Category Archives: Books

Book Review: Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker – A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America

Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker – A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America (New York: Penguin Press, 2020)

This book, by two Washington Post journalists, is a chronological, personality-based history of the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency. By keeping a mostly straight tone, it has significant comedy value. It also has instructive value about the intersection of personality and party politics.

Historians will likely have a field day with the Trump presidency. Or at least they will when enough time has passed for partisan passions to cool. Until then, there will likely be more splenetic rants than useful analysis. Leonnig and Rucker do a better job than most about keeping their spleens in check, though they are not perfect about it.

The late Charles Krauthammer viewed the Trump administration as a stress test for America’s liberal institutions. He thought they would remain intact, and the country would learn a few lessons about executive power. So far, so good, though there has been some important damage in the areas of trade, immigration, and diplomacy. The Republican party is also in rough shape, and isn’t quite sure what to do with itself now that the personality by which it is defining itself is no longer in office.

The story of American political institutions, almost from the beginning, has been a slow growth in the executive branch’s political power relative to Congress. Each administration takes on a little bit of new power to fight a war, ward off an economic panic, deal with a disaster, or simply to accomplish a common policy goal. After two centuries of this slow accretion, the presidency has become far too powerful compared to the other two branches. This imbalance makes the country especially vulnerable when the president is corrupt, incompetent, illiberal, or all of the above.

Today, Trump’s fondness for executive power is currently combined with congressional Republicans that will not buck him, and a Democratic opposition that also likes a powerful executive branch, at least when they are in power. The combination is a potent stress test for the separation of powers and limited government.

Trump’s various capers are often humorous—many parts of this book are laugh-out-loud hilarious. Others are damaging, such as placing tariffs against allies such as Canada on national security grounds, or forced family separations at the southern border. In the long run, Trump’s de-glamourizing effect on the presidency may actually do some good. This, however, assumes that people learn their lesson about putting too much power in one office.

As Trump has proven, in America, anyone can become president. This can be dangerous, as he is also proving. While he will not be fatal to America’s liberal institutions, it is important that his precedents do not become prologue for future presidents’ power grabs. Part of that project is not taking him or the presidency too seriously. This book helps very much in that department, such as when it tells the story, with a straight face, of the time Trump told India’s Prime Minister, “it’s not like you have China on your border.”

On the other hand, there is next to no analysis of Trump’s major policy initiatives, from his signature trade and immigration policies to his regulatory policies, foreign policies, and other initiatives. Politics should be about policy. In practice, it is mostly about personality. In that sense, A Very Stable Genius is a very practical book, though one will have to go elsewhere for actual policy content.

Best Books of 2020: Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Seung Choi – Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals? (Palgrave MacMillan, 2019)

Most people see markets as dens of greed and moral corruption. In their new book, Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals?, Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Seung Choi, of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, argue the opposite. In fact, they go one step further: Markets make people more moral. Make that two steps further: Because markets have moral benefits, restrictions on markets have moral costs. They back up their argument with a healthy mix of theory and evidence. Along the way, they make a case for rethinking how people approach markets. Their arguments, rather than traditional “markets are efficient” arguments, are the liberal movement’s best hope for the future.

Storr and Choi describe their main thesis on p. 225:

But the evidence suggests that the consensus is wrong. Markets do not corrupt our morals. Not only are people wealthier, healthier, happier, and better connected in market societies, market activity makes us better people. Markets are spaces where we discover who is virtuous and can expect many of our vices to be revealed. Additionally, markets reward virtue and punish vice. As such, markets are moral training grounds.

In short: Less of Alfred Marshall’s supply and demand graphs, and more Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. Less Homo economicus, more Homo sapiens.

Their phrase “moral training grounds” is important. One of the most common mistakes in economics is the Nirvana fallacy. This says that because markets are not perfect, government can make things better. Storr and Choi know that perfection does not exist. Markets fail, but they also have a built-in improvement mechanism. Markets are an ongoing discovery process. People have to learn from experience what works and what doesn’t. They make mistakes, learn from them, and make changes. But because conditions are always changing, the adaptation process never ends.

