WEBVTT

NOTE Current Market Conditions: 15 Jan. 2009

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:13.000
I'm here with Robert Lawson, Professor at Auburn. This is your first year of teaching here, right?

2
00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:14.000
Yeah, I just got here this summer.

3
00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:22.000
Okay. And you say that your classes are just packed with kids asking a zillion questions about financial markets and things?

4
00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:26.000
Well, I'm teaching financial markets, actually. This is the first time I've ever taught it.

5
00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:39.000
and you can hardly get through your class material because every day some kid comes in with a new headline about what the Fed's done or what company's gone bankrupt or what bank just failed and it's really more important to talk about that than whatever boring stuff the textbook has.

6
00:00:39.000 --> 00:00:42.000
Now you studied, of course, all this in school.

7
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:43.000
Well, sure.

8
00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:44.000
What did you go to school?

9
00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:45.000
I graduated from Florida State.

10
00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:46.000
Florida State.

11
00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:47.000
Jim Courtney.

12
00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:48.000
I'm Courtney.

13
00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:53.000
And the questions involve economic systems?

14
00:00:53.000 --> 00:00:58.000
Well, that's mostly what I do with my research, is the Economic Freedom of the World project.

15
00:00:58.000 --> 00:01:03.000
Yeah, sure. And so, but the headlines, of course, are just proclaiming the death of capitalism every day.

16
00:01:03.000 --> 00:01:14.000
Yes. Yeah, yeah. So just yesterday I was talking about Brad Delonga, Darren Asimoglou's latest article where he blames the financial crisis on greed.

17
00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:18.000
As if, that's like saying gravity makes airplanes crash, I think.

18
00:01:18.000 --> 00:01:20.000
Where does this appear?

19
00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:23.280
And he just wrote it, posted it somewhere, I found it online.

20
00:01:23.280 --> 00:01:30.560
And of course it's also caused by a blind faith in Ayn Rand's vision of free market

21
00:01:30.560 --> 00:01:32.880
capitalism or some silliness like this.

22
00:01:32.880 --> 00:01:34.880
As if we had that in the real world anyway.

23
00:01:34.880 --> 00:01:35.880
So...

24
00:01:35.880 --> 00:01:36.880
Yeah, what do you make of this?

25
00:01:36.880 --> 00:01:45.000
Why is it that all these attacks on capitalism presume that we're living in a purely free

26
00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:54.000
and the New Market Environment and that, well, now we've now discovered that we need to start regulating things even though the financial markets have been regulated since.

27
00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:59.000
Yeah, they're certainly the most highly regulated of all markets in the economy or financial markets.

28
00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:11.000
I mean, compared to other markets, like the market for toys, which has some regulations, those pretty people, toys can pretty much do anything they want without any oversight and you can't do anything in financial markets without oversight.

29
00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:24.680
So it is a strange situation where people are arguing that financial markets were just unregulated, free-for-all, dog-eat-dog, you know, free market capitalism when, you know, it's not even close to the case.

30
00:02:24.680 --> 00:02:30.520
If you were going to pick a market to start with, to level that kind of claim against, you wouldn't do financial markets.

31
00:02:30.520 --> 00:02:32.840
Those are the most tightly regulated of all markets.

32
00:02:32.840 --> 00:02:33.520
Yeah.

33
00:02:33.520 --> 00:02:34.400
So it's very strange.

34
00:02:34.400 --> 00:02:39.640
But, you know, what really happens here is we've got a crisis and there's going to be policy responses.

35
00:02:39.640 --> 00:02:51.640
We have a financial crisis. There's going to be policy responses to the crisis in all sides to the grand ideological battle. They want their piece of it. They want to lay claim to it.

36
00:02:51.640 --> 00:03:01.640
And you see it from our point of view, too. You see individuals who want to use this crisis as an attack on regulation of markets.

37
00:03:01.640 --> 00:03:05.640
And some of those criticisms, I think, have been a little off-base, too. Regulation of markets didn't...

38
00:03:05.640 --> 00:03:09.000
not all the regulations out there have caused this problem

39
00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:13.360
but the flip side of that is you get people say well it's deregulation that caused it

40
00:03:13.360 --> 00:03:18.280
so you know you're seeing a lot of people wanting to use the crisis as a

41
00:03:18.280 --> 00:03:21.280
way to advance you know their long-term agenda

42
00:03:21.280 --> 00:03:24.280
we're doing it you know and other people are doing it too

43
00:03:24.280 --> 00:03:28.480
well and there's you have to you have to disaggregate the regulations too

44
00:03:28.480 --> 00:03:31.880
right and the nature of the regulatory regime and one hand you did have the

45
00:03:31.880 --> 00:03:33.160
repeal of Glass-Steagall

46
00:03:33.160 --> 00:03:37.160
which has a kind of systematic effect on what's going on here.

47
00:03:37.160 --> 00:03:43.160
But on the other hand, aren't there in place right now regulatory bodies that are designed to oversee

48
00:03:43.160 --> 00:03:48.160
and prevent the very kinds of things that we've seen happening?

49
00:03:48.160 --> 00:03:50.160
Exactly. I mean, on the one hand, we have deregulation.

50
00:03:50.160 --> 00:03:55.160
Stiegel is the best example. We have also regulation, increasing regulation like Sarbanes-Oxley

51
00:03:55.160 --> 00:04:01.160
and a lot of security stuff. So it's very hard and we only have one financial crisis.

52
00:04:01.160 --> 00:04:05.760
And so we've got a lot of explanations, and you're only going to be able to disentangle

53
00:04:05.760 --> 00:04:08.880
that stuff by using sound logic.

54
00:04:08.880 --> 00:04:12.560
And what about the fact that we had a national policy to promote home ownership?

