August 2021

Episode #355: Who Protects the Consumer More—Regulation or Reputation?

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

But what about fraud, shoddy, unsafe products and services? Or asymmetric information—is your doctor a Quack, or how do I know the used car I’m buying isn’t a lemon?

The criticisms of the invisible hand are valid. The question is: whether the government regulation cure is worse than the disease?

Listen to Episode #294 with Adam Thierer for our discussion on Evasive Entrepreneurs and Permissionless Innovation vs. the Precautionary Principle, an important concept in discussions around regulation.

The original meaning of regulation was to make regular; to standardize; to develop a standard under which nothing should fall. The industry being regulated loves regulation.

The law bubbles up from the bottom, a natural law—the norms to which all of us agree. But legislation is an imposition from the top down, it’s arbitrary (why 55MPH speed limit and not 60MPH?).

It’s similar with our topic today. Reputation is bottom-up, and regulation is top-down.

 

HISTORY OF REGULATION

This section draws from Milton and Rose Friedman’s classic book, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.

A lot of regulation has been prompted by some event, such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, Senator Estes Kefauver’s investigation into the drug industry, and Ralph Nader’s attack on the General Motor’s Corvair as “unsafe at any speed.”

Regulation quickened after the New Deal—half of the 32 agencies in in 1966 created after FDR’s election in 1932. Twenty-one new agencies were established from 1966 into the next decade.

Instead of being concerned with specific industries, these new agencies covered the waterfront: the environment, the production and distribution of energy, product safety, occupational safety, etc., with the goal of not only protecting the consumer from sellers but also from himself.

The Code of Federal Regulations in 1938 was 18,193 pages. In 2017, 186,374 pages. Edward Teller, “It took us eighteen months to build the first nuclear power generator; it now takes twelve years; that’s progress.”

The Interstate Commerce Commission was established Feb 4, 1887 to regulate railroads, because of fears of monopolization. The artificial high prices enabled the trucking industry to grow and The Motor Carrier Act  of 1935 gave the ICC jurisdiction over trucking to protect railroads, not consumers.

Truckers needed “Certificates of public convenience,” 89,000 applications were filed while only 27,000 were approved. The collective value of these Certificates in 1972 was $2-3 Billion, which also represents the economic loss to society

The ICC then went on to nationalize passenger traffic with Amtrak.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed in 1990. Listen to Episode #164.

The Food and Drug Administration was established in 1906, as a reaction to Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, which documented unsanitary conditions in Chicago slaughtering and meat-packing houses. Sinclair said, “I aimed at the public’s heart and by accident hit it in the stomach.”

Even before The Jungle, Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the National Temperance Society formed the National Pure Food and Drug Congress (1898) campaign for legislation to eliminate medical nostrums—heavily laced with alcohol.

The 1906 act was limited to the inspection of foods and labeling of patent medicines. More by accident than design, it also subjected prescription drugs to control, a power which was not used until much later. The FDA was placed in the Department of Agriculture.

Concerned by restrictions on importation of U.S. meats imposed by European countries, due to the allegation that the meat was diseased. Meat sellers eagerly seized on government certifying meat was disease-free.

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, extended the government’s control over advertising and labeling and required all new drugs to be approved for safety by the FDA. The approval had to be granted or withheld within 180 days.

Then the Thalidomide episode of 1961–62 swept into law in 1962 the Kefauver amendments, which dealt more with quality than price . These amendments added proof-of-efficacy requirement to the proof-of-safety requirement of the 1938 law, and removed the time constraint on the FDA’s disposition of a New Drug Application.

Subsequently, the number of “new chemical entities” introduced each year fell more than 50 percent since 1962. Ten years after the 1962 amendments, no drug was approved for hypertension, whereas several were approved in Britain. In fact, in the entire cardiovascular area, only one drug was approved in the five year period from ’67 to ’72.

Economist Sam Peltzman’s research into the costs and benefits of the FDA was unambiguous: “The harm done has greatly outweighed the good.”

Fame and acclaim was awarded to the woman who held up approval of Thalidomide, Dr. Frances O. Kelsey, was given a gold medal for Distinguished Government Service by John F. Kennedy. Any doubt which mistake you will be more anxious to avoid?

In a Newsweek column from January 8, 1973, Milton Friedman laid out that for these reasons the FDA should be abolished,

A letter writer challenged him: “I do not believe that the FDA should be abolished but I do believe that its power should be” changed in such and such a way.