People use markets to learn how to trust and to be trustworthy. This takes practice. It takes trial and error. The feedback people get from profit and loss help. So does learning what it takes to earn someone’s trust or their repeat business. Evidence from experimental economics shows that people who participate in markets learn these things more quickly than in other systems.

In one-shot games in lab experiments, people can cheat and get away with it, like doing a dine-and-dash at a restaurant in a town you’ll never visit again. Despite this, people in these studies who come from market-oriented societies cheat far less than one would expect from a traditional blackboard-economics model. They also cheat less than people from non-market societies who play the same games.  

Repeat-play games give the opportunity for cheaters to learn from their moral decision. Other players can punish cheaters in future rounds. They will often do so even when punishment also comes at a cost to the punishers. Upholding honesty is important enough that most people are willing to pay for it. In the long run, this reduces cheating. In fact, it happens almost automatically.

Without coaching, players often spontaneously settle on a tit-for-tat strategy. You start by assuming the other players are trustworthy, but if they cheat, return the favor. Depending on a game’s rules, this may mean punishing cheaters, or simply refusing to do business with them again. Regardless of whether the players come from countries with free markets or not, they tend to behave better in repeat-play games than in one-shot games. And again, players from market societies cheat less often than players from non-market societies.

Storr and Choi also take a tour of the different ways in which markets affect morals. The obvious one is that because people in market societies are richer, they can afford to be more moral. They can afford to give to charities. They can also afford a fuller life. Education, literature, the arts, and world travel all cost money. Dollars are nice, but they aren’t really wealth. Wealth is being able to treat others well, to have leisure to spend time with family, and to pursue friendships, hobbies, and to try new things. Market societies can afford far more of these life enrichments than non-market societies—and these experiences positively shape people’s characters.

Moreover, people in market societies have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality, are more respectful of women’s rights, minority rights, and LGBT rights, are more religiously tolerant, go to war far less often, and have lower crime rates. All of these are moral outcomes. All of them are backed by abundant data. All of them are made possible by embracing markets. The moral conclusion is obvious.

Storr and Choi represent the future of the liberty movement. The Cold War is a generation in the past now. People still throw around the word “socialist,” but usually just to mean they don’t like something.

But markets are still very much under attack in the current political realignment. The in-groups and out-groups people are using are different now; capitalism-vs.-communism is out, and populist nationalism-vs.-liberal cosmopolitanism are in. Yet, most libertarians are still using the same materialist arguments.

Yes, markets are efficient and create more wealth than other systems. That’s important, but that also isn’t the main point. Markets have other positive effects that are ultimately more meaningful—and more persuasive in today’s society. Not only is Storr and Choi’s moral defense more versatile in today’s intellectual climate, it is more in tune with most people’s values. As CEI founder Fred Smith argues regarding values-based communication, it is important to speak to people in their language.

Most people don’t care about adding an extra decimal point to this quarter’s GDP growth, even though that is important in the long run. They do care about their kids growing up to be decent people. They don’t care that subsidies and taxes cause market distortions. They do care about having a well-rounded life.

Many market liberals only speak a niche language of efficiency. This is one reason why they remain a curiosity. Their disconnect is a major reason why so many people continue to oppose markets despite their moral benefits—hardly anyone makes the moral case.

Storr and Choi are not the only thinkers trying to correct this oversight. CEI Julian Simon Award winners Deirdre McCloskeyJohan Norberg, and Steve Horwitz are among them. But Storr and Choi just might be the ones to do it best. They deserve far more company.

Book Review: Ashlee Vance – Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

Ashlee Vance – Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future (New York: HarperCollins, 2015)

This is an authorized biography, so take it with a grain of salt. Musk is an interesting person whose flaws and accomplishments are both outsized. I was also unaware that Musk is an immigrant, born and raised in South Africa—yet another data point in favor of loosening restrictions against immigrants, who tend to be more entrepreneurial than us native-born Americans.

