadia and convention centers are perhaps even more persistent ones. Before Walmart became a PPP, it did more for consumers than all the PPP malls in the world.
    • Crowding Out: Capitalism plays a critical role in allocating capital — planting the seeds for our future. That is a very difficult task, one made much more difficult by the existence of PPPs. Government already seizes a disproportionate amount of our wealth and the PPP concept allows it to further distort the allocation by market forces. I’ve argued that the genius of the Progressives in the late 19th century was to preempt or push large sectors of the emerging future (the environment, schools, electromagnetic spectrum, infrastructure, welfare, the medical world) into the political world. The PPP concept simply exacerbates this tendency.

    Our challenge is to find ways to expand the private sector and only very rarely does the PPP concept do that. It allows people to be sloppy — “That would never pay for itself but it obviously has value, thus, we need some government help. Let’s not make it an honest government function, let’s make it a Public-Private partnership and get the best of all possible outcomes!!”

    This Mixed Economy model is less honest than true socialism (government acting directly) for many reasons. If as is often the case, things go wrong, it will be capitalism — not government — that will be blamed. PPP activities are less subject to consumer sovereignty (look at airports or schools). The true costs of the activity don’t appear on government budgets — making it appear that PPP arrangements are “bargains.”

  • Tax expenditures, or loopholes

    While most critics of government spending focus on entitlements, regular appropriations, and earmarks, there is a category of spending that not many have paid much attention. This spending is called “tax expenditures.” This year as part of the debate or controversy over raising the federal debt ceiling, attention is being paid to the cost of these tax expenditures, although the term commonly used is “loophole.”

    It’s a big issue. As economist Martin Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal, tax expenditures were thought to increase the federal budget deficit by $1 trillion in 2010.

    We know where President Barack Obama stands. He is firm in wanting to increase tax revenue by eliminating tax expenditures. He focuses on those that apply to the rich, although there are plenty of tax expenditures that apply to the working poor and middle class, such as the earned income tax credit and child care credit.

    To speak of these tax expenditures or loopholes having a “cost” makes sense only if you adopt a certain view of the world. It has to do with who owns what — you or government. George Reisman recently explained: “The underlying assumption of those who hold this view is that the government already owns the funds in question whether it has collected them in taxes or not. The government is the alleged owner of funds that belong to the taxpayer and which it abstains from taking. It allegedly spends these funds in allowing the taxpayers to keep them.”

    Reisman further explained that eliminating tax expenditures is a tax increase, pure and simple, and must not be embraced: “The notion of tax expenditures provides the pretext for massive tax increases in the name of reducing government spending. This notion must be cast aside, so that the target of tax reform will be reductions in actual government spending, which then must be followed by reductions in taxes.”

    Other economists agree. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in his essay More Loophole Lobbyists, Please warns of the “oldest trick in the book,” which he says is “Give up your deductions, and we will reduce your income tax rate.”

    I agree with their arguments. Increasing tax revenue to the state by eliminating tax expenditures is not a good thing. At the same time, the tax expenditures are a problem. Their very existence, and the continual effort to expand them or prevent their closing, is harmful to the economy, too. Spending through the tax system is a major way of implementing crony capitalism, that is, political entrepreneurship instead of market entrepreneurship, as explained by Charles G. Koch in The Wall Street Journal: “Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.”

    Koch went on to explain that “Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers — not governments — to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.”

    I agree with that, too. This is why this is a difficult issue.

    Tax expenditures are implemented through the tax system. It’s usually the income tax system, especially at the federal level, but also at the state level.

    Some of the tax expenditures consist of deductions: The government deciding not to collect tax on income that is spent for a specific purpose. An example is the deduction for home mortgage interest. For 2010, this is estimated to “cost” the federal government $103.7 billion in taxes that it would otherwise collect, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

    The tax expenditures that really “cost” the government — and by extension, other taxpayers that must pay unless spending is also reduced — are tax credits. These reduce the tax that must be paid dollar for dollar. An example is the “credit for alcohol fuels,” which is to say ethanol. The cost of this tax credit program for 2010 is given as $10.1 billion. Many credits are refundable, meaning that if the taxpayer has no tax liability, the government will send the recipient a check.