In a subsequent column, entitled “Barking Cats,” February 19, 1973, Friedman replied:

  • What would you think of someone who said, “I would like to have a cat provided it barked”? You favor an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent.

  • As a natural scientist, you recognize that you cannot assign characteristics at will to chemical and biological entities, cannot demand that cats bark or water burn.

  • Why do you suppose the situation is different in the social sciences?

Here is “Barking Cats” by Milton Friedman and his response to a previous column in which he more or less argued for the FDA to be abolished.  

Also related to today’s show, check out Episode #192 with Mary Ruwart in which we discuss her book, “Death by Regulation.”

Interested in learning more about the futility of the US FDA and the bureaucratic delays we have seen with the vaccine for COVID-19? Here is yet ANOTHER great show featuring Mary Ruwart, Episode #321.

Economist Steven Landsburg suggest that we should pay the FDA Director should be paid in Pharma stock.

The Civil Aeronautics Board was established in 1938, with control over 19 domestic carriers. Intrastate fares were not regulated while interstate fares were. The intrastate flight in California from San Francisco to Los Angeles was cheaper than similar length interstate flights.

Ralph Nader filed a complaint in 1971 about this discrepancy. So the CAB increased the intrastate fares to match the permitted interstate CAB fares. How does this protect the consumer?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established December 31, 1970. It’s research into the infamous Corvair found, “The 1960–63 Corvair compared favorably with the other contemporary vehicles used in the tests.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was established October 24, 1972. This has to be the most Namby-pamby, eat your vegetables agencies ever founded. It’s main concern is not price or cost, but safety.

What is an “Unreasonable risk?” It is hardly a scientific term capable of objective specification. What decibel level of noise from a cap gun is an “unreasonable risk” to a child’s (or adult’s) hearing?

The example of Tris is illustrative of government failure. CPSC had responsibility for administering the “Flammable Fabrics Act,” dating back to 1953. CPSC issued regulations for children’s sleepwear and the cheapest way meet this standard was impregnating the cloth with a flame-retardant chemical—Tris. Soon, 99 percent children’s sleepwear produced and sold was covered in Tris. Later it was discovered that Tris was a potent carcinogen.

In a free market, Tris would have been introduced gradually. As Milton Friedman writes, “Often simply substituted government failure for market failure.”

The Environmental Protection Agency was Established December 2, 1970. While pollution is usually blamed on “business,” as Milton Friedman points out, “In fact, the people responsible are consumers, not producers, since they create a demand for pollution.”

He was in favor of imposing effluent charges, a tax of a specified amount per unit of effluent discharged. Then there would be objective evidence of the costs of reducing pollution.

Even if a high tax left much discharge, it would provide substantial sums to compensate the losers or undo the damage.

Price Controls are another form of regulation. President Carter argued for a massive program to produce synthetic fuels or else the nation would run out of energy by 1990.

Yet enterprises have to be confident that future prices will not be controlled, otherwise, the heads-you-win, tails-I-lose gamble will not be worthwhile. When price rises, controls and “windfall taxes” loom; but when price falls, they hold the bag.

To those who argue that the risks are too great and the capital costs too heavy for the market to absorb, they are wrong. Risk taking is the essence of private enterprise. Risks are not eliminated by imposing them on taxpayer. The Alaska pipeline, driverless cars, AI, satellites, and billionaires in space all demonstrate that private markets can raise massive sums for promising projects.

 

Economist George Stigler’s Thought Experiment

University of Chicago economists George Stigler was the originator of the Regulatory Capture Theory. Here’s his thought experiment:

“Suppose you want to figure out why a particular regulation passes and the way that it’s written.

“Imagine the legislature putting that regulation up for auction and people could bid on the terms of the regulation and the outcome went to the highest bidder.

“Under those rules it would be clear whose interest is served by a government restriction on freedom of exchange.”

Economist Ronald Coase asked why we don’t regulate ideas to the same extent we regulate products and services, since ideas have killed more people than products and services. After all, Marx’s and Hitler’s ideas have killed more than shoddy products.

 

REPUTATION: HOW THE MARKET REGULATES BEHAVIOR AND PROTECTS THE CONSUMER

This section draws from Howard Baetjer, Jr.’s wonderful book, Free Our Markets: A Citizens’ Guide to Essential Economics.