55
00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:14.840
Of course, yeah, absolutely.

56
00:04:14.840 --> 00:04:18.360
Through any means necessary, everybody should own a home.

57
00:04:18.360 --> 00:04:26.320
So I think that was the most important single cause probably was the subsidization of home

58
00:04:26.320 --> 00:04:33.080
Home ownership through Fannie and Freddie and community reinvestment hacks and everything

59
00:04:33.080 --> 00:04:37.480
down to the home mortgage interest deductions.

60
00:04:37.480 --> 00:04:41.160
We have a whole system-wide built-in process to encourage people, many people who don't

61
00:04:41.160 --> 00:04:44.280
have the means, to buy homes.

62
00:04:44.280 --> 00:04:47.440
Couple that with a little bit of Fed expansion or maybe a lot of Fed expansion depending

63
00:04:47.440 --> 00:04:53.520
on who you talk to and you've got the fuel to keep the fire going.

64
00:04:53.520 --> 00:05:08.520
And how do you reconcile all the hysteria about falling home prices with, as long as I can remember it, there's been a frenzy about the problem of getting poor people homes, you know, overpriced homes.

65
00:05:08.520 --> 00:05:13.520
Well, yeah, poor people are poor. That means they don't have a lot of money. It's the definition of being poor.

66
00:05:13.520 --> 00:05:17.440
Right. And people who are poor, by definition, have trouble affording big ticket items like

67
00:05:17.440 --> 00:05:24.160
houses. I mean, this is, you know, it seems to be very tautological. So yeah, you're never

68
00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:27.720
going to get rid of that problem. It's like getting rid of gravity. You know, there are

69
00:05:27.720 --> 00:05:31.200
going to be things that are outside the means of poor people, by definition.

70
00:05:31.200 --> 00:05:34.320
But now you have expensive homes that are much cheaper and much more affordable. So

71
00:05:34.320 --> 00:05:35.320
why isn't this an occasion to celebrate?

72
00:05:35.320 --> 00:05:39.720
To a certain extent, we should celebrate. Of course, most people that are writing those

73
00:05:39.720 --> 00:05:43.400
In fact, most headlines are people who already own homes and are looking at their asset value

74
00:05:43.400 --> 00:05:44.400
fall.

75
00:05:44.400 --> 00:05:45.400
So they're thinking about that.

76
00:05:45.400 --> 00:05:49.880
We see the same thing in stock markets, every time the stock price goes down, it makes it

77
00:05:49.880 --> 00:05:52.080
more affordable to someone who's buying it.

78
00:05:52.080 --> 00:05:56.200
And yet we seem to have a bias in favor of rising stock prices at all times.

79
00:05:56.200 --> 00:06:03.160
Right, rising home prices, rising stock prices, but gasoline must always fall or...

80
00:06:03.160 --> 00:06:04.160
Exactly.

81
00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:06.760
What does natural law dictate here?

82
00:06:06.760 --> 00:06:13.240
Well, it sounds like you have some interest in Austrian themes concerning the business

83
00:06:13.240 --> 00:06:14.240
cycle.

84
00:06:14.240 --> 00:06:15.240
Have you explored those?

85
00:06:15.240 --> 00:06:20.720
Well, I've been more of a microeconomic Austrian, if you can say that, following in the Kirzner

86
00:06:20.720 --> 00:06:28.440
entrepreneurship style of Austrian methodological individualism, subjective value, those sorts

87
00:06:28.440 --> 00:06:29.440
of things.

88
00:06:29.440 --> 00:06:34.040
Honestly, I haven't spent a lot of attention over the years on the trade cycle stuff.

89
00:06:34.040 --> 00:06:38.760
My new colleague, Roger Garrison, probably I should go downstairs and talk to him here

90
00:06:38.760 --> 00:06:43.480
and there, but it's not been a long-term interest of mine until fairly recently, in part because

91
00:06:43.480 --> 00:06:48.000
I'm now teaching finance in financial markets and I'm being forced to sort of read and think

92
00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:49.000
a lot more.

93
00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:54.320
Say, have you looked at the Mocklip book on stock markets, did you ever have the occasion

94
00:06:54.320 --> 00:06:55.320
to pick that thing up?

95
00:06:55.320 --> 00:06:56.320
No, I don't think so.

96
00:06:56.320 --> 00:06:58.760
I've got a book by him, but that's not the book.

97
00:06:58.760 --> 00:07:01.640
Yeah, yeah, but this is really obscure until last year.

98
00:07:01.640 --> 00:07:07.400
I'll make sure you get a copy before we leave. I might have something interesting. He was

99
00:07:07.400 --> 00:07:13.960
an interesting guy. In your area of microeconomic studies, probably the thing that you most

100
00:07:13.960 --> 00:07:20.720
want to talk to students about, you've done some interesting work on the banning and abolition

101
00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:26.840
of products. This is our first time meeting. But your reputation precedes you because you're

102
00:07:26.840 --> 00:07:55.840
Well, I have in my hand a 12-inch metal spike with a pointed end. It's not pointed to a very fine point, but if I were to throw this at you, Jeff, you'd lose an eye. This is a dangerous piece of item in my hand, and the objective of this particular piece of steel is to throw it through the air, usually with alcohol in it, and then throw it in the air.

103
00:07:55.840 --> 00:08:02.280
with alcohol involved events like July 4th picnics and try to make put it into a

104
00:08:02.280 --> 00:08:06.900
little target and people who are our age or older will know what I'm talking

105
00:08:06.900 --> 00:08:12.920
about. It's lawn darts. And they light them on fire? Oh, no, no, no. Oh, okay. Do that.