Musk’s reliance on government subsidies and tax breaks do not get nearly enough attention, and dull some of his sheen. On the positive side of the ledger, Musk is easily one of the highest-profile practitioners of what the Mercatus Center’s Adam Thierer calls “permissionless innovation.” Vance’s stories of Musk telling off innovators and proving stodgy competitors wrong are satisfying; though not so much the stories of how he treats many of his engineers and other employees. His often-humorous trolling also adds some irreverence to a business culture that could use a little more of it; innovation itself is a tacit rebuke of past generations.

The ethos of permissionless innovation is good not just for business, but for politics and culture. Widespread delegitimization of regulators and their rules would do more to limit their power than just about any reform bill Congress could pass. This is an important point many reformers overlook. Individual rules matter, but the institutions that generate those rules matter more. But in the long run, what generates those institutions? Cultural norms. One of the reasons Musk left South Africa is because its culture, barely a generation removed from apartheid, is not exactly innovation-friendly or market-friendly—and its political institutions reflect that. America turned out be a much better fit.

Unlike many green entrepreneurs, Musk believes in what he is selling. He has put almost all of his own money at risk over the years, and has very nearly lost everything more than once. His frenemy and fellow PayPal alum Peter Thiel has had a longtime policy of not investing in green startups because they don’t pan out. Musk, though still subsidy-reliant, has so far proven an exception to the rule with Tesla. While its ultimate fate is still unclear, its recent listing on the S&P 500 bodes well.

One place where Vance’s too-frequent Steve Jobs comparisons make sense is that Musk has something similar to what Jobs’ friends and enemies called his “reality distortion field.” Jobs had a rare charisma and intensity that made people buy into his vision, and work impossibly hard to make moonshot projects happen. Jobs did it with Apple’s computers and phones, and Musk has done it with cars and rockets.

While Musk’s long-term dream of colonizing Mars is unlikely to come to pass during his lifetime, it won’t be because the technology isn’t there. Most of it already exists in his current line of space vehicles. I am not alone in being extremely curious to see what happens next.

Book Review: Rebecca Wragg Sykes – Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art

Rebecca Wragg Sykes – Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art (London: Bloomsbury Sigma, 2020)

Each chapter begins with a vignette written in purple prose that is, at times, a little cringey. Once that awkwardness is out of the way, Sykes takes a series of excellent deep dives into different aspects of neanderthal life. Topics include neanderthals’ evolutionary path, their anatomy, tool-making, hunting techniques, social structures, diets, and more. Neanderthals were also artists, with clearly intentional ornamenting of shells showing up in sites dating as far back as 500,000 years ago–more than twice as old as our species.

The most significant difference between neanderthals and Homo sapiens is our social lives. Simply put, sapiens tend to have more complex social relations. Neanderthals, Sykes believes, lived in bands of about 25 people, compared to 50-150 people for our species during its hunter-gatherer days–and millions of people today.

Moreover, while neanderthal artifacts such as obsidian were known to travel a few hundred miles from their origin sites, Sykes believes they were carried by their original owners on their travels. They seem not to have been traders. Sapiens’ artifacts travel more widely, and are too diverse in origin for one person to have made, kept, and carried by themselves. They have to have traded for them from faraway specialists.

Neanderthals did have some division of labor, evidenced through different wear patterns on men’s and women’s teeth, which become more pronounced with age. This indicates more than women gathering while men hunted. Neanderthal women used their teeth in craft-making tasks such as threading, which created tell-tale wear patterns.

Neanderthals had the same family attachments that we have–unsurprising in a species close enough for us to interbreed with–and also had funeral ceremonies that evolved over time. Chillingly, these apparently often involved ritual cannibalism. Scientists can tell this from bone marks. The consistent tidiness of the patterns and the lack of defensive wounds suggest organized ritual, rather than murder.

An overlooked difference between our two species is in our shoulders. Homo sapiens are practically throwing specialists compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. It shows in our brain activity—being able to calculate parabolic trajectories and distances on the fly—and in our anatomy. Our shoulder joints are shaped in such a way that we can throw harder and with more accuracy than other primates.

