Starve-The-Beast Libertarians Should Beware the Rule of the Clan

Tyler Cowen thinks that libertarians are waking up to the idea that the problem we face is not that the state is too big, but rather, that it lacks the capacity to do what needs to be done. That, in his view, is to “maintain and extend capitalism and markets.” He coins the term “State Capacity Libertarianism” (SCL) to refer to this post-anarcho-capitalist perspective.

Writing for this site, Sam Hammond offers three motivations for the transformation of old-fashioned libertarianism into the new kind. I would like to suggest an additional motivation, drawn from Mark S. Weiner's 2013 book, The Rule of the Clan.

The “starve the beast” doctrine embraced by many traditional libertarians holds that depriving the government of the resources it needs to go about its business will increase personal freedom and strengthen markets. That would make sense if the default alternative to state capacity were a free-market utopia like those portrayed in the Galt’s Gulch chapters of Atlas Shrugged or in Robert Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Unfortunately, as Weiner explains, the default alternative is something less attractive to lovers of freedom and individualism.

The EPA's SAFE Vehicle Rule is a Triple Play of Regulatory Ineptitude

In 2018, the EPA released a proposal called the SAFE Vehicle Rule, with SAFE standing for "Safer, Affordable, and Fuel Efficient." The rule featured an aggressive rollback of Obama-era fuel economy rules for motor vehicles. The original version would have frozen corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards at 37 miles per gallon, rather than allowing them to rise to 54 MPG, as would happen with no new action.

Since that time, the agency has been working on a revised version. Although the revision has not yet been made public, the Washington Post has published a description of it, in the form of a letter written by Senator Thomas Carper (D-Del). If the details given in the letter and the Post article are accurate, the new rule is both weaker and even less defensible than the original version.

For those who like CAFE standards, the new rule might look like a step in the right direction. Rather than freezing fleet mileage standards at 37 mpg, it would allow them to increase by 1.5 percent per year until they reached 40.5 mpg by 2030. But, as I pointed out in an earlier commentary, a policy that supplemented CAFE standards with a carbon tax, or even replaced them entirely with such a tax, would do even more to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Scissors of Supply and Demand are Cutting Carbon Emissions, but Not Fast Enough

Since the time of Alfred Marshall, more than a century ago, economics professors have taught their students that markets are like scissors: They have a supply blade and a demand blade that work together to determine prices and quantities. 

An example of the scissors at work can be found in a new report on greenhouse gas emissions from the Rhodium Group.

The report is a classic case of good news and bad news. The good news is that overall U.S. GHG emissions fell by 2.1 percent in 2019. The evidence makes clear that both blades of the scissors are doing some cutting.

Looking first at the demand side, we see that the decrease in total emissions comes despite an estimated 2.3 percent increase in U.S. real GDP last year. Together, the 2.1 percent drop in emissions and the 2.3 percent growth of GDP mean that emissions per dollar of GDP fell by a far-from-trivial 4.4 percent. American industries and consumers are finding that they don’t need to pump out the same amount of pollution they used to in order to maintain equivalent levels of production and consumption.

How Can We Ensure That a Carbon Tax is a Generational Win-Win?

Photo courtesy of Pixabay.com

A recent NBER working paper by a distinguished team of economists argues that a properly designed carbon tax can be a generational win-win. The team, led by Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, also includes Felix Kubler of the University of Zurich, Andrey Polbin of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Jeffrey D. Sachs of Columbia University, and Simon Scheidegger of the University of Lausanne.

By a generational win-win, Kotlikoff et al. mean a policy that would benefit not only future generations, who would reap the benefits of reduced warming, but also those of us who would begin paying the costs of mitigation now but would live to see only small, initial, climate improvements. The perception of a long lag between investments in climate mitigation and their full benefits has been a serious impediment to effective climate action. That is true both for democratic governments and for more authoritarian regimes, to the extent they are sensitive to public opinion. Although the paper discusses only carbon taxes, similar issues are raised by cap-and-trade, public investment, direct regulation, and other mitigation strategies.

The first section of this commentary outlines the Kotlikoff plan. The second section compares it to alternative strategies for dealing with the objection that climate action would pay off only in the distant future. The next section discusses whether the plan can properly be understood as an intergenerational “redistribution” in which the future “subsidizes” the present, as the authors contend. The concluding section examines the political realism of the plan.

Can We Put Everyone to Work? Four Ideas Compared.

Can we put everyone to work? In a way, it seems like an odd time to be asking the question. After all, the official unemployment rate is at a 50-year low and the U.S. economy has added jobs for a record 110 consecutive months.

Still, broader indexes show much greater labor market slack. Those indexes include some 4.4 million people who are working part time but would like to work full time, and an additional 4.4 million who say they want a job, but are neither working nor looking. What is more, the labor force participation rate, even for prime-age workers, is not yet back to its prerecession level and is even farther below the rates of the 1990s.

But how to do it? How to get more people to work – and better yet, at a living wage? In what follows I will discuss four proposals. The first two – guaranteed jobs, from the left, and work requirements, from the right – I view skeptically.  The other two are wage subsidies and basic income.  I see those as more promising, and more promising still if combined.

Carbon Pricing and Its Enemies

On December 4, I made a presentation to a student group on Carbon Pricing and Its Enemies. Here is a link to the slides for the presentation. Watch this space for a narrative version, hopefully available soon,

Can We Put Everyone to Work?

Temporary link to slideshow "Can We Put Everyone to Work," presented at Economic Club of Traverse City, MI, November 15, 2019.

A detailed narrative version of the presentation is now available at NiskanenCenter.com