106
00:08:12.920 --> 00:08:16.920
That'd be crazy right there. No, it's just it's enough to get drunk and throw

107
00:08:16.920 --> 00:08:21.920
Metal Spikes Through the Air

108
00:08:21.920 --> 00:08:29.920
So this is Lawn Darts or Jarts and people that are over our age will know what this is and it used to be great fun.

109
00:08:29.920 --> 00:08:34.920
Millions and millions of copies of this game were sold and people would go out in their backyards and play.

110
00:08:34.920 --> 00:08:42.920
It's kind of like cornhole or beanbag toss today but that's an easy game. No one gets hurt playing that.

111
00:08:42.920 --> 00:08:49.920
So this is a fun game. People played it in the 70s and 80s. It was very popular.

112
00:08:49.920 --> 00:08:52.920
I must say, it feels good. I mean, you do want to throw it.

113
00:08:52.920 --> 00:08:59.920
It is a little bit dangerous, I must say. And over the course of this product's availability, three people died.

114
00:08:59.920 --> 00:09:05.920
And some 6,000 or 7,000, depending on the numbers, people visited emergency rooms.

115
00:09:05.920 --> 00:09:09.920
A lot of people, there were eyes that got lost, just punctured wounds and so forth.

116
00:09:09.920 --> 00:09:20.920
I remember when I was a kid, we would throw them straight up into the air and then try to run away from them.

117
00:09:20.920 --> 00:09:26.920
It's a game that you can see is quite dangerous, but it was also a lot of fun.

118
00:09:26.920 --> 00:09:31.920
In 1988, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned it.

119
00:09:31.920 --> 00:09:38.920
What I find interesting about it is they didn't ban the product, by the way, so I'm not illegally possessing this.

120
00:09:38.920 --> 00:09:43.920
I can't buy it from you?

121
00:09:43.920 --> 00:09:47.920
It would be a crime for me to sell this to you. I could give it to you, which is a strange concept.

122
00:09:47.920 --> 00:09:49.920
I could buy maybe the box.

123
00:09:49.920 --> 00:09:58.920
Yeah, there are some companies that will sell you the pieces. There's a theory out there that you can buy the individual pieces and construct from disaggregated parts.

124
00:09:58.920 --> 00:10:03.920
And that's legal. I don't think that's actually legal either. I think it's illegal to sell anything here.

125
00:10:03.920 --> 00:10:12.920
But they banned the product, and if I can quote the press release from one of the commissioners, it was a two to one vote.

126
00:10:12.920 --> 00:10:17.920
So two people, two human beings, decided that we're not allowed to play this game.

127
00:10:17.920 --> 00:10:26.920
And she says, whatever limited, Anne Graham, whatever limited recreational value lawn darts have is far outweighed by the number of serious injuries and unnecessary deaths.

128
00:10:26.920 --> 00:10:37.920
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is making a judgment call that this product, as fun as it is, whatever recreational value it may have, it's just outweighed by the fact that it's dangerous.

129
00:10:37.920 --> 00:10:46.920
And I say, who are you to make that decision? Does she have some magic crystal ball where she can look inside my head and determine how much value this thing was to me?

130
00:10:46.920 --> 00:10:51.920
Because I remember it was a lot of fun. And that's an Austrian point.

131
00:10:51.920 --> 00:10:57.360
I mean, the idea that value is subjective, and I and only I can know what something is valuable to me.

132
00:10:57.360 --> 00:11:04.760
Now, I can transmit to you that value through my actions, I can communicate information through prices and my purchasing decisions,

133
00:11:04.760 --> 00:11:09.280
but you can't know how much I valued playing lawn charts.

134
00:11:09.280 --> 00:11:11.400
She has no basis for making that judgment.

135
00:11:11.400 --> 00:11:16.280
Now, I have a basis for making that judgment about whether it's worth the risks or not,

136
00:11:16.280 --> 00:11:22.280
But she cannot know that risk. She cannot make that trade-off for me.

137
00:11:22.280 --> 00:11:31.280
It's not a matter of her doing her mathematics wrong. It's a matter of her simply being unable to look inside my head and know how much something is worth.

138
00:11:31.280 --> 00:11:37.280
And that's the great problem I have with consumer product bands. I don't dispute the fact that the product is dangerous.

139
00:11:37.280 --> 00:11:42.280
In fact, I don't think I'd be playing it around my own children in the backyard.

140
00:11:42.280 --> 00:11:49.280
The product is quite dangerous, but so are a lot of other products in my house, in my car, in my steak knives, there are a lot of things that are dangerous.

141
00:11:49.280 --> 00:11:56.280
And I judge whether or not the value of using the product is worth whatever danger there is.

142
00:11:56.280 --> 00:12:11.280
The regulation of consumer products seems to be predicated on this idea that these values can be determined by some god-like Consumer Product Safety Commission who can tell what things are worth the risks and what things aren't worth the risk.

143
00:12:11.280 --> 00:12:20.280
And I think on methodological Austrian grounds, that's simply, I don't even think it's an Austrian point. That's standard neoclassical economics, I think, even buys that.

144
00:12:20.280 --> 00:12:32.280
Yeah, and isn't there also something funny? These bureaucrats don't often anticipate the responses of regular people to their bands and to their attempt to create a safe environment.

145
00:12:32.280 --> 00:12:36.280
I mean, oftentimes, I mean, people like dangerous stuff, right? For one thing.

146
00:12:36.280 --> 00:12:42.280
I go to the playgrounds often times and I see that they have now new safe playgrounds.

147
00:12:42.280 --> 00:12:46.280
For example, they've eliminated steel, things that you climb on and replace them with plastic tubes.

148
00:12:46.280 --> 00:12:52.280
You can look and see the kids are walking on top of the tubes, even surely more dangerous.

