I just finished reading Alan Blinder's *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts* and
thought I would post a few of my thoughts. The book is quite good
overall. It is basically the liberal economist we all know writes the
typical econ textbook, with the mask of neutrality pulled off. That's
all for the good - it's far better to argue with positions stated
explicitly rather than insinuated.
Blinder begins by stating his two big principles: the Principle of
Efficiency ("more is better than less"), and the Principle of Equity
("the poor are needier than the rich").
To be finicky, Blinder doesn't seem to realize that his first principle
is normative while the second one is positive. I think he *meant* to
say something like "helping the poor is better than helping the rich,"
which is a very different claim. This would seem like nit-picking,
except that the one time Blinder tries to argue for the Principle of
Equity, he really does act as if the near-tautology that "the poor are
needier than the rich" is in dispute.
I can only hope that Blinder would consider me a fellow "hard-headed"
economist. He did approve my dissertation, so I have hope. But I am
sure that Blinder would label me as one of the "hardest-hearted"
economists he knows. While he recognizes the existence of such, it is
very hard for Blinder to get inside of our heads. Why would anyone
choose to be "hard-hearted"?
There are two main reasons.
1. The less fundamental reason to be "hard-hearted" is that soft-
hearted people - even comparatively reasonable ones like Blinder - are
hypocrites. They fret and fret about "poor" Americans, but barely even
remember the existence of absolutely poor foreigners. There is not a
word in Blinder's book about admitting more immigrants. And all of the
"soft-hearted" social programs we have for domestics are one of the
leading arguments for restricting immigration.
I am confident that Blinder sees our current policy as much more
compassionate than that of the 19th century. But that's just wrong.
There was little government charity, but almost unrestricted
immigration. Native-born "losers" (as Blinder calls them) got little
help, but the world's poor had an amazing escape route from poverty.
Few people in the 19th century narcissistically lauded their own
"compassion," but policy did a lot more for the truly poor.
Perhaps Blinder might say that these remarks indicate that I merely
disagree with the *application* of the principle of equity. I wonder.
Can somehow who says "Tough luck, low-skilled Americans. From now on
you'll be competing with Haitian immigrants" ever be called
"soft-hearted"?
2. The more fundamental reason to be "hard-hearted" is that the
Principle of Equity fails to recognize differences in MERIT. If there
were no efficiency consequences, why not equalize incomes? The answer,
I maintain, is that more able and hard-working people deserve more.
They earned it. It is insolent for the less successful to gripe about
it (or for the more successful to gripe on their behalf!).
Thus, my opposition to the "soft heart" is not based on pure
malevolence, as Blinder occasionally implies. The problem is that
equality conflicts with merit. In his discussion of protectionism,
Blinder approvingly quotes Murray Weidenbaum:
"Some of my conversations with business and labor leaders whose
companies are hit hard by imports remind me of the gripes of students
who cut class, do not do their homework, and then complain when you give
them a low grade." (p.118)
What is wrong with such students is that they do not *deserve* good
grades. The same would be true, of course, if the students were
hard-working but stupid. Efficiency aside, if they do F work, they
should get an F. The "soft heart" would council mercy, but it would be
wrong to heed to it.
People give merit its due in academic competition, athletic competition,
artistic competition, and more. Why not economic competition? What is
so hard about showing respect to the "winners," and expecting the
"losers" to keep their disappointment to themselves?
Blinder obviously has little sympathy for people who favor tax cuts for
the rich and spending cuts for the homeless. They just seem "mean." To
paraphrase a Deep Thought by Jack Handey, "If it is 'mean' to think that
smart, productive people don't owe drunken beggars a living, then yes
Mr. Softie, I am a Big Meanie."
I tend to think that the ramifications of merit are so wide-ranging that
little room is left for Blinder's Principle of Equity. Only if
resources "fell like manna from heaven" (as Nozick puts it) would
equity be relevant. But I am less certain of this extreme conclusion
than of the weaker one that merit matters *to some degree*.
Blinder puts forward the plausible position that if a new policy
improves both efficiency AND equity, we should do it. I would suggest
as an alternative that we should look for policies that promote
efficiency, equity, and MERIT.
I am willing to argue about the exact weights, but I do think that if
Blinder had considered merit at all he would have written a quite
different book. His chapter on protectionism would have been basically
unchanged - subsidizing failing firms looks as bad in terms of merit as
it does for efficiency and equity. But his analysis of taxation and
several other issues would have been quite different.
Well, I've really only reviewed chapter 1 of Blinder, but in many ways
it is the most stimulating. Signing off.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. Banks: Will you be good enough to explain all this?!
Mary Poppins: First of all I would like to make one thing
perfectly clear.
Banks: Yes?
Poppins: I never explain *anything*.
*Mary Poppins*
