Category Archives: Innovation

Book Review: Open: The Story of Human Progress by Johan Norberg

On March 25, 2021 at noon ET, CEI is hosting a double book forum featuring Johan Norberg, the 2019 winner of CEI’s Julian L. Simon Memorial Award, and Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace cofounder and author of Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. Register here, where video of the event will also be viewable afterwards.

Liberalism—in the correct sense of the word—needs fresh voices. The ideological conversation is different than it was a decade ago, and many market-liberal thinkers have not kept pace. Today’s debate is over whether society should be open or closed, not which side of the Iron Curtain was better.

This is where the Swedish economist Johan Norberg performs a valuable service. He is fighting the current battle, not the last one. His newest book, Open: The Story of Human Progress, is a superb defense of the pro-freedom side of the debate. And he defends it against the nationalists and populists who are attacking it right now.

People over a certain age on the political right tend to still use the word “socialism,” but often as a catch-all term for things they dislike. This is different from the word’s commonly understood meaning of state ownership of the means of production, belief in dialectical materialism, teleological stages of history, or any of the other things socialists actually believe in.

People under a certain age on the political left often say they favor socialism. But they, too, have given the word a new and different meaning. They typically define socialism as a more-or-less market economy with a large welfare state, as in the Nordic countries. They are also often careful to add the qualifier “democratic” as an implicit nod to what socialism’s original meaning entails.

When people give the same word different meanings, confusion reigns. When people today lob the s-bomb, they are often talking  at each other, not to each other. The real debate is elsewhere.

This tactic is great for getting people riled up, though. The heat-without-light approach has advanced the careers of people like Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former President Trump on the right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the left. But it makes substantive debate difficult.

Openness and liberal institutions have generated more wealth for more people than any other socioeconomic system in history. But they are also unpopular. Norberg has some ideas on why, drawing on a mix of history, economics, and psychology. He sums up his thesis on page 6:

As I will argue, the reason that the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution started in Western Europe was that this region of the world happened to be the most open, partly just out of luck. It has been repeated in every place that has gone through similar institutional changes. It is not the triumph of the West, it is the triumph of openness.

First, the history. The last two centuries have seen a mass enrichment unlike anything in human history. As economic historian Deirdre McCloskey has pointed out, people today are 30 times wealthier than our ancestors were in about 1800. Not 30 percent more, but 30-fold. As President Biden once said about a different issue, this is a big deal. Since the Great Enrichment began, life expectancies have doubled. Infant mortality is down by more than 90 percent. Famines today have political causes, not natural ones. Violence, both intentional and accidental, are sharply down across the board. A few years ago, the percentage of world population living in absolute poverty—$1.90 per day or less—fell below 10 percent for the first time ever. Almost every long-run trend is showing improvement.

This historical process is as important as the taming of fire or the invention of the wheel. This is what Norberg defends. And it needs defending, because the openness and liberal values that made it all possible are unpopular. Psychology helps to explain why.

People respond to threats more sharply than to good news. In lab experiments, people feel the sting of loss about twice as sharply as a gain of similar amount. Psychologists call this loss aversion. We evolved this trait because mother nature is a superb economist. People have only so much attention to give to things, so we have evolved ways to economize on it. When things are going well, we can leave them alone, and save our scarce attention for dealing with threats. We are hardwired to pay more attention to threats, because long ago there was a survival advantage in doing so.

This tendency is not unique to humans, and long predates us. In a way, the modern life we all enjoy runs counter to hundreds of millions of years of natural selection processes. No wonder liberals have an uphill battle!

In the last two centuries or so since the Great Enrichment began, threats have become progressively less menacing. People don’t have to worry nearly as much about famine, disease, or violence. But that same impulse still exists. Now it gets channeled differently. Socialists—actual ones—viewed capitalists as threats. Populists, from William Jennings Bryan to Josh Hawley, frame various elites as threats. Nationalists view immigrants and foreigners as threats.

Who and what people consider to be threats changes with the times. But that core psychological mechanism remains constant. Some kind of outside Other always poses a threat to the in-group, which must always be defended. This in-group can be a family, tribe, race, nation, political party, or just about anything else. People can also have multiple in-groups at the same time, and can shift seamlessly between them. A Republican and a Democrat who would be enemies in one setting might become fast friends at a baseball game if they like the same team, then go back to being enemies when the game is over.

