Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Cheap Shot

Re: Cheap Shot

Per Kurowski — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:54:46 -0000

"Café Hayek: Where tenured US professors lobby ferociously against protecting US jobs."

That is indeed a cheap shot but, given the fact that the whole concept of a tenure is based on the importance of guaranteeing independent thinking to our academicians so that can better serve their function to society, we should also ask us what has gone wrong when an entire generation of tenured academicians is not capable of detecting or make their voices heard in order to help the society to avert the current crisis… a crisis that was perfectly foreseeable and therefore perfectly avoidable.

Re: Cheap Shot

Thomas A. Coss — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:50:36 -0000

How wonderful to have been called out on such an insipid and irrelevant point. Two things emerged, Cafe Hayek is being read and influencing thinking; and Eric needs to read more.

Re: Cheap Shot

Per Kurowski — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:47:43 -0000

Don Boudreaux says “Our argument -- which is nothing more than a well-known part of the long-standing argument for free-trade generally -- is that trade changes the pattern of domestic employment; it doesn't destroy domestic jobs on net.”

Yes but those of us who defend free trade have also to be able to stand up and acknowledge the problem that a garden is normally better off with a variety flowers and plants than with one single strand and that trade causes specialization and can therefore reduce the professional biodiversity or the professional gene-pool in the specific local areas.

Viewed from the space it can all look like a beautiful garden but locally, without, as an example, some manufacturing jobs, it can all be a hellishly boring parking lot… doomed to further degenerate because of professional incest.

Re: Cheap Shot

Bob Guzzardi — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:37:44 -0000

If "tenured" is the worst anyone can say of you, you are far better person than any of your critics:-)

Re: Cheap Shot

Frederick Davies — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:53:55 -0000

Tenure this, protectionism that... I think you are missing the point: an argument for or against anything must stand on its own correctness and validity, irrespective on who makes the argument. It is IRRELEVANT if the argument is made by someone who believes in it or not, practices it or not, or even cares one way or the other or not; it is the logical and empirical correctness of the argument that counts, not who made it. If you disagree with a statement made by someone you should argue about the statement, not the person; doing anything else is fallacy. As a result, whether tenureship (is there such a word?) is protectionism or not, is irrelevant as to the fact that the comment that started this whole thread is fallacious (ad hominem) and so is any argumentation constructed upon it. Don't they teach formal logic in the USA anymore!?

Re: Cheap Shot

Daniel Kuehn — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:52:05 -0000

And I must say - Don's response and my expansion of it to politicians is quite consistent with the recent Econtalk post on Theory of Moral Sentiments too. The whole POINT of Moral Sentiments that humans have many motivations, beyond the profit motive. I'm a fairly mainstream guy when it comes to my economics - and it's not easy to see how we can incorporate these motive into our work anytime soon. But I do think it's worth recognizing and qualifying that tenured professors, public servants, etc. may be motivated by something other than their incentive structure. It's quite possible they are motivated by other visions.

Re: Cheap Shot

Daniel Kuehn — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:43:07 -0000

I want to preface this by saying that I 100% agree with your response, Don. However, an AWFUL lot is said on this blog about the incentives that politicians face and how that affects what decisions they make. I don't see why the incentives that come along with tenure should be treated any differently.

There's also quite a bit said about public sector employment and the influence that job security has on public servants. Should we remark on that and just ignore probably one of the most secure jobs in the country - a tenured professorship?

This guy was smug and ultimately he was wrong - but he brings up an interesting point. And YOUR OWN response has some important insights that I think any adherents to the "public choice" school should take to hear: Yes, the position of politicians gives them certain incentives to follow. But they also have a mission to serve the public (just like tenured professors have a mission to teach and pursue truth) - and it is COMPLETELY unfair to assume that in such a vision-driven population, their incentive structures are going to dictate their decisions completely.

If it's not a fair accusation for you (and I agree it's not), why the hell is it a fair accusation for politicians?

Re: Cheap Shot

vikingvista — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:23:42 -0000

Gil--

"the employer is a government entity"

You bring up an obvious point. I would refer you to the last paragraph of my initial post. Profs R & B could swear to only work at private universities, but what private universities do not receive some tax funding? Should they refuse to teach students on Pell grants? Avoid driving to work on public roads? Not drink municipal water? Perhaps you think they should refuse to pay their taxes? (assuming these contradict their values)

They don't have a choice but to live in the world that exists. But more than most people, they live up to the virtue of exposing wrongs and urging for change consistent with their values.