149
00:12:52.280 --> 00:12:56.280
Of course. Why climb mountains for fun, which is a fairly risky activity.

150
00:12:56.280 --> 00:13:01.280
It's routine for me to pick the hardest route to the top of the mountain rather than the easiest route,

151
00:13:01.280 --> 00:13:04.280
which is kind of a violation of standard economic theory, I think.

152
00:13:04.280 --> 00:13:08.520
We usually pick the lowest cost way to get to an objective, but part of the fun of climbing

153
00:13:08.520 --> 00:13:13.200
the mountain is taking the hard route where I have to climb instead of the one where I

154
00:13:13.200 --> 00:13:15.240
can just walk to the top of a trail.

155
00:13:15.240 --> 00:13:19.800
And it's possibly true that, and you could never quantify this, I suppose, but that after

156
00:13:19.800 --> 00:13:25.060
the abolition of Land Arts, there was something even more dangerous that came about that people

157
00:13:25.060 --> 00:13:26.880
enjoyed doing recreationally, right?

158
00:13:26.880 --> 00:13:29.000
I imagine that's the case.

159
00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:32.800
Another example I have is pool sticks, people used to throw these little diving sticks in

160
00:13:32.800 --> 00:13:38.760
and Pools. 20 million of these things sold in the mid-90s. 20 million of them. And the

161
00:13:38.760 --> 00:13:42.200
Consumer Product Safety Commission banned this product also. Do you know how many people

162
00:13:42.200 --> 00:13:49.640
were hurt? Nine. Not 90, not 900. Nine. And none of them died. They were impaled. The little

163
00:13:49.640 --> 00:13:54.880
stick punctured their skin. But nobody died. I think there was one eye injury that was

164
00:13:54.880 --> 00:13:58.400
a little bit serious. But other than that, so you have 20 million of these products that

165
00:13:58.400 --> 00:14:11.400
People are enjoying. I mean, objectively, you can see them enjoying the products. Subjectively, we can't measure it, but you can see that there's some enjoyment going on, and because of nine accidents out of 20 million of these products sold, they banned it.

166
00:14:11.400 --> 00:14:15.400
It's just really quite crazy, and I don't know what people are doing in their pools today.

167
00:14:15.400 --> 00:14:19.400
As if there's nothing else you can throw in a pool to dive for?

168
00:14:19.400 --> 00:14:21.400
Precisely. Exactly.

169
00:14:21.400 --> 00:14:27.400
Now, have you seen these skateboards? I wish I could remember the name of them, and listeners will laugh that I don't know them.

170
00:14:27.400 --> 00:14:30.840
But they're split in the middle. They only have two wheels. Have you seen them?

171
00:14:30.840 --> 00:14:34.200
No. They're split in the middle. They have two wheels and you have to balance them.

172
00:14:34.200 --> 00:14:36.880
They're not only regular skateboards. They're called...

173
00:14:36.880 --> 00:14:42.440
I don't remember. Anyway, I got them one last week because I saw all the kids in the neighborhood riding one.

174
00:14:42.440 --> 00:14:50.040
I thought, that's a snap. And I got one and it fell flat on my back immediately and suffered for 10 days as a result.

175
00:14:50.040 --> 00:14:54.280
And I thought to myself, it's unbelievable that this product is even in existence.

176
00:14:54.280 --> 00:15:01.640
There are professional busybodies out there that will complain to the Consumer Product

177
00:15:01.640 --> 00:15:05.480
Safety Commission about products that they simply think might be dangerous and once a

178
00:15:05.480 --> 00:15:14.640
complaint is filed the lawyers pursue it and that's why I think this pooled toy, nine injuries,

179
00:15:14.640 --> 00:15:19.200
you can imagine there were hardly any complaints probably, there were a few injuries but it

180
00:15:19.200 --> 00:15:22.760
only takes a few complaints sometimes for a product to be banned from the whole country.

181
00:15:22.760 --> 00:15:27.760
What drives this? Is it that the public servants are really concerned for our well-being?

182
00:15:27.760 --> 00:15:34.760
Honestly, I probably think that's a big part of it. They really do think that they're out there to protect unknowing people.

183
00:15:34.760 --> 00:15:38.760
There's a certain arrogance associated with that, that they know better.

184
00:15:38.760 --> 00:15:43.760
Again, that quota, that whatever recreational value this may have is simply not worth it.

185
00:15:43.760 --> 00:15:48.760
It's a certain arrogance that they know what's better for people, and they can make those cases.

186
00:15:48.760 --> 00:16:07.680
What about the tendency of, well, is there any documented case where a product is lobbied

187
00:16:07.680 --> 00:16:12.800
for by a competitive, the ban on a product is lobbied for by a competitive company? For

188
00:16:12.800 --> 00:16:17.000
example, you know, some other company that's not making lawn darts would get annoyed at

189
00:16:17.000 --> 00:16:22.920
the profitability of this particular product and then draw attention to its dangers as

190
00:16:22.920 --> 00:16:25.280
a way of hurting the competition.

191
00:16:25.280 --> 00:16:29.640
Not that I've seen, but I wouldn't be surprised, I don't know of any particular instances like

192
00:16:29.640 --> 00:16:30.640
that.

193
00:16:30.640 --> 00:16:35.360
Not at all surprising, you see that in a lot of other areas of regulation.

194
00:16:35.360 --> 00:16:43.160
Now is it the case most often that, I remember a few years ago there was a case of some Christmas

195
00:16:43.160 --> 00:17:03.160
The company that manufactured the product had withdrawn it from production before the government did.