The key point is that the in-group/out-group dynamic is in everybody’s DNA, and is where the urge to close society comes from. Norberg here draws on the political psychologist Karen Stenner’s 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic, which argues that about a third of people have an underlying authoritarian impulse in them—but it doesn’t express itself unless people feel threatened. During normal times, they are just as open and amiable as anyone else. But when they feel threatened, “they react explosively,” Norberg writes on p. 343. “They become intolerant of diversity and dissent and willing to restore unity by government control, even if it wrecks rule of law and free speech.”

Liberal institutions are powerful enough to double lifespans and increase prosperity 30-fold in a handful of generations. At the same time, they are vulnerable to attacks like this.

Prior liberal flowerings got started in societies as diverse as Ancient Greece and Song dynasty China. But none of them lasted. The general intellectual climate wasn’t open enough to openness. Plato was executed essentially for nonconformity. After Mongol invaders ended the Song dynasty, the succeeding Ming dynasty responded to the threat by destroying the world’s most advanced fleet of oceangoing ships and banning nearly all foreign contact.

That vulnerability is why the open society will always need defending, especially as its attackers change tactics every generation or two. Norberg’s defense is perfectly suited for this generation’s emerging threats. Populist and nationalist governments have come to power in recent years in countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Hungary, and elsewhere. President Trump’s trade war, immigration restrictions, race-baiting were slowing the longest economic expansion in U.S. history and causing cultural divisions even before COVID-19 hit.

Even after he cost his party the House, the Senate, and the presidency, the Republican party is continuing along a national populist trajectory. The progressive wing of the Democratic party is pushing similar policies in different packaging, on issues from international trade to technology policy. The United Kingdom’s Brexit debate, which should have been about escaping the European Union’s burdensome regulatory, agricultural, and tax policies, was instead hijacked by ugly nationalist impulses, and became divisive for all the wrong reasons. Strongman governments and nationalist political parties are springing up in places that should know better, such as Eastern Europe, which bore the brunt of both fascism and communism in the 20th century.

Norberg writes clearly and persuasively, with passion, and without anger. It is an impressive performance, and a joy to read. He has only one notable slip in 384 pages, and that is his support for a carbon tax on pages 330-331. Ironically, this comes in a section about the knowledge problem in economics. A centralized body such as Congress is unlikely to have the on-the-ground knowledge it needs to put an accurate price on carbon emissions.

Perhaps more significantly, the carbon tax suffers from public choice problems—which basically means that politicians tend to behave like politicians. A cardinal rule of politics is that policies are made and enforced by the government we have, not the government we want. Even if Congress did overcome the knowledge problem, it is unlikely that people like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, or whoever succeeds them down the road, would craft a carbon tax on the merits. For Norberg, a carbon tax is “supposed to be an incentive, not a source of revenue.” This is surely not how a carbon tax would work under a real-world government.

That quibble aside, Open is one of the best books of its kind to come out in years. It is the right defense of the right values at the right time.

Norberg is not the only voice in favor of openness. Recent works by economists Virgil Storr and Ginni Choi, psychologist Joseph Henrich, and experimental economist Bart Wilson are other recent contributions. Matt RidleySteven Pinker, and Deirdre McCloskey have all been flying the flag for openness, tolerance, and dynamism for years. But just as Julian Simon was in his day, these voices of reason are too often drowned out by a chorus of doomsayers.

Markets are inherently dynamic and ever changing. No one is in charge of them, and no one directs the process. Markets work best when people are open, tolerant, and cooperative. People need to get along with people who look different, speak differently, and may live far away. It takes trusting strangers. That not natural to the human brain, which evolved to fit a hunter-gatherer world. But open markets have gotten us this far. If we let them, they can take us much farther. Whether we do or not will be this generation’s defining debate.

New President, Same Bad Policies

The Trump administration’s trade war gave economics teachers countless real-world examples of bad policy they can use in the classroom. A new open letter encourages President Biden to provide a similar service by becoming the “climate president.” Signees include prominent business leaders and activists such as Jeff Bezos, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Bill Ford.