Thomas Sowell once said, “I don’t have faith in free markets; I have evidence.”

The elements of regulation by market forces are:

  • Freedom among providers to enter the market and compete for buyers

  • Freedom of buyers to take their business where they will

  • Reputation of sellers, and customer experience spread by word-of-mouth/mouse

  • Middleman, the Department Store

  • Brand name—the value of which exceeds most assets of modern companies

  • Tort liability, a legal means by which people can recover damages if they are harmed

  • Requirements imposed by insurance companies as conditions of insurance

  • Trial and error feedback loop

  • Private testing organizations—Consumer Research 1928, Consumers Union 1935 publishes Consumer Reports (small size indicates minority of consumers are willing to pay, which shows they are satisfied with most sellers)

  • Third-party certification of product quality and service competence (mechanics can be ASE certified—Automotive Service Excellence—or manufactured certified)

California growers formed Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement which pays for their own inspection system. The growers found the FDA regulation to be ineffective and insufficient. Participation was voluntary in California, yet 95%+ of the leafy greens industry signed up after major processors like Dole and Fresh Express agreed to participate.

Insurance companies have a strong incentive to regulate and insure the safety of products. So much so that it was insurance companies who created perhaps the largest third-party certifier, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) (“Underwriter” means “insurer” in this context).

This international organization “evaluates more than 19,000 types of products, components, materials and systems annually with 20 billion UL Marks appearing on 72,000 manufacturers’ products each year.”

If the law permits only one certifier to operate society loses the dynamic process through which better standards and methods can be discovered and used.

Every approach will have flaws. Our goal should be the more modest one of achieving the least-flawed institutional setting. The least-flawed, best available approach to regulation is one that:

  • generates an on-going discovery of new and better knowledge and invention of new and better processes, and

  • gives those involved a strong incentive to create value for other people in order to benefit themselves.

Parents can’t take time research different grocery store chains, shoes they might buy, or the different churches they might attend. Yet they have only pretty good grocery stores, shoes, and church options to choose from.

Why? Because in a free and competitive system enough other people do such research and do make such informed choices. If only half of all parents made careful school selections in a free system, no poor schools could survive.

No lobbyist for a newspaper chain or a religion goes to Washington to insist that any new newspaper or religion must first get a license assuring the quality of their news or doctrine.

Milton Friedman writes: “Ask yourself what products are currently least satisfactory and shown least improvement: Postal service, elementary and secondary schooling, railroad passenger transport. Which have shown the most satisfactory and improved the most: Household appliances, television and radio sets, computers, supermarkets shopping.”

“The imperfect market may, after all, do as well or better than the imperfect government. The difference is that a private firm that makes a serious blunder may go out of business. A government agency is likely to get a bigger budget. The most effective protection is free competition at home and free trade throughout the world.”


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This past week was Bonus Episode 355 - “Mask mania and more”. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #354: Interview with James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan is the co-author of Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics, along with Antony Davies (interviewed in episode #351). We were thrilled when James agreed to join us on this episode of The Soul of Enterprise. Below are full show notes including the questions prepared by Ron and Ed and links to James’ work.

James R Harrigan

But first a bit more about James Harrigan…
James R. Harrigan is the F.A. Hayek Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also co-host of the Words & Numbers podcast. Dr. Harrigan was previously Dean of the American University of Iraq-Sulaimani, and later served as Director of Academic Programs at the Institute for Humane Studies and Strata, where he was also Senior Research Fellow. He was also Managing Director of the Center for Philosophy of Freedom at the University of Arizona. He has written extensively for the popular press, with articles appearing in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, U.S. News and World Report, and a host of other outlets. His current work focuses on the intersections between political economy, public policy, and political philosophy.

Ed’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. I'm Ed Kless with my friend and co-host, Ron Baker, and on today's show we are pleased to have our interview with James R. Harrigan. Hey, Ron, how's it going?

Ron

I'm great, Ed. I'm looking forward to this. You know, when Antony Davies was on a few weeks ago [Episode #351], we did not read his book in anticipation of that show, which I felt really guilty about. The book is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics, but I have read it now. So this will be great, because James tells us, of the two, he's the smarter one.

James Harrigan

That is correct. And let's not call it his book anymore.