196
00:17:03.160 --> 00:17:33.160
Yeah, that very often actually happens. In a lot of these cases, the companies themselves realize a mistake, and the ban, the big celebrated ban, in fact, is ex post, and it gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission headlines, and they can claim, look what we did, but in reality, the market process pretty much took care of the problem. That doesn't always work. I mean, the Longe Art ban, in fact, was quite unpopular at the time, in the mid-80s or 1988 when they did it. It was very unpopular.

197
00:17:33.160 --> 00:17:37.920
They had to undergo a big public relations media campaign to convince people to throw

198
00:17:37.920 --> 00:17:41.880
their copies out, which is one of the reasons why finding a copy today is so hard, is because

199
00:17:41.880 --> 00:17:45.360
a lot of patriotic Americans said, oh, this thing is now banned.

200
00:17:45.360 --> 00:17:46.360
It wasn't banned.

201
00:17:46.360 --> 00:17:47.360
I mean, you were allowed to possess it.

202
00:17:47.360 --> 00:17:49.140
You just couldn't sell it.

203
00:17:49.140 --> 00:17:55.200
But they thought it was their duty as American citizens to throw the product in the garbage.

204
00:17:55.200 --> 00:17:58.000
So now they're kind of collector items as well.

205
00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:00.880
And there are still an underground market of people out there that play the game.

206
00:18:00.880 --> 00:18:01.880
They have tournaments and things.

207
00:18:01.880 --> 00:18:03.880
So it was in the headlines, you don't remember this?

208
00:18:03.880 --> 00:18:07.880
Oh yeah, I do remember this. This was big news, that they're banning this product.

209
00:18:07.880 --> 00:18:11.880
So in this case, the commission was in fact well ahead of the market,

210
00:18:11.880 --> 00:18:17.880
but for the ban, the product would have been around for a long time, probably still be around.

211
00:18:17.880 --> 00:18:19.880
So it was patriotic to throw out your laundry.

212
00:18:19.880 --> 00:18:22.880
Oh yeah, they had bans, that's right, it really did make a big deal.

213
00:18:22.880 --> 00:18:25.880
They've got posters, I have examples of posters where they say,

214
00:18:25.880 --> 00:18:29.880
this is a dangerous product, we urge you to dispose of it and throw it away.

215
00:18:29.880 --> 00:18:36.160
in a way. And most people did. You have to really look hard to find copies. I'm lucky

216
00:18:36.160 --> 00:18:38.040
I have two boxes to complete sets.

217
00:18:38.040 --> 00:18:39.720
So you have land art parties?

218
00:18:39.720 --> 00:18:45.560
Well, I'm afraid to because it is a dangerous product and it's known to be dangerous. If

219
00:18:45.560 --> 00:18:51.120
someone got hurt, I'm pretty sure we could have one at the Mises Institute here, but

220
00:18:51.120 --> 00:18:55.720
I don't imagine your lawyer would appreciate the liability that you'd be taking. That's

221
00:18:55.720 --> 00:19:07.720
This is actually a market process, too. The reason I wouldn't play it is nothing to do with the band, be sure. It's not illegal to play it. But I wouldn't do it because I don't want to take that kind of liability.

222
00:19:07.720 --> 00:19:12.720
Right. And when you say that, too, is a market process, what do you mean?

223
00:19:12.720 --> 00:19:19.560
Well, I mean, I think that when people harm each other, that the market historically has

224
00:19:19.560 --> 00:19:24.480
always had a process for people to get paid.

225
00:19:24.480 --> 00:19:29.160
You can think of it in a Rothbard sense, but even, you know, the common law has always

226
00:19:29.160 --> 00:19:36.160
allowed for people to redress harm that's occurred and when it does happen.

227
00:19:36.160 --> 00:19:40.320
And so, you know, if you, if I invite you to my house and say, hey, let's get drunk

228
00:19:40.320 --> 00:20:05.240
I think tort law is kind of run amok in the United States, but generally speaking, the idea of torts is a perfect, I think I consider it to be part of the

229
00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:15.240
I think I consider it to be part of the market process, and it wasn't until just a few hundred years ago that the government took over that process.

230
00:20:15.240 --> 00:20:29.240
Historically, the process of adjudicating or of redressing those kinds of torts was just done by private people in negotiation in what I think looks like a market process.

231
00:20:29.240 --> 00:20:48.240
So much of the regulatory activity by the Consumer Therapeutic Safety Commission and the FDA and all these other outfits that regulate what consumers do seems to be premised on the idea that the capitalistic institutions that are marketing these products have no concern for the well-being of the consumer at all, doesn't it?

232
00:20:48.240 --> 00:21:00.240
That's exactly what they seem to think. And the idea that people are just captive to advertising campaigns.

233
00:21:00.240 --> 00:21:05.240
And one of the ironies there is that, you know, this is sort of a John Kenneth Galbraith point,

234
00:21:05.240 --> 00:21:09.240
that we all just respond to whatever the latest advertising is.

235
00:21:09.240 --> 00:21:17.240
And like robots, we march off to Walmart to buy the latest gadgets on television being advertised.

236
00:21:17.240 --> 00:21:21.240
The irony is that advertising bans don't work.

237
00:21:21.240 --> 00:21:23.740
We've never been shown it really worked.

238
00:21:23.740 --> 00:21:27.240
In fact, there was an advertising ban of sorts on lawn darts.

239
00:21:27.240 --> 00:21:31.240
They made them take the pictures of children off the copy of the box.

240
00:21:31.240 --> 00:21:35.240
In fact, mine has a copy of the child on the box.

241
00:21:35.240 --> 00:21:38.740
They made them move them from the toy section into the sporting goods section.

242
00:21:38.740 --> 00:21:42.240
And ultimately, they actually moved them out of toy stores completely

243
00:21:42.240 --> 00:21:45.740
and only could be sold in sporting goods stores.