    Other examples of tax credits cited by Feldstein include “$500 million annual subsidy for the rehabilitation of historic structures and a $4 billion annual subsidy of employer-paid transportation benefits.”

    While supporters of many of these programs portray them as not costing the government anything, Feldstein writes that they do: “These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures.”

    I argued this in testimony I presented to a committee in the Kansas Legislature last year, when it was considering restoring and expanding the Kansas historic preservation tax credit program. I told committee members: “We must recognize that a tax credit is an appropriation of Kansans’ money made through the tax system. If the legislature is not comfortable with writing a real estate developer a check for over $1,000,000 — as in the case with one Wichita developer — it should not make a roundabout contribution through the tax system that has the same economic impact on the state’s finances.”

    In that committee, not one member voted against this program, even though the committee has some members who consider themselves very fiscally conservative and hawks on spending.

    In Wichita, the city council regularly steers spending to certain companies through the tax system by granting property tax exemptions and tax increment financing.

    Feldstein describes problems with spending implemented through the tax system:

    • Politicians use tax expenditures to grow the welfare state. While proposing a freeze on discretionary spending, President Obama at the same time proposed an expansion of a tax credit program for child or elderly care.
    • Once enshrined in the tax law, these appropriations don’t have to be reauthorized each year. They’re on auto-pilot, so to speak.
    • Eliminating tax expenditures is looked on by Republicans as a tax increase, so they are reluctant to support their elimination. Felstein counters: “But eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment or risk-taking.”
    • Tax expenditures distort the economy in harmful ways: “[Eliminating tax expenditures] would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions.”

    Feldstein concludes: “Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending. And to be politically acceptable, the cuts in tax expenditures must be widespread, requiring most taxpayers to give up something so that the fiscal deficits can decline.”

    The ‘Tax Expenditure’ Solution for Our National Debt

    The credits and subsidies that make the tax code so complicated cost big bucks. Reduce them by third and the debt will be 72% of GDP in 2020 instead of 90%.

    By Martin Feldstein

    When it comes to spending cuts, Congress is looking in the wrong place. Most federal nondefense spending, other than Social Security and Medicare, is now done through special tax rules rather than by direct cash outlays. The rules are used to subsidize a wide range of spending including education, child care, health insurance, and a myriad of other congressional favorites.

    These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures. That’s why tax and budget experts refer to them as “tax expenditures.” This year tax expenditures will raise the federal deficit by about $1 trillion, according to estimates by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. If Congress is serious about cutting government spending, it has to go after many of them.

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required)

  • Clusters as economic development in Kansas

    Is the promotion by Kansas government of industry clusters as economic development good for the future of Kansas?

    The formula for creating these clusters is always the same: Pick a hot industry, build a technology park next to a research university, provide incentives for businesses to relocate, add some venture capital and then watch the magic happen. But, as I have noted before, the magic never happens. Most of the top-down cluster-development projects in the United States and around the world have died a slow death in relative obscurity. Politicians who held the press conferences to claim credit for advancing science and technology are long gone. Management consultants have cashed in their big checks. Real estate barons have reaped fortunes, and taxpayers are left holding the bag.

    The author is Vivek Wadhwa, writing in the Washington Post article Industry clusters: The modern-day snake oil.

    Wadwha is criticizing Harvard professor Michael Porter’s cluster theory, which he says has to do with how “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, and service providers gave certain industries a productivity and cost advantage.” Wardwha describes the magical potential: “[Porter’s] legions of followers postulated that by bringing these ingredients together into a ‘cluster,’ regions could artificially ferment innovation. They just needed to build the right infrastructure and bring together chosen industries.”

    It’s something that Wichita and Kansas has embraced. We hear — continually — about the importance of the aviation cluster in south-central Kansas and its importance to our state’s economy. Talk of this becomes particularly intense each time the major aviation companies and their suppliers approach local governments for handouts in the form of economic development incentives.

    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer wants to create a cluster of wind energy companies in and around Wichita, and he has traveled as far as Germany in this quest.