Ed

Well, by way of quick introduction, James R. Harrigan is the F.A. Hayek Distinguished Fellow—that’s Friedrich, not Selma, by the way—at the Foundation for Economic Education and the senior editor for the American Institute of Economics Research. He's the co-host of the Words and Numbers podcast [with Antony Davies]. He was previously Dean of the American University of Iraq-Sulaimani, and later served as Director of Academic Programs at the Institute for Humane Studies and Strata, where he was also Senior Research Fellow. He’s written extensively for the popular press, with articles in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, among others. His current work focuses on the intersections between political economy, public policy, and political philosophy, and his book today, which we're going to talk about, is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise, James R. Harrigan

I'm a pretty quick reader because I'm from New York originally, so we get it in pretty quickly. So I had to make the Selma Hayek joke, I can't resist it.

Well, fill in some blanks. Where did you grow up, what led you both into and then out of academia?

Well we certainly found your book interesting as well. The book, again, is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. And Anthony, I'm sorry, James. Sorry, really big problem there! I have to ask you about this. It's chapter four of the book, but I'm going to jump into it because it's the lead in the news this week. Quoting from the book, “We have also brought our troops planes and drones to many nations. And the killing we have done in those places, some warranted, some not, will doubtlessly result in the kind of hatred for the United States that have led to the attacks that fired up this merry-go-round in the first place. Let's talk a little bit about that.

Yeah, by my calculation, that I heard on a podcast, on the low side we have spent $150 million a day, each day, for 20 years. Now, you probably recall a couple of weeks ago when people freaked out over billionaires spending their own money to go to space. And yet $150 million a day, each day, for 20 years. I can't reconcile that in my brain.

And that's one of the thoughts. Is there really an Afghani perspective? Is there really an Iraqi perspective? These are not nations like Japan and Germany were that we were able to rebuild in the sense that they had joined the quote, “community of nations” already. These are constructs. Afghanistan is a construct. It's not a real nation. Ouch.

One of the lines I've said to people is look, the folks in Afghanistan have been throwing rocks at each other for millennia. The mistake that we and the Soviets made was giving them anything more than rocks.

Yeah, unfortunately, I agree. Hopefully in my next segment with you it'll be a little bit more joyful but we're up against our first break.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Two

Welcome back, everybody, we're here with James R. Harrigan. He's the author of Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. James, you say there's only two ways humans can work together: They can either cooperate, or they can coerce one another. The first is voluntary, and the second is involuntary. Explain that.

And James, one of the reasons this matters, and it matters, I know, for a lot of reasons, liberty, freedom, all of that. But one of the things you point out is that when you look at poor countries that rely more on cooperation than coercion, they have less poverty and less inequality. And I thought that was some really interesting empirical evidence, and it's kind of overwhelming, isn't it?

Yeah, I'm in awe of things like that. When you really, like you say, step back and think about it. I mean, the fact that I can go to another country whose language I don't speak, hand somebody a plastic card with my name on it, and they give me car—a car! That just kind of astonishing when you think about it.

I have to ask, who was the concert?

James

Oh, it's the greatest band in the world. I'm happy you asked. It's an English neo-progressive band called Marillion. If you could imagine Pink Floyd and Radiohead ground up into a fine paste, this is what it would sound like. I refer to it as the sound of Gods laughter. It's just that good.

Ron

Wow. It must be if you're willing to fly to Poland.

James, this is kind of unfair, I think we've only got about a minute-and-a-half, maybe two, left. But you talk about the knowledge problem. And I love it because you quote the guy from The Toaster Project, the guy who tried to make his own toaster and then the guy who made his own chicken sandwich. Those, like I, Pencil, are great stories. Why haven't we learned this lesson? Why do we keep asking government to do things and solve problems when nobody knows how to make a pencil?

We get the government we deserve. Well, James, this is just flying by and this is wonderful.

Ed’s Questions: Segment Three

And we are back with James R. Harrigan. The book is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. James, I wanted to ask you about something related to the book, but also in current events as well. And that is this notion of mask mandates. I know from listening to your show that, like Ron and myself, you're neither a maskafile nor a maskaphobe. So we're who are somewhere in the middle. But a federal mandate wouldn't make much sense because of the principles of federalism, and we wouldn't want to push that down. But here in the state of Texas, the governor has issued an edict that state agencies cannot, and local governments cannot, issue their own mandates. Does that violate the principle of subsidiarity, which would say the local government would be the best place to make that decision? Talk about the interplay between those two things.