There would be hypocrisy if they argued against their values. On this blog I've seen no effort to defend tax-funded education or any other anti-liberal positions (or even tenure for that matter, although tenure in itself even if ill-advised is not inherently anti-liberal).

Re: Cheap Shot

vikingvista — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:43:22 -0000

"define your way out of an intellectual defeat. Let me play this lovely game as well. How about this: "Protectionalism is by DEFINITION an attempt to constraint a person's current or future free choices in the marketplace, whether done by the state, or by an association of individuals, through eliminating options normally available in an otherwise unconstrainted marketplace.""

The smart guys first show how well they understand the opposition argument before presenting their critique. Then there is the contextual ignorance of this guy who cares less about communicating concepts than arguing semantics.

Let me help you avoid this error in the future:

Classical liberalism emphasizes individual rights and property rights, which are an extension of individual rights. As such, an individual should have veto power over his life and property. An association of individuals, such as a company, should have veto power over their property. The individual, or individuals, therefore should be able to agree to WHATEVER restrictions on their relationships that they want, since each party can unilaterally refuse the relationship altogether.

Clearly, your definition of "protectionalism" would apply to a company exercising its rights to refuse or accept an agreement. That notion therefore serves no purpose in explaining classical liberal principles.

Protectionism, or any other offense, in the long liberal tradition, refers to violations of those principles of individual rights. Even liberals who do not hold rigidly to them, are arguing within that context.

And those principles, constrained by the ideas of Hayek, are the context of this web site.

These ideas are old enough and widespread enough that even reasonably educated non-libertarians are usually aware of them.

Further, this notion of protectionism (as in my prior post) is no obfuscation, since it is applied to today's calls for Federal government-imposed international trade restrictions.

If you want to use some other notion of protectionism, stay away from discussions with a clear libertarian bent.

Re: Cheap Shot

Sam Grove — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:02:06 -0000

Resorting to ad hominem often demonstrates the power of the argument made by the target.

If the argument were weak, that is where the attacker would go. As he does not, he admits that he has no counter to the argument that will prevail.

Re: Cheap Shot

Mark — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:35:04 -0000

Boudreaux's just a tenured professor. And, the dork reporter knocking him is, well, just a reporter. What in the sam hill does a journalism major know about anything? Back when you were in college, were the journalism majors the sharpest knives in the drawer?

Also, consider: this guy's new beat is VIDEOGAMES!!! So he's a journalism major that specializes in VIDEOGAMES!!! Deep guy.

Re: Cheap Shot

indianajim — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:21:59 -0000

At non-profit organizations tenure serves to encourage the acquisition of firm specific human capital via alligniing the long term interests of those with tenure with the survival of the organization. Again (as I wrote recently on a previous post at the Cafe), I'd encourage all to read the works of my colleagues P.R.P. Coelho and William O. Brown on Non-profits and tenure. If I were more energetic and didn't have to get up early tomorrow to drive to Columbus, OH with Coelho to an economic history conference, I'd re-post the references. So, at the risk of Doc-Truth calling me a befuddled old bum, I'll simply say: Goodnight all!

Re: Cheap Shot

Chris O'Leary — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:06:16 -0000

"You counsel skepticism of international trade because it might, just might (for the first time in human history) lead to a net loss of jobs and a reduction in the material standard of living of ordinary persons."

I thought The Onion got this one spectacularly right...

- http://www.theonion.com/con...

Re: Cheap Shot

Against the grain — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:01:16 -0000

In all lives we have to make bargins. Don and Russ are atleast in part state employees and tenured. I thank the responible officials representing the State of Virginia for placing these gentlemen in place such that they can educate me and others to take consideration economics everyday.

They have their agenda, but they don't pretend. I am a liberal democrat that now is much more libertarian because of what they have volunteered. I would agrue though that the actions of the individuals representing the State of Virginia hiring Russ and Don means that government does some good.

Thanks, gentlemen

Re: Cheap Shot

Just Asking — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:27:22 -0000

"Protectionism REQUIRES a coercive uninvited third party, which in our country is the federal government"

Ah, yes. The favorite way of arguing on this website--just define your way out of an intellectual defeat. Let me play this lovely game as well. How about this: "Protectionalism is by DEFINITION an attempt to constraint a person's current or future free choices in the marketplace, whether done by the state, or by an association of individuals, through eliminating options normally available in an otherwise unconstrainted marketplace."