244
00:21:45.740 --> 00:21:53.240
and so they were really trying to change the marketing image of the product and it didn't work, it's still getting hit, hurt.

245
00:21:53.240 --> 00:22:01.740
But again, if advertising was such a powerful influence, if you take away the advertising, we should stop the behavior, but we don't, you know.

246
00:22:01.740 --> 00:22:06.240
And so when you take away the cigarette advertising, people still kept smoking in the large market.

247
00:22:06.240 --> 00:22:08.240
There really is no evidence.

248
00:22:08.240 --> 00:22:13.200
I don't think there's any evidence from the advertising literature, the academic literature

249
00:22:13.200 --> 00:22:16.760
of marketing, that these bans have dramatic effects.

250
00:22:16.760 --> 00:22:19.880
Now I think that what you see is you get brand effects.

251
00:22:19.880 --> 00:22:24.560
If you advertise a particular product, a brand, people will switch to that brand from another

252
00:22:24.560 --> 00:22:28.200
brand, but you don't convince people to smoke cigarettes.

253
00:22:28.200 --> 00:22:33.360
You convince them to smoke Marlboro's instead of some other brand, or in this case you convince

254
00:22:33.360 --> 00:22:38.120
them to buy this brand instead of the other brand.

255
00:22:38.120 --> 00:22:42.000
There's evidence, a lot of it and that's why businesses spend money on advertising is because

256
00:22:42.000 --> 00:22:46.600
they know it is effective in directing consumers to their product but usually not to their

257
00:22:46.600 --> 00:22:53.200
product from some other competing product. It doesn't get them into the market, it gets

258
00:22:53.200 --> 00:22:55.200
them into their part of the market.

259
00:22:55.200 --> 00:23:02.000
In fact, if advertising were as effective as some of these arguments seem to presume, it

260
00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:05.240
would be a lot easier to be a business person, wouldn't it?

261
00:23:05.240 --> 00:23:06.240
Oh yeah, sure.

262
00:23:06.240 --> 00:23:15.240
Advertising is mostly a lagging indicator of what people want.

263
00:23:15.240 --> 00:23:19.240
People advertise what people want, not the other way around.

264
00:23:19.240 --> 00:23:21.240
Hayek kind of made this point.

265
00:23:21.240 --> 00:23:33.240
We didn't want lawn darts before we saw the ad, because they didn't have ads for lawn darts until they had lawn darts.

266
00:23:33.240 --> 00:23:38.460
So it's very circular and it looks like the advertising came along with when we started to buy the product

267
00:23:38.460 --> 00:23:42.880
But it was what we really wanted is the advertising was following the reason they're advertising because we want it, right?

268
00:23:42.880 --> 00:23:48.060
Right, and you know a little bit of market education out there. We have the product come and get it

269
00:23:48.060 --> 00:23:50.800
Here's the price precisely that sort of thing. Yeah

270
00:23:52.040 --> 00:24:00.440
What about the reverse effect of bands? I mean, I guess the poster child here in favor of regulation is in fact smoking, right?

271
00:24:00.440 --> 00:24:06.560
I mean, there have been massive controls and all available evidence as far as you can trust

272
00:24:06.560 --> 00:24:10.640
it suggests that smoking is on the decline. Now, do you attribute that to the controls

273
00:24:10.640 --> 00:24:12.760
or just changing culture?

274
00:24:12.760 --> 00:24:18.220
I think it's some of both, but I don't dispute the fact that bans cause people to do less

275
00:24:18.220 --> 00:24:22.380
of the thing being banned. I mean, fewer people play lawn darts today too. In fact, hardly

276
00:24:22.380 --> 00:24:28.640
anyone plays that. Most people have never even heard of the game. And so, a lot of people

277
00:24:28.640 --> 00:24:31.640
People don't smoke marijuana or do cocaine because it's illegal.

278
00:24:31.640 --> 00:24:38.520
Bands do work in that narrow sense that they don't reduce to zero, but they do reduce the

279
00:24:38.520 --> 00:24:40.560
amount of people.

280
00:24:40.560 --> 00:24:42.640
People do that thing.

281
00:24:42.640 --> 00:24:43.640
That's not surprising.

282
00:24:43.640 --> 00:24:46.720
I mean, when you tell people, in the case of Wandaars, there's criminal penalties if you

283
00:24:46.720 --> 00:24:47.720
sell the product.

284
00:24:47.720 --> 00:24:54.640
People are probably going to stop selling it or a lot fewer, so it doesn't surprise me.

285
00:24:54.640 --> 00:24:57.800
I think it's silly, for example, in the case of the drug war, I think it's silly every

286
00:24:57.800 --> 00:25:13.800
I hear someone say that they think if drugs were illegal, fewer people would do drugs because they're no longer forbidden fruit. I don't buy that. I'm pretty sure that if drugs were illegal, more people would do drugs. I think there'd be a lot of other benefits for leaking drugs legal, but that's not one of them.

287
00:25:13.800 --> 00:25:14.800
And the prices would be lower, too.

288
00:25:14.800 --> 00:25:21.320
So prices would be lower, safer, less risky, I think more people would probably do them.

289
00:25:21.320 --> 00:25:24.520
I think it's a good idea, but I don't think that you can argue that that forbidden

290
00:25:24.520 --> 00:25:25.520
fruit argument, I don't think.

291
00:25:25.520 --> 00:25:27.840
I just don't think it makes a lot of sense.

292
00:25:27.840 --> 00:25:32.880
So yeah, the ban, the various strategies, reducing advertising on cigarettes, the banned

293
00:25:32.880 --> 00:25:38.880
public smoking bans, I'm sure they've reduced smoking, but I'm back to my first point.

294
00:25:38.880 --> 00:25:40.220
How did they know it was worth it?