The principle of subsidiarity is down to my household, because we are in a school district in Texas that is not requiring masks. I have my son who does not wear a mask and my daughter, who's four years younger, feels very comfortable and prefers wearing a mask. So guess what, we're letting them make the decision that works for them. As parents, that's what we're doing. So because, as you said, I don't even know what's right for me most of the time. So I'm going to jump subjects on you, I apologize. But this is one of my favorite historical asterisks, and that is the original First Amendment, or the First Article which was put forward, which is known as The Congressional Apportionment Amendment, which if enacted would increase the size of Congress from 435 to roughly 6000 Members today.

Interesting. My fantasy is that somehow more states ratified this original First Amendment, and we have to somehow deal with it. Just throw utter chaos into the situation. But I think you're right, I think that the better play for us all is more federalism. But as soon as you start to bring that up you get basically accused of being pro-slavery, and I’m like, wait, wait.

And interestingly enough, my understanding is this is one of the few times that George Washington actually broke his silence, and was very much in favor of this apportionment amendment, something that he actually believed in?

I heard this first on Jonah Goldberg’s podcast [The Remnant]. He was quoting somebody else, and I can't remember who he says said it, but what we should do is just change the pronunciation of the word “president” to “president.” That'll be a reminder that that is all they're supposed to do is preside.

Well, we are up against our last break. This has been great. So fun to have you on James. Ron's going to take you home in the last segment, but I just wanted to say thanks.  

Ron’s Questions: Segment Four

Welcome back, everybody, we're here with James R. Harrigan, and the book is Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics. James, I'm going to tap into your political philosophy and political science brain. I'm going to give you a series of rapid questions somewhat, because we've only got about seven or eight minutes. In the book, you talk about our propensity for having a war on nouns—drugs, poverty, terrorism. And I just want to ask you about poverty. It seems like on the war on poverty, poverty has won. Why do you think the people don't understand that the only antidote to poverty is wealth creation?

James, what's your position on the universal basic income? [See Episode #95].

Do you worry about Congress's impotence? I mean specifically, their willingness to give power to the president and bureaucracy, and just not make any major decisions?

George Will wrote a book in 1992 called Restoration: Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy. And it was one of the best arguments I've ever read for term limits at the federal level. Where do you stand on term limits?

Would you see any benefits to term limits if they did do it?

We’ve got about one minute, James, last question. What about a state constitutional convention?

Well, James Harrigan, thank you so much for appearing on The Soul of Enterprise, your book Cooperation & Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies and What that Means for Economics and Politics is fantastic, a great read. We're going to link up everything that you guys have done up on the show notes. And Ed, what do we have coming up next week?

Ed

Next week, Ron, we are going to talk about a subject that is near and dear to both our hearts. We are going to talk about regulation versus reputation, which is the more important?

Ron

Excellent, I'll see 167 hours.


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

This past week was Bonus Episode 354 - “Suggested changes for Congresscritters”. Here are a few links discussed:

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode #353: Left to Right: Why the Traditional Political Spectrum is Wrong

In government and political science courses, students are taught the traditional “political/economic spectrum.” It looks like this:

spectrum 1.jpg

Yet this spectrum is not only misleading, it is false. Why should socialists and fascists be depicted as virtual opposites when they share so much in common?

The real spectrum should look more like this:

spectrum 2.jpg

Objections to the Above Spectrum

1.     Communism and fascism can’t be close together because communists and fascists fought each other bitterly. Hitler attacked Stalin.

Al Capone and Bugs Moran hated and fought each other so they can’t both be considered gangsters?

Both systems had low regard for human life. Why expect either to be nice to the other, especially since they were rivals for territory or influence on world stage?

2.     Under communism, as Karl Marx defined it, government “withers away.” So it cannot be aligned closely with socialism because socialism involves lots of government.

Marx’s conception of the government “withering away” not only was purely hypothetical, it’s lunacy. There’s no example of a  despot of the all-powerful “proletarian dictatorship” walking away from power. 

3.     Communism and Fascism are radically different because in focus, one is internationalist and the other is nationalist (as in Hitler’s “national socialism”).