When a professor accepts tenure , that is protectionalism.

Re: Cheap Shot

Gil — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:21:22 -0000

The gripe that some people would have, vidyohs & vvista, would be the employer is a government entity, not a private business. Hence someone who gets employed by a public university and, say, the military are having job security enforced by the taxpayers.

But talking of trade, why should one country being cut off from trading with another 'doomed' to poverty? This false dichotomy reminds of a Libertarian cartoonist who drew two starving Third World types where one complains "Where can we find a multinational corporation to 'exploit' us?". What about the option of people being able to provide for themselves rather than waiting for some foreign trading hero from across the shores to uplift them?

Re: Cheap Shot

vidyohs — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:51:52 -0000

I spoke out against tenure as protectionsism on a previous blog and felt good about my position until I read this:

"ANY free voluntary agreement between Profs R & B and their employer is consistent with free trade. Protectionism REQUIRES a coercive uninvited third party, which in our country is the federal government.

Posted by: vikingvista | Apr 9, 2009 6:59:42 PM"

And I had to swallow my assurance and recognize that vikingvista presented the one part of the equation I had missed.

There is no coercive third party twixt Pros Don and Russ and GMU, and I should have caught that myself, but thanks to VV for slapping me upside the head.

Hey Indiana Jim, apologies to you, sir, as well.

Preciate it, sir.

Re: Cheap Shot

vidyohs — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:41:59 -0000

I'd like to interpose a question regarding the issue of net job losses due to free trade as compared to net job gains due to free trade.

Where do I go to see the guarantee that they will balance in all ways?

Where do I go to find the guarantee that states that yesterday's "must have" item will be tomorrow's as well?

Where do I go to find the guarantee that covers me from income loss forever?

Where do I go to find the guarantee that insures me against a change in life style for my entire life, while around the world other's life styles are undergoing seachanges?

Where do I find the guarantee that I will not have to share the Earth with mental midgets?

Where do I find the guarantee that some others will not find me hard and arrogant?

Where will you find the guarantee that I will give a damn.

Re: Cheap Shot

Pingry — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:20:59 -0000

Umm.....sorry, made a slight mistake. Let me edit one sentence:

***There are no job gains or losses, on net, from trade agreements or protectionism.

Re: Cheap Shot

Pingry — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:19:18 -0000

Right!

When I started learning economics as a freshman, I was very fortunate to learn international economics properly by reading Douglas Irwin.

In his marvelous book "Free Trade Under Fire", professor Irwin tells us that, according to the Lerner Symmetry Theorem, exports and imports are simply different sides of the same coin, and that the jobs lost from imports are offset by jobs gained by exports. There are job gains or losses, on net, from trade agreements or protectionism.

Indeed, as you pointed out Don, trade only changes the composition of jobs in an economy. The number of jobs in the economy is a function of the number of people in the labor market....not trade.

Even so, the jobs created through exports typically pay higher than jobs lost through imports.

This business of gaining or losing jobs is something that so many people even in business, media and government still do not understand.

Re: Cheap Shot

vidyohs — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:58:16 -0000

Carl Pham,

I echo Randy's praise. Good point(s). Well said.

Re: Cheap Shot

Chip — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:47:08 -0000

... and before I get crucified for downing the union worker (like I used to get from my old blog "the Hatriolic", so save your crayon letters) I'll go on record to state 'BZ' for the ppl who took advantage of unions for great Pay &Benefits for routine, mundane work. But please also check your history: the majority of Union workers do not vote for themselves, meaning they don't generally think for themselves for risk of losing out on their jobs (check the voting rosters for Carter & Clinton). Also don't forget that Carl Marx and Adolf Hitler harnessed the union workers first to fight for 'equality' in their socialist climb to the top.

Last, how much innovation and ambition has been killed by the Unions and Gov't jobs, clearly the biggest employers in the US?

Re: Cheap Shot

speedmaster — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:39:57 -0000

Not only is it a cheap shot, it's sadly ignorant, of much.

Re: Cheap Shot

Randy — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:38:06 -0000

Carl Pham,

Very good point.

Re: Cheap Shot

Just Asking — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:37:05 -0000

Just so I'm clear, guaranteed lifetime employment at guaranteed pay regardless of job performance or ability is ok so long as the parties negotiated that deal?