Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative by Jennifer Burns

“It was not that Friedman was right all the time. Yet his overall big-picture impressions were dead-on.”

That sentence, from the recently published intellectual biography Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative explains why Friedman is my favorite economist. The research by author Jennifer Burns, whether intended or not, validates time and again that very point.

While this isn’t as monumental as the Caldwell/Klausinger biography on Hayek, Burns tackles a lot and can teach admirers and opponents alike various aspects of Friedman’s work. Opponents can get an even-keeled assessment of the Friedman-Chile connection. At worst, he “failed to appreciate the optics of meeting with Pinochet.” It’s these optics, especially a series of events in 1976, that allowed Friedman’s opponents to avoid addressing the accuracy of his takedown of Keynesian economics and instead engage in character assassination. Admirers like myself have to read about a few aspects of Friedman’s life, such as his opposition to the Civil Rights Act (legal scholar Richard Epstein published an excellent article on the act) that, in hindsight, aren’t very flattering.

I would have liked to read a little more about the distinction between Friedman’s monetarist economics versus their free market counterpart in Austrian economics. And I don’t really agree with titling Friedman as “the last conservative.” Even if you agree that he was an old-school conservative and this point-of-view is becoming extinct within the right-wing movement, you still have a few outliers from his school of thought, notably George Will. But considering in 1995 interviews with Rush Limbaugh and Brian Doherty he refers to himself as a libertarian, and considering his views on religion and legalizing drugs, “conservative” just doesn’t fit. The last of a libertarian strand of the Republican Party, perhaps.

Overall, though, Burns has wrote an excellent book. Friedman’s scholarship was remarkable, and Burns does a very good job in explaining this scholarship and the history of Chicago school/monetarist economics in layman’s terms. Of particular note, Burns provides in-depth details of his collaboration with Anna Schwartz (who also gets her due here) that produced the game-changing A Monetary History of the United States. Friedman’s prescience in warning about the troubles the American economy would face in the 1970s is also well-told by Burns. As someone who has long been fascinated with Reaganomics, I enjoyed reading about Friedman’s view on supply-side tax cuts: believing high taxes create disincentives, rejecting the assumption that tax cuts pay for themselves, but ultimately supporting Kemp-Roth because it would force politicians to rein in spending. On these matters, I think Friedman was proven correct about the disincentives of high taxes and the fact that the tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves (see pg 90 of this report), but probably assumed a level of responsibility within the Republican Party about spending that the party just didn’t possess back then and certainly doesn’t now.

Burns has definitely triggered an interest in me to seek out some of Friedman’s more technical work. Highest recommendation for this book.

It’s Ok To Be Angry About Capitalism by Bernie Sanders

There are aspects of the public career of Bernie Sanders I can admire. At a time when the Bush administration took advantage of America’s patriotic fervor after 9/11 to curtail our civil liberties and plunge us into unnecessary conflict, Sanders voted against the PATRIOT Act and the war in Iraq. I agree with his stances on marijuana legalization and criminal justice reform. To the extent that his economic stances oppose bailouts and subsidies of private enterprises, I’m with him (although his support for the Green New Deal seems to contradict this). I can even admire his resiliency and drive to keep fighting for his cause after his heart attack, an ordeal he lays out in detail in his new book It’s Ok To Be Angry About Capitalism.

It’s too bad the cause he’s fighting for in this book is the destruction of America’s standard of living.

If you believe Sanders, his plans (easily summarized as taxing the wealthy and redistributing it) would lift America out of poverty, as he’s only attacking the “billionaires who should not exist.” Presumably he means their just money, as he decries billionaires spending money on private planes, snorkeling, private islands, and spaceships (he’s really hung up on this one) without sharing their wealth. This Sanders-defined lack of sharing is “destroying millions of lives” as “the vast majority struggle to survive.” Per Sanders, the bottom half of Americans have seen a $900 billion decline in their wealth over the past 30 years, and worker pay increased only 17% from 1979 to 2020. This does not gel with reality. A study by economist William Cline shows real median household income increased slightly over 50% from the late ’60s through 2017 (despite the ’70s stagflation and the 2008 financial crisis) with second-quintile income during the same period rising nearly 40%. A separate study by the Pew Research Center shows similar results from approximately the same time period.