While neanderthals were capable throwers, they didn’t have quite the same degree of adaptation for it. As a result, while many of our spears were clearly designed solely for throwing, neanderthal spears look to have been dual-use. They could be thrown, but their sturdier design was also good for stabbing and slashing. This is consistent with common injuries seen in neanderthal bones, which are consistent with close-quarters hunting of large mammals.

Perhaps most intriguingly, Sykes argues that neanderthals’ end as a distinct species had more to do with assimilation than with competition—and might have happened after the mostly Europe-based nenaderthal species migrated all the way to China.

My own theory has more to do with neanderthals’ smaller group size. As Adam Smith said, the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. Smaller group size means a less refined division of labor, and less specialization. This was compounded by the fact that neanderthals engaged in less trade than Homo sapiens. Our larger group size, plus our tendency to trade over long distances was a double blessing for our species, and a double curse for neanderthals.

This is compatible with Sykes’ assimilation thesis–and most modern humans have 1 or 2 percent neanderthal DNA. But over the long run, my hunch is that sociability, trade, and division of labor were the engines that mostly drove that car.

Book Review: Walter Williams – All It Takes Is Guts: A Minority View

Walter Williams – All It Takes Is Guts: A Minority View (Washington: Regnery, 1987)

A collection of Williams’ syndicated columns. He covers a variety of issues including race and gender, regulation, economic policy, and more. While much of the numbers and political personalities are dated at this point, the core debates are very much alive.

Many of the best columns come from William’s overlooked research on apartheid-era South Africa. He went on a research and speaking tour there in 1980. He found that apartheid, as most racism does, had a sharp anti-capitalist underpinning. This directly contradicts many Western activists’ views. If socialism means significant state ownership of the means of production, then South Africa had a socialist economy. Williams argued that “if socialists would convert to Christianity, they would find themselves quite comfortable in South Africa.”

State intervention was necessary to enforce apartheid because discrimination is bad for business. It denies shuts out large numbers of people from the economy for no good reason. A lot of South Africans would not follow apartheid-style rules voluntarily, including many people who were genuinely racist. The South African government overruled markets’ anti-racism with state-owned media, oil, and other industries.

Labor regulations such as minimum wages were enforced for openly racist reasons. Blacks generally were paid less than whites, so minimum wages essentially either shut Black workers out, or gave white workers first crack at any job. Minimum wage regulations in America were passed during the Progressive Era for the same reason. They continue to have similar effects on minority employment, even though this is no longer intended.

Williams also argued that well-meaning American efforts to disinvest from South Africa would backfire for two reasons. One, American investment in South Africa was a small share of total foreign investment there, and an even smaller share of total investment. Few people would notice. Two, the areas where Americans did invest tended to disproportionately involve Black workers, such as mining. American disinvestment would hurt Black workers there, while doing nothing to end apartheid. Fortunately, this became a moot point before too long. Racism remains a severe problem in South African culture, though, and likely will for generations to come.

From a historical perspective, it is interesting to see how far ahead of the curve Williams was during apartheid. He opposed racism the same as everyone else with a conscience. But he took the time to actually research the situation, travel to South Africa, learn about the situation on the ground, and then propose policies—economic and political liberalization and cultural engagement—that would actually do good, rather than just signal good intentions.

Book Review: Rob Dunn – Never Home Alone: From Microbes to Millipedes, Camel Crickets, and Honeybees, the Natural History of Where We Live

Rob Dunn – Never Home Alone: From Microbes to Millipedes, Camel Crickets, and Honeybees, the Natural History of Where We Live (New York: Basic Books, 2018)

This is the kind of book that will make you see your home differently, mostly in a good way. It’s not nearly as icky and creep-crawly as the title makes it sound. Dunn delights in having found a hole in the “market” for scientific research. Most scientists go out in the field to do research, to the point that the places where we spend most of our time are among the least studied by naturalists. Dunn saw this opening and has made a fascinating career of working closer to home—though in the age of COVID-19, he likely has more company than he used to.