As Lawrence Reed answers: “Big deal. Chocolate and vanilla are two different flavors of ice cream, but they’re both ice cream. Was it any consolation to the French or the Norwegians or the Poles that Hitler was a national socialist instead of an international socialist?”

Communism and Fascism belong firmly on the socialist Left. Political and economic systems should be analyzed by who they empower—the State or the individual.

 

Resources Mentioned During the Show 

Lawrence W. Reed, “What the Nazis Had in Common With Every Other Collectivist Regime in the 20th Century,” FEE, July 29, 2021

Lawrence W. Reed, “The Only Spectrum That Makes Sense,” April 22, 2021, El American

This is one of Ed’s all-time favorite books. It was featured during one of our best book shows: The Vampire Economy

Also check out this YouTube video: “Hitler’s Vampire Economy” 

Ed is a fan of this 10 question quiz. It quickly covers your position on both personal and economic issues: The World’s Smallest Political Quiz 

Ron mentioned the Freedom Index when talking about Hungary. Check out the full index here.

And speaking of Fascism, here is the Wikipedia source on its Manifesto

As Ron and Ed study the antecedents of some of the political ideas discussed today, Ron recommends the #1 bestseller from Jonah Goldberg: Liberal Fascism


Episode #352: Reginald Lee on Cost Accounting and The Subscription Model

Reginald Lee.jpeg

Ron and Ed were joined by VeraSage Senior Fellow, and recidivist guest, Dr. Reginald Lee for this show. They engaged in a round-table discussion about value, pricing, cost accounting, project management, and capacity; and how they all change, and don’t change, in the subscription business model. This is an adaptation of a Bonus Episode from July 14th that ran for approximately 80 minutes, available to our Cost-Plus Subscribers on our Patreon channel (https://www.patreon.com/TSOE).

About Dr. Reginald Lee
Reginald Tomas Lee, PhD, is an author, international and TEDx speaker, corporate advisor and trainer in the areas of cash flow profit/ROI and capacity management. He is the author of three books, including Lies, Damned Lies, and Cost Accounting; Strategic Cost Transformation; and Project Profitability. He has written over 40 articles and white papers, and was a feature writer for the Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance. Reginald has advised many major companies, including as Bristol Myers Squibb, Dell, Disney, DuPont, Home Depot, Lockheed-Martin, Toyota, and UnitedHealth Group. Professionally, Reginald has worked for GM, IBM, EY, has been a professor of both engineering and business, and currently teaches operations and supply chain at Miami University’s Farmer School of Business. Reginald has a PhD in mechanical engineering from the University of Dayton.


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits. 

Episode 351: Interview with Professor Antony Davies

Dr Antony Davies

You will learn more about inflation in the first five minutes of this conversation than you thought you could. The interview with Professor Antony Davies only gets better from there!

[Editor’s note: Professor Davies current book can be found at this link.]

Ed’s Questions: Segment One

Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. I’m Ed Kless with my good friend and co-host, Ron Baker, and folks on today's show, we are pleased to have Professor Antony Davies. Ron, how's it going?

Ron

Very good, Ed, I'm so looking forward to this.

Ed

Yes, it's going be a wide ranging conversation. Antony, as he has told us to call him, is very erudite and will often opines on anything and  everything. So we're looking forward to that. We will not have, as we like to call it, the Tyler Cowen problem with Antony. So let me read his bio and bring him on so we can start the conversation. Dr. Antony Davies is the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, and the co-host of the podcast Words and Numbers with James Harrigan. He authors monthly columns on economics for public policy for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Pittsburgh Tribune review. And he has written books on understanding statistics published by the Cato Institute. I'd love to ask him about that because I can't find it on the Cato Institute's website, and co-authored hundreds of op-eds, in, among others, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. Welcome to The Soul of Enterprise, Antony Davies.

Well, first, a couple of quick connections. First, you should know that both of my in-laws are Duquesne grads, although they graduated in the late 60s. But I am very familiar with Pittsburgh having a family of origin that started there, love the area. I think it's one of the most underrated places in the United States, actually, in my view, so I'm not sure your feelings on that. But the other connection I wanted to make is in your bio I saw you went to the all-male Catholic bishop [St. John] Neumann High School in Williamsport, PA, and I too am a graduate of an all-male Catholic institution, Chaminade high school in Mineola, NY. So, I think that that changes us somehow, I think there's something in there. What I wanted to ask you right out of the gate is I wanted to talk about inflation. You most recently did a great interview, I guess it was a video piece, for the Foundation for Economic Education refuting a Vox piece that really mis-defined inflation. So I'll ask the questions in succession, and we can unpack them. What do most people think inflation is? What is it really? And why is that important?