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has embraced the cluster concept. In June, Governor Brownback promoted one such cluster, saying “As a state, we must formulate strategies to achieve a successful economic cluster around the animal health sector.”

    Other clusters the state wants to promote include life sciences, tourism, and, as aleady mentioned, aviation. Brownback has held summits on most of these topics. A presentation titled Kansas Competitiveness: State and Cluster Economic Performance, billed as “Prepared for Governor Sam Brownback” in February by Harvard’s Porter analyzes Kansas and its business clusters.

    Evidence that backs up Wardwha’s criticism of clusters is found in the recent paper When local interaction does not suffice: Sources of firm innovation in urban Norway (Rune Dahl Fitjar and Andrés Rodríguez-Pose). Summarizing it, Wardwha wrote: “The study found that regional and national clusters are ‘irrelevant for innovation.’”

    In particular, the paper states in its introduction: “The results indicate that firm innovation in urban Norway is mainly driven by global pipelines, rather than local interaction. The most innovative — both in terms of basic product innovation and radical product and process innovation — firms are those with a greater diversity of international partners. Local and even national interaction seems to be irrelevant for innovation.”

    And from the conclusion: “Recent analyses of clusters and agglomeration have looked for the sources of innovation of firms in the combination of the multiple interactions of firms within the region and in the connections of certain firms in the region with the outside world. The story emerging was one of complementarity. Local interaction took place without much effort through frequent face-to-face interaction in high trust environments, while global pipelines implied a conscious and often costly attempt by individual firms to engage with external actors in order to generate greater innovation and reap economic benefits. … There is a dearth of analyses that have systematically addressed whether the complementarity of these two types of interaction holds across a large number of firms. This has been the main aim of this paper, which has looked at the sources of innovation of 1604 firms across the five main urban agglomerations in Norway. The picture which emerges from the analysis does not conform to that generally stemming from the theoretical literature and from case-studies.”

    Is the promotion and pursuit of business and industry clusters a misguided effort by Kansas politicians like Brewer and Brownback and the state’s economic development officials? To the extent that promotion of certain industries means the state is using a top-down, “active investor” approach to economic development — rather than being the caretaker of a competitive platform that encourages as much business experimentation as possible — yes, it is misguided. We run the risk of all the problems described in the opening quotation appearing in this article.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday July 20, 2011

    Kansas budget director to be in Wichita. This Friday’s meeting (July 22) of the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Steve Anderson, Director of the Budget for Kansas. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club. … Upcoming speakers: On July 29, Dennis Taylor, Secretary, Kansas Department of Administration and “The Repealer” on “An Overview of the Office of the Repealer.” … On August 5, the three newest members of the Wichita City Council will appear: Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita), James Clendenin (district 3, south and southeast Wichita), and Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita). Their topic will be “What it’s like to be a new member of the Wichita City Council?” … On August 12 Kansas Representative Marc Rhoades, Chair of the Kansas House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, will speak on “The impact of the freshman legislators on the 2011 House budgetary process.” … On August 19, Jay M. Price, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director of the public history program at Wichita State University, speaking on “Clashes of Values in Kansas History.” His recent Wichita Eagle op-ed was Kansas a stage for “values showdowns.” … On August 26, Kansas State Representatives Jim Howell and Joseph Scapa speaking on “Our freshmen year in the Kansas Legislature.” … On September 2 the Petroleum Club is closed for the holiday, so there will be no meeting. … On September 9, Mark Masterson, Director, Sedgwick County Department of Corrections, on the topic “Juvenile Justice System in Sedgwick County.” Following, from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm, Pachyderm Club members and guests are invited to tour the Sedgwick County Juvenile Detention Center located at 700 South Hydraulic, Wichita, Kansas. … On September 16, Merrill Eisenhower Atwater, great grandson of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, will present a program with the topic to be determined. … On September 23, Dave Trabert, President of Kansas Policy Institute, speaking on the topic Why Not Kansas,” an initiative to provide information about school choice. … On September 30, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita on “An update from Washington.”