Dunn’s methods are also notable. He is a fan of crowdsourcing. For years, he has engaged the public to help him with sample-collecting and species identification. The amateur research he has encouraged has led to countless discoveries of new species and ecological niches. Some of the discoverers are as young as 8 years old. Backyard science turns out to be more than a fun activity. There are legitimate scientific discoveries waiting to be made by anyone with a little curiosity, not just professional scientists.

Something that is both obvious and overlooked is that our homes are full of extreme environments. And as a result, extremophiles that were once thought to be exotic are, in fact, extremely common in human environments. Our freezers are as cold as Antarctica, and some of the same, harmless microbes live in both places. Ovens regularly produce temperatures found only in ocean vents and deep beneath the earth’s crust—and host some of the same, harmless species. Our showers and water heaters mimic conditions of geothermal springs. In fact showers host some of the same, harmless, thermophilic bacteria that were once thought only to live in hot springs. Of course, Legionnaire’s disease also thrives in the same environment, but can’t withstand extremophile temperatures. So if you feel guilty about taking a hot shower or bath, don’t. They’re actually safer.

Household microbes and arthropods are nothing to be scared of. They have been in our homes for centuries—precisely as disease rates have plummeted and life expectancy and infant mortality have reached their lowest levels in human history. Just as cats kept rodents and their diseases and feces out of granaries, the spiders in your basement keep fly populations in check. If you like being around lots of flies, all you have to do is kill the spiders. As it turns out, delicate population equilibriums are constantly balancing themselves within feet of you while you sit on your couch and watch tv.

Spaces stations such as Mir and the ISS played/play host to many of the same species as our houses. Wherever we go, there they are. As humanity expands its ambitions in space, this will take on enormous importance. We cannot live without our symbiotic species. At the same time, they can’t overrun our artificial environments. Dunn shows how everyday environments turn out to be fascinating. And his lack of snobbery and emphasis on inclusion are something scientists in every field should learn from.

Book Review: Tim Mackintosh-Smith – Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires

Tim Mackintosh-Smith – Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires

A very good survey history written by an Oxford-educated Brit who has lived in Yemen for much of his adult life. This book is especially interesting when read with Azar Gat’s thesis on nationalism in mind. Gat is worth summarizing to better understand Mackintosh-Smith. Gat views nationalism as both ancient and based on ethnicity. Ethnicity, for Gat, is broader than race or genetics, though it includes both of those things. Ethnicities share, in varying degrees, things like language, culture, religion, dress, dietary customs, and more. The list is long, and it can vary, though language is often the most important. The common thread is that taken together, these cultural markers are strong enough to band people together in an in-group that is easy to distinguish from out-groups.

Ethnicities are similar to the small tribal groups our species has lived in for nearly its entire 200,000-year span, just larger in scale. Nation-states, which are historically a very recent concept—just a few centuries old in most of the world—are an additional step up in scale. They are simply one more way for our evolutionarily-ingrained sense of ethnicity to express itself. A lot of today’s nationalism-related troubles are due to square political pegs not fitting into round cultural or in-group holes, which are always moving around and changing shape anyway.

With Gat’s framework in mind, Mackintosh-Smith’s affectionately argued thesis in this book suddenly makes a lot of sense. To Mackintosh-Smith, Arabs are simultaneously among the world’s most unified and its most fractious peoples. They have the Arabic language in common—Gat’s most important unifying ingredient. People in Morocco, Syria, Iraq, Tajikistan, and as far East as Pakistan can all speak to each other in Arabic and have little trouble understanding each other. But High Arabic is also a bit like Latin was in post-Roman Europe: a formal, stilted lingua franca. Many Arabs speak a different local language at home and in everyday life. So Arabs are at the same time united by language, and not.