Sorry. What is it really? Why is that distinction important, too?

And I've might have heard this, but it seems to be that the money supply has increased recently. I don't know where I heard that?

Yeah, I remember when the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup was a quarter. But why haven't we seen inflation as a problem? If it's been going up since the 70s, the money supply [going up] since the 70s? Why haven't we seen it reflected? Has growth been equal to it, at least to some degree?

The one other aspect of inflation that I wanted to ask you about, because I've seen you talk about it quite eloquently, is that we also don't see in my iPhone, for example, does in 1976 $200,000 worth of stuff, or perhaps even more, and that's not reflected in the price either, because I only paid say $1,000 for this, correct?

Yes, tremendous. But then there's also the timing problem too, right? When the government pushed all of this money out, especially to the markets, and now even to us, it's six months late. We're already in recovery, so to speak, unless everything begins to reverse, which we saw a little bit at the end of this week, but let's not think about that. That's a timing problem, too?

Well, this is great conversation, flying by as usual, but we're up against our first break.

Ron’s Questions: Segment Two

Welcome back, everybody, we're here with Professor Antony Davies. And Antony, I'm probably going to bounce around on you a little bit more. But just to keep with what you were explaining about inflation, you wrote a great article in FEE, “Modern Monetary Theory Isn't Economics.” And you talked about the sleight of hand because it focuses on debt and dollars, rather than resources and products. And I just thought the way you explained it was fantastic. Can you kind of explain it and tell us why it's a sleight of hand?

Do you think this Modern Monetary Theory idea has permeated the halls of Congress and other politicians in Washington? It seems to have happened pretty fast. I mean, like faster than Keynes?

Well, I hope the economists can push back on it. The other thing, Antony, in just reading some of your stuff, you're not just an economist. I know you're a Chicago School economist, right? Very empirical, modeling, data, all of that. But you're a serial entrepreneur, as well. That's kind of a rare trait for an economist.

You just gave, very eloquently, why our show is titled The Soul of Enterprise; that is exactly what we try to convey. The thing that fascinates me about it, were you frustrated when you got to Chicago and realized that the economics profession doesn't have much to say about the entrepreneur, outside of maybe the Austrians, and I know you came to the Austrian School a little bit later, after your academic career. Outside of Schumpeter and maybe some amateurs like George Gilder, who write very passionately about the role of the entrepreneur, [they’re ignored by mainstream economics]. I mean, they're the lifeblood of a dynamic economy, without entrepreneurism an economy is just dead.

That’s very true. You did a podcast back on June 14 of 2017, “What You Should Know About Poverty in America.” And that made me think back to Nicholas Eberstadt, who wrote a paper once and he said, if we measured poverty by looking at consumption, rather than income, it would be like two or three percent. And it kind of set the world on fire, was [and still is] very controversial. And I think about the war on poverty and it seems poverty has won. What are the flaws in how we measure poverty?

I rather be poor today then rich anywhere 100 years ago. It's astonishing to me that we're still having this argument. Do you think Universal Basic Income (UBI), and I know there's all sorts of problems with, but as Charles Murray proposed it in his book, In Our Hands, where we have a Constitutional amendment that wipes out all the other programs, in his book even Social Security and Medicare, replaced it with a UBI, do you think that would be a better alternative?

Philosophically, Antony, if we did UBI the right way, I still worry about it from a moral level. Like, I'm here and the world owes me a living. There's something that rubs me wrong about that, the world was here first, it owes you nothing.

Sure, it's compassion and charity. It's just that those can't be coerced.

I love how you say that we've conflated poverty and inequality. My favorite proverb is a German one. And it says, “If you want equality visit a cemetery.” But Antony this is great, unfortunately, we're up against our next break.  

 

Ed’s Questions: Segment Three

And we are back on The Soul of Enterprise with Professor Antony Davies. He is the author, with James Harrigan, of Cooperation and Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies, and What that Means for Economics and Politics. And, Antony, let me ask you the question that all authors dream of when on a book tour: Tell me about your book.  