295
00:25:40.220 --> 00:25:42.960
People smoke because they like to smoke.

296
00:25:42.960 --> 00:25:50.040
There's enjoyment there, and a lot of former smokers will even attest to the fact that they

297
00:25:50.040 --> 00:25:51.040
miss it.

298
00:25:51.040 --> 00:25:52.040
Right.

299
00:25:52.040 --> 00:25:55.000
Now, they did it for a reason, because it was too complicated, too expensive to keep

300
00:25:55.000 --> 00:26:00.180
smoking with the taxes, or too cumbersome with the rules, or maybe they were motivated

301
00:26:00.180 --> 00:26:05.080
by the health benefits of stopping smoking, but they still miss it.

302
00:26:05.080 --> 00:26:10.320
There was value there of smoking, and that's gone now, and again, you're substituting

303
00:26:10.320 --> 00:26:16.760
the views of doctors or regulators for the views of individuals about what things are

304
00:26:16.760 --> 00:26:17.760
worth the risks.

305
00:26:17.760 --> 00:26:20.760
Did you follow this pseudephedrine or band?

306
00:26:20.760 --> 00:26:22.720
Do you take this drug called pseudephedrine?

307
00:26:22.720 --> 00:26:23.720
I've heard of it.

308
00:26:23.720 --> 00:26:24.720
It's very effective.

309
00:26:24.720 --> 00:26:25.720
It's called pseudephedrine.

310
00:26:25.720 --> 00:26:32.400
It's probably not as effective as phedrine.

311
00:26:32.400 --> 00:26:38.400
So under Bush, there was this idea that people were using it to make methamphetamine.

312
00:26:38.400 --> 00:26:46.400
And so now, to get it, you have to kind of jump through a number of hoops. That's a drug story. You give it a driver's license and a limit to quantities.

313
00:26:46.400 --> 00:26:51.400
It's a big problem because the replacement product doesn't actually work.

314
00:26:51.400 --> 00:27:02.400
Yeah, that's exactly right. This is a great example of the sort of slippery slope. Unintended consequences of the ban on, in this case, methamphetamines.

315
00:27:02.400 --> 00:27:09.520
and how that causes us to go down this, well we've got to ban this now or regulate this

316
00:27:09.520 --> 00:27:13.020
because people are using that.

317
00:27:13.020 --> 00:27:15.480
We had the same thing with baby formula.

318
00:27:15.480 --> 00:27:21.600
There are a lot of stores where to buy baby formula you have to, it's kept behind the

319
00:27:21.600 --> 00:27:24.560
counter because it's stolen a lot for a couple of reasons.

320
00:27:24.560 --> 00:27:29.120
One is baby formula is very high value with low volume and so it's a good thing to steal

321
00:27:29.120 --> 00:27:31.440
and there's a black market for baby formula out there.

322
00:27:31.440 --> 00:27:39.960
The other reason is they use it to cut cocaine, powder cocaine, so it's a high theft item,

323
00:27:39.960 --> 00:27:45.240
so the stores are putting it behind, but again, people wouldn't steal baby formula in normal

324
00:27:45.240 --> 00:27:47.520
circumstances, it would be silly.

325
00:27:47.520 --> 00:27:51.760
What other products have come about recently, I mean, this sort of pediment ban has gotten

326
00:27:51.760 --> 00:27:57.360
virtually no attention whatsoever, and nor did I see any real evidence that there was

327
00:27:57.360 --> 00:28:00.400
any kind of national crisis going on with regard to this.

328
00:28:00.400 --> 00:28:09.400
I've tried to look it up. I didn't really see anything other than just assertions that every third person is making money in the basement or something.

329
00:28:09.400 --> 00:28:11.400
I think that's basically the case.

330
00:28:11.400 --> 00:28:13.400
Any other products that come to mind?

331
00:28:13.400 --> 00:28:21.400
Well, it seems like every few days there's a recall or something. Most of the recalls are pretty trivial, at least in the consumer product case.

332
00:28:21.400 --> 00:28:27.400
It's not so much the ones we hear about that are the problems, though. It's the ones we don't hear about.

333
00:28:27.400 --> 00:28:46.600
The real problem is the unseen, not the seen here.

334
00:28:46.600 --> 00:28:54.040
And that's the tragedy, you know. If you die from some disease and your death certificate says,

335
00:28:54.040 --> 00:28:57.720
you know, it'll say the cause of death, it'll say, well, he died from this disease. It doesn't say

336
00:28:57.720 --> 00:29:02.840
he died because the FDA prevented a drug company from researching a drug that would have otherwise

337
00:29:02.840 --> 00:29:08.440
saved him. They don't write that down. It's an unseen cause of death. But people statistically

338
00:29:08.440 --> 00:29:15.000
we know die from those kinds of things. They just write down heart attack. They don't write down

339
00:29:15.000 --> 00:29:23.560
what might have saved you. So that's the biggest risk. That's why I like the Londarts thing.

340
00:29:23.560 --> 00:29:28.680
I use it as a trivial example with students, but I use it because people really enjoy that game.

341
00:29:30.840 --> 00:29:34.600
It's something that's quite tangible. You can say, you know, all that laughter is gone.

342
00:29:34.600 --> 00:29:38.200
It's been just taken away from the world. Now it's been replaced with other laughter,

343
00:29:38.200 --> 00:29:42.440
but maybe that laughter wasn't quite as intense as the laughter that we had the first time.

344
00:29:42.440 --> 00:29:53.440
That's the kind of thing. It's a trivial and fun example, but it does illustrate the more serious problem of the same logic as being used to regulate our medical products.

345
00:29:53.440 --> 00:30:03.440
And these godlike entities at the FDA are deciding what drugs are worth the risks for you and me.