The Pew researchers, Rakesh Kochhar and Stella Sechopoulos, do point out the growth of income inequality, Sanders’ pet issue in this book, as the rich show their income increasing. This runs contrary to a study done by John Early, showing income inequality has decreased over the last 70 years. Regardless of the methodology one prefers, these studies lay waste to the idea that the trend towards more open markets and globalization in the American economy has hurt the working class. Which makes an objective person wonder: is Sanders really that concerned about improving the conditions of the working class, or just driven by an insatiable hatred for the wealthy? Read this book yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Given his progressive politics, it’s not surprising that Sanders is a major proponent of labor unions. I would consider the prospect of joining unions to be a personal choice. Sanders doesn’t believe in the choice aspect of this, decrying right-to-work policies. Credible studies have shown the negative impact on wages union membership has on the overall workforce, along with stark contrasts in job growth between union jobs and non-union jobs within the same industries. As such, I’m highly dubious of the plans Sanders lays out in this book to revitalize labor unions.

As for the Sanders scheme in chapter 7 to forcibly confiscate ownership from stockholders and redistribute a sizable percentage to “workers,” I’m not aware of any point-of-reference in American history to compare such an undertaking to. I recommend reading The Turning Point: Revitalizing the Soviet Economy by Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov to see how well that type of authoritarianism worked in the Soviet Union.

On top of the bad economics in this book, I question Bernie’s ability to accurately take the pulse of this country. He blames the Republican mid-term victory in 1994 on President Clinton’s embrace of NAFTA, and President Biden’s sinking approval ratings on the inability of Democrats to pass Build Back Better. Does it really make sense that the party that was most aligned (at the time) with NAFTA would be “punished” by taking both houses of Congress? And does it just MAYBE occur to the author that the inevitable inflation that was a consequence of funding the stimulus spending that Sanders proudly takes credit for in this book (resulting in average hourly earnings falling a little over 3% since Biden took office per the Bureau of Labor Statistics) might have had a role in Biden’s growing unpopularity?

The chapter 5 discussion on health care is where Sanders scores a few points. I agree with him that our system is dysfunctional and a lot of the profits are ill-gotten. He cites one example of outrageous costs Americans pay for MRIs compared to other countries. The third-party payer system, entrenched through our tax code and regulatory structure and through government health programs, is the cause of this, which is hardly a free market at work (or “uber-capitalist” to use Bernie’s linguistics). So I agree with Sanders on disentangling health insurance from employment. But according to a report by public radio affiliate WBUR, over 60% of health care spending is publicly financed already, more proof that American health care is not “uber-capitalist.” We already have the perverse outcome of Americans paying a smaller share of our overall health care costs despite paying more out-of-pocket for health care. Does the Sanders “Medicare for All” plan to solidify third-party payment permanently alleviate these issues, or make it worse? Sanders cites examples of smaller countries successfully implementing public universal health care. None of those countries has nearly the size of our population. Nor do those countries ban supplemental private insurance, which Sanders seemingly would, stating “there will be no more ‘private networks.'” So what happens to health care access when providers can’t shift costs to private plans? Sanders doesn’t address this point.

Other small points of agreement: I agree with Sanders that the media focuses too much on personality and gossip over substantive policy debate, and I also agree with him that Operation Warp Speed was one of President Trump’s few accomplishments.

That said, the bulk of It’s Ok To Be Angry About Capitalism uses hyperbole, false data, and faulty logic to present a vision of America just as nightmarish as Trump did with his “American carnage” inaugural address. It’s also just as divorced from reality.

Hayek: A Life by Caldwell & Klausinger

It’s 2023 but I’m still working through some of the outstanding books published in 2022.  Add to my list of 2022 favorites the magisterial Hayek: A Life, 1899-1950, Bruce Caldwell’s and Hansjoerg Klausinger’s biography on Friedrich Hayek.  Their book is essential for anyone who wants to learn about one of the 20^th century’s great public intellectuals (although Hayek would likely prefer the term “puzzler”).

There are portions of the book that deal with advanced economic theory and philosophical questions that a layperson might get a bit lost with (guilty as charged). But if you are interested in the ideas that shaped our world, it’s worth the effort to read through.