Arabs also have Islam in common. But the Sunni-Shia split still has echoes today, and sets Shi’ite Iran apart from most other Arab Islamic countries. Just as Christianity has its million and one different flavors of Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and Orthodoxy, Islam has its different flavors of Sufism, Wahabbism, and on down the line, each with ancient, modern, moderate, and radical versions. So Arabs are at the same time united by Islam, and not.

One thing most Arabs have in common is a nomadic heritage. This has made imposing the new convention of national boundaries very difficult, if not impossible. Not only do some people still move across the new boundaries with some mixture of indifference and impunity, the very notion of national boundaries is a very new concept in Arabs’ 3,000-year history. So Arabs are at the same time united by their nomadic history, and divided by it.

Also in the mix is a cultural divide between the few remaining nomads and the now-majority city dwellers, and there is another ingredient in the unified-but-not mix.

Mackintosh-Smith, though likely unfamiliar with Gat’s work on nationalism, is aware of all those competing dynamics. At each stage of his chronological narrative, most of those facets of Arabic life are there, from the establishment of settled agriculture to pre-Islamic empires, to Muhammad himself and the Ummayad caliphate, its succeeding Abbasid caliphate, its eventual displacement by the Ottomans, and on to today’s independent states, unity and discord are always there in tension with each other. It is a fascinating story.

More Interconnected than Most People Think

From page 70 of Johan Norberg’s 2020 book, Open: The Story of Human Progress:

What we now think of as Western civilization is a combination of a philosophical heritage from the Greeks, religions from the Middle East, creatively interpreted by Romans in what is now Turkey, and scientific ideas borrowed from the Arabs and the Chinese. We got our alphabets from the Phoenicians, and our numbers are called ‘Arabic numerals’ because we learned them from mathematicians in Baghdad, who got them from the Indians.

Book Review: Al Schmitt with Maureen Droney – Al Schmitt on the Record: The Magic Behind the Music

Al Schmitt with Maureen Droney – Al Schmitt on the Record: The Magic Behind the Music (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2018).

Schmitt is a legendary recording engineer and producer. He has worked with Frank Sinatra, Bob Dylan, Diana Krall, and more, and is still active today. He even got Paul McCartney to write the foreword to this book. He is a longtime house producer at Capitol Studios in Los Angeles, which is one of the world’s finest. This book is more about his professional life than his personal life. Fortunately, Schmitt is the type of person whose work life is more eventful, anyway.

Music nerds and equipment nerds will enjoy his discussions of what it was like working with different artists, his equipment choices and recording techniques, and how he works with artists to get their best performances. He also gives career advice on the importance of being easy to work with and respectful of colleagues–which also applies to pretty much any line of work. Schmitt comes across as someone who sets high standards, but is also an amiable type who takes joy in what he does and appreciates his good fortune.

Book Review: Philip Freeman – Celtic Mythology: Tales of Gods, Goddesses, and Heroes

Philip Freeman – Celtic Mythology: Tales of Gods, Goddesses, and Heroes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).

An entertaining collection of retold Celtic myths. I listened to the Audible version. Freeman offers some historical and cultural analysis to go along with the stories. The added context makes it easier to appreciate stories with cultural norms very different from ours. It also puts them in proper historical context, mostly stretching across a period stretching from Ireland and Britain’s time at the periphery of the Roman Empire up until Northern Europe’s economic revival around the time of Charlemagne.

The cultural and textual similarities to Nordic myths and Icelandic sagas was surprising. They are both very violent. Women are relegated to the sidelines, but occasionally flash independence and deviousness. And they are clearly honor and kin-based cultures. This was more for fun than for research for me, but there is plenty there at both levels.

Then again, during this period and after, as Michael Pye argues in The Edge of the World, the areas ringing the North Sea were almost their own distinct civilization, just as was the Mediterranean region to the south. The sea connected the British Isles to what is now northern France and Germany and the Lower Countries, whose traders would later form the Hanseatic League. Norway and Sweden were on the eastern edge of this ring. And Iceland was settled by their more adventurous sailors, and brought their language, customs, and stories with them. The Celtic tradition Freeman shares is distinct, but also part of this larger whole.