346
00:30:03.440 --> 00:30:08.040
On a macro scale, we're always seeing that take place with the regulation of the financial

347
00:30:08.040 --> 00:30:14.720
markets. We're going to regulate, so there's no more risk, downside risk to anything. We're

348
00:30:14.720 --> 00:30:20.680
going to have a law against, it seems like we have a national policy now that says markets

349
00:30:20.680 --> 00:30:28.160
must never be allowed to, there must never be a downturn under any circumstances. Markets

350
00:30:28.160 --> 00:30:43.160
Well, it's a fool's errand. The way we're getting rid of risk is by telling people if you lose money, we're going to bail you out, which is not a way to get rid of risk, it's only a way to encourage people to take more risk in the future.

351
00:30:43.160 --> 00:30:47.160
So it looks like we're reducing risk, but in fact we're simply generating more of it.

352
00:30:47.160 --> 00:30:50.160
Have your students been receptive to your message?

353
00:30:50.160 --> 00:30:59.160
Absolutely. This bailout, for example, is very unpopular. I've yet found a student who really thinks it's a grand idea.

354
00:30:59.160 --> 00:31:07.160
They're all sitting there saying, well, we didn't take out some prime loan. Why should we be on the hook for somebody who did this?

355
00:31:07.160 --> 00:31:12.160
Or why should we bail out a banker who knowingly lent money to people they knew couldn't pay it back?

356
00:31:12.160 --> 00:31:21.160
I think it's a real popular view among young people, and actually just generally people I talk to.

357
00:31:21.160 --> 00:31:26.160
I encourage you to go around and ask people, what do you think about the bailout?

358
00:31:26.160 --> 00:31:31.160
You're going to get nine no's to every one yes, and the one yes is going to be somebody who's got his hand in it like a banker.

359
00:31:31.160 --> 00:31:41.160
People that have their hand in the cookie jar, they love the idea of a bailout, but normal people, vastly more people,

360
00:31:41.160 --> 00:31:45.160
What do you expect to be the consequence?

361
00:31:45.160 --> 00:31:49.160
Lots of people are very pessimistic right now.

362
00:31:49.160 --> 00:31:53.160
I mean, in light of the policy response.

363
00:31:53.160 --> 00:31:57.160
I'm a genetic optimist, actually.

364
00:31:57.160 --> 00:32:01.160
It's hard to maintain that in the face of the news.

365
00:32:01.160 --> 00:32:05.160
But I'm actually pretty optimistic. I think this goes a lot to my

366
00:32:05.160 --> 00:32:09.160
larger research agenda, which is to study the rest of the world.

367
00:32:09.160 --> 00:32:15.160
in the United States, they are far worse almost everywhere else and it gives me anyway a lot of perspective.

368
00:32:15.160 --> 00:32:16.160
I see.

369
00:32:16.160 --> 00:32:23.160
So I tend to be pretty much an optimist about the United States because it's still got the most free markets,

370
00:32:23.160 --> 00:32:29.160
the most, not as free as I'd like, but the most free, the most energetic, most entrepreneurial.

371
00:32:29.160 --> 00:32:35.160
It's still a place that is willing to tolerate some degree of failure, not enough here as we're seeing,

372
00:32:35.160 --> 00:32:40.160
and put all that together, I think the long term prospects are quite good.

373
00:32:40.160 --> 00:32:43.160
I think we're going to pay a price.

374
00:32:43.160 --> 00:32:46.160
So far, I can't decide right now.

375
00:32:46.160 --> 00:32:55.160
My great worry right now, if I have a worry, is whether or not the new administration is going to fundamentally alter the structure of the American economy.

376
00:32:55.160 --> 00:33:01.160
I can handle taxes, a few more regulations, a few things here and there.

377
00:33:01.160 --> 00:33:04.160
We're going to get that. We're going to get more regulations.

378
00:33:04.160 --> 00:33:34.160
I'm going to get higher taxes out of the new administration. That's just a given. But that I can tolerate, because that stuff can be undone, maybe. But what I'm really worried about is structural, fundamental structural change to the way in which our markets work. You know, some kind of industrial planning type ideas. You see hints of that out of the Obama administration, at least its rhetoric. Frankly, so far I haven't seen a lot of direct evidence that we're going to move in that direction.

379
00:33:34.160 --> 00:33:36.160
So it gives me some reason to be optimistic.

380
00:33:36.160 --> 00:33:38.160
You know, we're going to get higher taxes and regulations,

381
00:33:38.160 --> 00:33:42.160
but that can be done without fundamentally altering the way in which we go about our lives.

382
00:33:42.160 --> 00:33:44.160
It just means we've got to get more money to the government.

383
00:33:44.160 --> 00:33:52.160
That's bad, but it's not, you know, completely changing the way in which the world works.

384
00:33:52.160 --> 00:33:55.160
So I think that's what we're going to have happen.

385
00:33:55.160 --> 00:33:58.160
There have been a few statements here and there where you really scratch your head and say,

386
00:34:28.160 --> 00:34:29.880
as much as I didn't like Clinton.

387
00:34:29.880 --> 00:34:38.600
I'm so pleased that you're at Auburn University and I wish you the best in the teaching for the rest of the semester and I hope that we get a chance to do this again.

388
00:34:38.600 --> 00:34:45.240
Thanks. I just want to say that one of the great things about coming to Auburn was that right across the street is the Mises Institute.

389
00:34:45.240 --> 00:34:49.960
You can come over and enjoy the speakers you bring in, the students you bring in. It's an asset.

390
00:34:49.960 --> 00:34:51.960
We're looking forward to working with you.

391
00:34:58.160 --> 00:35:00.160
The Theory of Money and Credit