Libertarians should take particular delight in reading about the formation and first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society, the writing of and critical response to The Road to Serfdom, Hayek’s role in bringing together the “Chicago school”, and the intellectual battles Hayek waged against the proponents of planning and intervention (most notably Keynes). Of lesser renown but equally fascinating stories to read about include Hayek’s scientific work at the Institute for Business Cycle Research, his hands-on research in Gibraltar and his role in helping colleagues escape Nazi persecution.

The authors make a point that Hayek, while a free market economist, was not an absolutist. They point to arguments Hayek made in Road about an “extensive system of social services” as a “security against severe physical privation” and his position at the first Mont Pelerin conference on creating a governmental labor service for the unemployable. The willingness to address challenges like this is why I admire Hayek’s scholarship (along with Milton Friedman) over Ayn Rand. It also lays waste to the recent bad-faith depiction of Hayek’s ideas by Jacob Soll in his book Free Market: The History of an Idea. Per Soll’s screed, Hayek sees “absolute dangers of any and all government involvement in the economy” while calling Road a “fanatical vision of the state as a force of evil.” Has Soll ever read Hayek? Free Market is not a serious undertaking—Hayek: A Life is.

Despite the high regard Caldwell and Klausinger clearly hold for their subject, they don’t shy away from Hayek’s personal short-comings, as the rather unsavory details of Hayek’s divorce are laid bare.

The book ends at a time when Hayek’s ideas were not en vogue. I can’t wait for the 2nd volume, which will encompass a time period when the classical liberal ideas of Hayek and like-minded thinkers start to find validation.

Highest recommendation for volume 1.

Immigration and Welfare

A few months back, I blogged about my disappointment with the book Streets Of Gold, a supposedly data-driven look at the economic impact of immigration in the US.

A recent Cato Institute study provides more clear data I was expecting from that book’s authors. The study focuses on welfare consumption. The study’s summary:

Based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, we find that immigrants consumed 27 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits than native‐​born Americans on a per capita basis in 2020. Immigrants were 14.6 percent of the U.S. population and consumed just 11.1 percent of all means‐​tested welfare and entitlement benefits in 2020. By comparison, immigrants consumed 21 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits in 2016 and 28 percent less in 2019. From 2016 to 2020, the underconsumption of welfare by immigrants relative to native‐​born Americans widened by about 6 percentage points. From 2019 to 2020, the gap shrank only slightly, by 0.6 percentage points.

Letters From A Skeptic by Gregory and Edward Boyd

An acquaintance who is aware I no longer consider myself a religious person thought I might enjoy the book Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions About Christianity. After reading the Boyds’ story, I still remain skeptical.

Dr. Gregory Boyd is at his most persuasive in correspondence #2 when addressing the questions of why God allows suffering. The concept that the free will God gives us means we have both the capacity to love and the capacity to harm resonates. I couldn’t find where Dr. Boyd actually references Bible verses to back up this thesis, oddly. I also like that Dr. Boyd does not get hung up on the differences Christian denominations have in interpreting certain texts, as this was a source of angst for me when I was a person of faith.

My biggest critique of Dr. Boyd’s letters relate to his belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. This implies the Bible can stand up to strict scrutiny. Yet Dr. Boyd acknowledges wrestling with “apparent contradictions” and “archaeological discrepancies” within the Bible. His explanation for this: these contradictions are simply a product of 20th century thinking and, poof, become “totally irrelevant.” Sorry, but I expect a higher standard from something divinely inspired. For example, I don’t expect to read competing versions of what hell is like (one of those 20th century contradictions Dr. Boyd references in correspondence #25).

On top of this, there is something repulsive about Dr. Boyd claiming, on the one hand, God wants us to love him without “external motivators” while, on the other, threatening his father with eternal damnation should Ed Boyd not accept Christ as his savior by telling him he’ll be spiritually aborted/stillborn and spend eternity as “arsenic in God’s stomach!”

The ultimate takeaway from this book is that, per Dr. Boyd, God wants us, without external pressure, to accept Jesus as our savior or He’ll abort our souls. The foundation for this acceptance is a divinely-inspired book of contradictions. Sorry, the idea that the eternal fate of my soul hinges upon a decision made during a time frame that encompasses less than 0.0000000001% of my eternal existence because your “holy” book says so (the decision in question: making sure I accept the absolutely perfect set of parameters among hundreds and hundreds of competing parameters regarding the true nature of a divine being) is asinine.