    All Kansans voted for “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” From Americans for Prosperity, Kansas: “Americans for Prosperity Kansas applauds Representatives Lynn Jenkins, Tim Huelskamp, Kevin Yoder, and Mike Pompeo for standing up to solve America’s debt crisis by voting ‘Yes’ on H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act directly addresses the nation’s staggering $14.3 trillion debt by immediately cutting spending, capping the federal budget and sending a strong balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification. … ‘Runaway spending has buried the United States Government in debt, causing us to hit our statutory ceiling at $14.3 trillion,’ said James Valvo, Americans for Prosperity Director of Government Affairs. ‘It is time for Washington to rein it its out-of-control spending and implement real spending reforms. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act provides necessary fiscal restraint that would get America back on the path to prosperity.’ … ‘Families and businesses alike in Kansas are tightening their belts and making tough choices to make ends meet, while Washington has continued to spend with no end in sight as if there are no limits,’ said Derrick Sontag, Americans For Prosperity Kansas State Director. ‘I thank the Kansas Representatives for safeguarding the future of America and demanding Washington tighten its belt.’”

    Foreclosed homes: the maps. We hear about the large number of foreclosed homes, but until you see them on a map, it’s sometimes difficult to comprehend the scope of the problem. For a tour of satellite photographs with indications of foreclosed homes, click on Satellite view of U.S. Foreclosures.

    Kansas certificates of indebtedness. Kansas Watchdog: “Without the state’s most recent internal borrowing, a $600 million certificate of indebtedness (COI) issued June 30, the state general fund (SGF) would have been out of money on July 5, just five days into the new fiscal year, and wouldn’t have a positive balance again until June 21, 2012.” Reporter Paul Soutar goes on to explain how these certificates — a loan to the state to be repaid with funds collected later in the fiscal year — are commonly used year after year. But this is just the start of the state’s problems, writes Soutar: “That’s just the tip of an off-balance iceberg according to the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an advocate for more open and honest accounting for government finance. If all financial obligations, including promised pension payments and health care benefits for retirees, are added up the Kansas state budget was actually $5.2 billion out of balance by FY2011 according to Truth in Accounting.” State accounting practices mask the true magnitude of the problem, too: “Accountants familiar with government and private accounting standards told KansasWatchdog the practice is called double counting and would not be allowed in a private business because it represents a fraud intended to deceive whoever reads the financial report. The double counting approved by the Legislature and Sebelius in 2003 continues in Kansas.” … The full article, well worth reading and understanding, is Certificates of Indebtedness Symptom of Bad Budget Choices.

    Why more regulation is not the answer. Brad Raple of the adverse possessor explains: “Many people associate pure free-market capitalism with a complete lack of regulation. This is not the case. Regulation is the primary reason free-market capitalism works so well. But in a capitalist system, the regulations are market-based instead of based on politically motivated bureaucrats telling people what they can and can’t do. … Bailouts, government guarantees, subsidies, and all other methods of socializing private risk undermine the regulation imposed by free-market forces. … The FDIC is even a huge example of moral hazard. For example, people pay practically no attention to the financial condition or solvency of their banks. After all, why would they? They’re FDIC insured! In other words, no one cares if their deposits are in a bank that is over-leveraged because if it fails, the FDIC will bail out the depositors. Without the FDIC, people might pay a little more attention to the financial condition of their banks. Banks would probably compete based on financial security, as opposed to free toasters, interest rates, and how quickly they can rubber stamp a home equity loan to finance a boat.” … More at Why more regulation is not the answer.

    Myths of the Great Depression. “Historian Stephen Davies names three persistent myths about the Great Depression. Myth #1: Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire president, and it was his lack of action that lead to an economic collapse. Davies argues that in fact, Hoover was a very interventionist president, and it was his intervening in the economy that made matters worse. Myth #2: The New Deal ended the Great Depression. Davies argues that the New Deal actually made matters worse. In other countries, the Great Depression ended much sooner and more quickly than it did in the United States. Myth #3: World War II ended the Great Depression. Davies explains that military production is not real wealth; wars destroy wealth, they do not create wealth. In fact, examination of the historical data reveals that the U.S. economy did not really start to recover until after WWII was over.” This video is from LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies, and many other informative videos are available.