So is using coercion in the first place that started the problem that you have to use coercion to correct?

Interesting. And so I want to ask you about that. And this is the notion of government getting involved in the price system. In most cases that's coercive, right? And I think this is why we see the high prices of healthcare and college education, all this stuff. It's government action begetting government action, correct?

Two quick points on that. Ron and I have interviewed Dr. Paul Thomas out of Detroit, he is one of the primary movers in the direct primary care movement, which I don't know if you're aware of that, but it is a great entrepreneurial solution to this problem, so again, this is a good example of cooperation out-doing coercion. But, the thing is, I think I've recently heard you talk tell this story on a podcast, and it has to get out there again. The absurdity of what you just painted with regard to wage and price controls, leading to all of this stuff, only to be outdone by Wickard v Filburn case, in the early 30s [1942 actually]. On how now the government controls absolutely everything, in the guise of interstate commerce. Tell the story of Wickard v Filburn.

By the standard of Wickard v Filburn, Winston Churchill is also a carrot. It's not interstate, it's not commerce, but it's interstate commerce. Okay.

And Winston Churchill is a carrot, again. Well, we're up against our last break, and I want to remind everybody that you can contact Ron or me by sending that email to asktsoe@verasage.com. We'd like to thank Professor Davies, he's going to finish up with Ron in the last segment, author of Cooperation and Coercion: How Busybodies Became Busybullies, and What that Means for Economics and Politics, go out and buy it at Amazon or a bookstore near you. But right now a word from our sponsor, and my employer, Sage.

 

Ron’s Questions: Segment Four

Welcome back, everybody. We're here with Professor Antony Davies. And Antony, Jimmy Carter once said that “Our income tax system is a disgrace to the human race.” What would you replace it with, if you were King for the day?

That's really popular because people figure it’s going to get the drug dealer who goes and buys the Lexus, at least.

I am seeing more and more talk about, and a push for, industrial policy. You know, people are pointing to DARPA and moonshots, and especially Operation Warp Speed, and only the government can do this. Why is this a bad idea?

I know the idea that trial and error is done by the government better than the market is baffling to me. Operation Warp Speed, Pfizer didn't take any OWS money. And of course, the people that advocate for industrial policy, they don't have a good answer to that.

Which is kind of what the market does writ large, by itself, right?

A couple of weeks ago, we did a show on woke capitalism [Episode #349]. And I'm kind of concerned about the CEOs getting into these political fights and all of that. But more specifically, do you worry about the ESG regulations that are starting to come out of the SEC and the Federal Reserve? Because I think some of these things are just a wet blanket on the economy and innovation? 

Yes, you've talked about the Cobra problems, right, the unintended consequences. I’d love your opinion on this. Do we need intellectual property laws?

The only thing that gave me pause, in my younger self, was what about drugs? You know, these need to be protected, because it takes so much money. But of course, a lot of that is government driven, too.

We've probably got time for only one more, but since it's close to our shores, what do you think will happen in Cuba? Do you think we'll see reform?

Well, professor, this has been quite an honor. Thank you so much for appearing on The Soul of Enterprise. And stay with us as we go through a live close. Ed, what do we have coming up next week?

Ed

Next week, Ron, we're going to have excerpts from our conversation with Dr. Reginald Lee and his theories on how costing and project management and subscription all work together.

Ron

Excellent. I look forward to it. I'll see you in 167 hours.

Ed

This has been The Soul of Enterprise: Business in the Knowledge Economy, sponsored by Sage, transforming the way people think and work so their organizations can thrive. Join us next week on Friday at 3pm Eastern, that's Noon Pacific. In the meantime, please feel free to visit us on our Patreon site, https://www.patreon.com/TSOE. Or just https://www.thesoulofenterprise.com.

Other Resources

Here is Ron’s favorite line from an AMA on Reddit that Professor Davies did: “I’m not a fan of macroeconomics at all. To my mind, macroeconomics is simply microeconomics done poorly.” https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5ff92j/im_antony_davies_associate_professor_of_economics/


Bonus Content is Available As Well

Did you know that each week after our live show, Ron and Ed take to the microphone for a bonus show? Typically, this bonus show is an extension of the live show topic (sometimes even with the same guest) and a few other pieces of news, current events, or things that have caught our attention.

Click the “FANATIC” image to learn more about pricing and member benefits.