I don’t discount the Bible as a source of wisdom. If the Bible has taught people to not steal, kill, commit adultery, lie, and be jealous of others because of the Commandments, kudos. Personally I love Matthew 7:12. However, because of its contradictions and errors (which Dr. Boyd alludes to, but numerous others can be found here), I see no other reason than to conclude the Bible is solely a product of man. Therefore, it’s hard to take the lessons Boyd imparted to his dad as seriously as Ed Boyd himself eventually did.

The book certainly engaged me. I’d recommend it to skeptics as a tool to help sharpen their arguments.

Warrior by Tris Dixon

2022 has been a pretty good year in the genre of sports biographies. Ian O’Connor’s book on Coach Krzyzewski, Jeff Pearlman’s bio on Bo Jackson, and the David Maraniss book on Jim Thorpe are particular standouts. But the best of the bunch, in my opinion, is Tris Dixon’s biography on Matthew Saad Muhammad, Warrior: A Champion’s Incredible Search for His Identity.

The very first chapter of the book is unlike anything I’ve read in a sports book.

When it comes to the boxing, Dixon does a magnificent job getting in-depth on Saad Muhammad’s most notable fights. Matthew the boxer was definitely a warrior, had the heart of a champion, showed unbelievable courage, and was unquestionably a miracle man. Dixon brings this out as well as any boxing writer can do.

What I really appreciate is that Dixon doesn’t let these superlatives about Saad Muhammad’s career blind the reader to the fact that Matthew’s life took very tragic turns. Matthew’s choices in how he applied his craft (and how long) came at heavy cost to his health. Like many athletes, his inability to let go probably cost him his marriage. And the sudden thrust of fame and wealth set the stage for the exploitation that eventually robbed him of everything. Again, Dixon does a superb job telling this part of the story.

I found this to be a cautionary tale. Other readers may find Matthew’s story of surviving his childhood abandonment, the never-say-die fighting style, the work he did late in life trying to help the homeless (something Matthew endured after the money disappeared) to be inspirational and a greater takeaway. That’s the beauty of this book–there’s room for both interpretations.

Highest recommendation.

Streets Of Gold by Abramitzky & Boustan

I’m a firm believer in immigration. I love numbers. So with great anticipation, I read Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success by economists Ran Abramitzky and Leah Boustan, a supposed data-driven study on the positive impact of immigration on the economy.

This book did not meet my expectations.

Various numbers are peppered throughout this study, but the authors did not provide definitive statistics for the most contentious parts of the immigration debate: the effect on wages & jobs, crime rates, and welfare. This is disappointing since other studies have provided concrete numbers that show the positive correlation between immigration and wages & jobs (for both immigrants and native-born Americans), the lower incidence of crime among immigrants, and the net-contribution of immigrant families to public coffers. Maybe the authors didn’t want their readers to get bogged down with numbers, preferring the narratives of immigrants they profiled to carry the weight. For me, definitive numbers would have complemented the narratives and made their pro-immigration argument stronger.

The book also does not make it clear WHY immigrants are able to make better lives for themselves and their children by coming to the United States. What institutional foundations are unique to America that don’t exist in Central America, the Middle East, or parts of Asia, thus making the United States an attractive migration destination? Is it the rule of law? Property rights? The ability to keep a larger share of the fruits of your labor? The American education system? The authors don’t provide a sufficient explanation.

The discussion on immigrants’ assimilation into American culture (despite what MAGA-types would have you believe) was the book’s highlight. Better sources are available, though, if you want to educate yourself on this important issue.

The Last Folk Hero by Jeff Pearlman

The summer of 1989 was a great time for this Kansas City Royals fan. The Royals had a 90-win season, the Cy Young Award winner, and the man who should have been Rookie of the Year. While my favorite player, George Brett, was starting to slip, he did well in the two games I watched live. The second game, against the California Angels, was the more memorable one. Brett went 3-for-5 with 2 RBI and 2 runs scored, and the should-have-been ROY Tom Gordon pitched 7 innings with 8 strikeouts to get the win.

That was also the only time I got to see the most famous athlete in the world, Bo Jackson. My team……home to the biggest thing in sports. He struck out twice, but did get a stolen base.

Needless to say, Jeff Pearlman’s The Last Folk Hero: The Life and Myth of Bo Jackson is a book I’ve been anticipating for months. A few of Pearlman’s books have disappointed me, although I loved his biography on Walter Payton.

This one is a fun biography. Pearlman’s greatest strength as a writer is to describe in precise detail an athlete’s flashes of brilliance on the playing field. Jackson’s career gives Pearlman a big canvas: the 90-yard runs, running up the outfield wall in Baltimore, the All-Star Game home run, the Roy Hobbs-esque home run in college, etc. This is exactly what I wanted from the book, and Pearlman delivers time and time again.

Pearlman likes to touch on an athlete’s shortcomings in his various books. The worst things stated about Jackson here are that he was a childhood bully (due to teasing because of his stuttering issues), he wasn’t a monogamous boyfriend before getting married, he was surly with teammates and the media, and he’s difficult to deal with on the memorabilia circuit. Negatives, sure (although I can’t blame Jackson one iota for wanting to protect his name value), but not scandals that taint a legacy.

I would have like to have read more about Bo’s life after sports, especially since he seems to have adjusted perfectly well and so many athletes struggle when their careers end. I’m more curious how Jackson has used his college degree than, say, reading about his unique ping-pong skill.

Nevertheless, this is a must-read for a sports fan of the late 80s-early 90s, or a fan of Tecmo Super Bowl.

Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System by Chris Fabricant

For my money, the most important book published in 2022 is M Chris Fabricant’s Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System.

It’s the story of the role junk science plays in our criminal trials, the bad actors who profit from junk science, the innocent victims ensnared by it, and certain public servants trying to make things right.

Fabricant shows how techniques such as hair microscopy, pour pattern analysis, fingerprint matching, and comparative bullet lead analysis are scientifically dubious. One appalling example referenced in Junk Science involved a defendant who spent almost 30 years in jail for murder, the strongest piece of evidence against him hair evidence. DNA testing eventually proved the hair that prosecutors said belonged to the defendant actually came from a dog.

Arguably the most problematic junk science discipline, and the one that gets the most attention here, is bite mark evidence. It’s the root of the three wrongful convictions that are the heart of this book’s narrative. How a technique that one proficiency test revealed a 63% error rate among its supposed master practitioners is still allowed in the courts is absolutely appalling. It guarantees more charlatans like Michael West will pervert the word “justice.”

Along with junk science, other disheartening aspects of the criminal justice system are discussed: false confessions, faulty polygraph testing, systemic racism, cognitive bias, corrupt prosecutors concealing exculpatory evidence, false alerts from dogs, evidence tampering, and expert witnesses basically making shit up.

Reading this should piss you off. That’s the point. Things need to change. Fabricant has done a public service with this book. Highest recommendation.

The Duke by Carlos Acevedo

A few months back, I referred to Ian O’Connor’s book on Mike Krzyzewski as the best sports biography so far in 2022. Being a boxing fan, I had high hopes when I found out a book was out on infamous heavyweight Tommy Morrison, Carlos Acevedo’s The Duke: The Life and Lies of Tommy Morrison.

Mission failed.

Critical assessments of boxing’s shady business practices and analysis of Morrison’s fights with George Foreman, Ray Mercer and Razor Ruddock were the book’s highlights. For a boxing fan looking for in-depth analysis of Morrison’s other fights, Acevedo disappoints. Despite the fame he achieved, Morrison’s career was rather unremarkable, feasting on bottom-rung competition, thus making this part of the book a bland read.

If your interest in Morrison is his descent into bizarre HIV denialism, then you may enjoy this more. But the editing here seems very sloppy at times. Acevedo claims Morrison is the first openly HIV-positive athlete to compete in an event–does Magic Johnson’s Dream Team run not count? Another example, George Foreman fought Axel Schulz in April 1995, not April 1985. And when do courts of law pronounce criminal defendants “innocent” as opposed to not guilty?

Here’s hoping the biographies on Shohei Ohtani (the next book on my reading list, just received today), Jim Thorpe, boxer Matthew Saad Muhammad, and Bo Jackson (the latter three to come out later this year) prove to be on par with the Coach K bio.

This is not an essential read.