Here are a few basic lessons of economics and politics they should have considered before signing on:

  • Green policies are Trump’s trade war in fancier packaging. This is an important, but overlooked, theme in the new administration. The climate doesn’t care if new technologies or business models come from America, Europe, Asia, or Africa. But politicians and their donors sure do. This is why President Biden is continuing President Trump’s “Buy American” policies. The main difference is that Biden is adding a green label to the nationalist branding. Businesses see climate legislation as a weapon against foreign competitors, the same as Trump’s tariffs. Politicians see ways to do favors for these companies, harm enemies, and appeal to voters’ patriotism, all at the same time. But this would raise consumer prices and leave supply networks less resilient—not a good idea during a pandemic and amidst a still-reeling economy.
  • Rent-seeking is a thing. Rent-seeking is the technical term for getting special favors from government. Political connections are often less risky and more profitable than gambling on a new technology. Solyndra was not an isolated incident. When Washington puts millions of dollars up for grabs, many companies will compete in Washington rather than in the marketplace. This leaves fewer resources available for developing new technologies. It also shifts priorities toward what Washington wants, rather than what might actually work.
  • Policy is made by the government we have, not the government we want. It is naïve to believe that Congress, with people like Mitch McConnell and Josh Hawley on one side, and Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi on the other, would actually pass climate legislation with the public interest as their top priority. That’s not the way real-world politics works. They’re going to jam in climate-unrelated pork and special interest giveaways. They will lock in today’s technologies so innovators who are less politically connected don’t displace them, as nearly happened with CFL light bulbs and LEDs. In Washington, even the best-meaning policies—especially the best-meaning policies—will not pass in anything resembling their intended form.
  • Green jobs aren’t new jobs on net. They replace other jobs. Putting a million dollars into one project means taking away a million dollars from somewhere else, as Frédéric Bastiat’s broken window parable points out. Calling a project green does not change this. Some green projects are worthwhile. Some are not. But Congress and the president are in a poor position to be able to determine which ones are which—not all the way from Washington, and not without prices and supply and demand giving them feedback. Nor do legislators have any incentive to listen to these signals, with 2022 and 2024 election preparations already underway.
  • There are better ways to address the issue. Even without a carbon tax and a Green New Deal, pre-COVID carbon emissions in the U.S. had been declining for several years. This is because entrepreneurs, wherever they are allowed to, are figuring out how to do more with less. New farming technologies are reducing the need for farmland, leaving more left over for wildlife. Smartphones and tablets are replacing music players, paper maps, VCRs, cameras, newspapers, compasses, metronomes, and more. This dematerialization is reducing demand for metals, plastics, paper, and other resource-intensive materials. As a result, the economy has already passed “peak stuff” for many resources, as Andrew McAfee points out in his recent book More from Less. As CEI founder Fred Smith likes to say, you don’t have to teach grass to grow, but you do have to take the rocks off of it. Congress and President Biden will achieve more of their environmental goals by removing regulatory rocks than with top-down planning, taxes, and subsidies.

The open letter signers’ hearts are in the right place. But no president can do what they ask. Our political structures cannot deliver those things. The letters’ signees would be better off putting their talents and resources to use exploring bottom-up solutions than in a top-down political system that is structurally unable to deliver on its promises. Bottom-up processes are messy, and filled with trial, error, and failures. They also don’t look as good at press conferences. As we’ve already seen with America’s declining carbon emissions and dematerialization, it works. But it will only continue if Washington lets it.

Book Review: Thomas Hager – Ten Drugs: How Plants, Powders, and Pills Have Shaped the History of Medicine

Thomas Hager – Ten Drugs: How Plants, Powders, and Pills Have Shaped the History of Medicine (New York: Abrams Press, 2019)

Hager writes as a storyteller, rather than as a chemist. This makes a daunting subject much easier to approach. It also makes clear the significant progress medicine has made over the last several centuries. Though Hager argues that drug companies have already picked most of the low-hanging fruit, the next few decades will still see significant advances.

As he points out early on, he tells the stories of ten-ish drugs, not precisely ten. Each chapter is more about a group of drugs. The first chapter is about opiates and pain relievers, a category that likely includes more than ten notable drugs by itself. The good these drugs have done for surgical patients, women giving birth, and chronic pain patients is coupled with the problems of addiction and the inability of policymakers to deal with the problem with anything other than prohibition and restrictions. These policies, create more problems than they solve, which politicians are naturally proposing to address with more of the same.

Hager also tells the stories of antibiotics, which balance life-saving power versus rapid bacterial evolution; vaccines and inoculations, which have dealt with anti-vaxxer nonsense from the beginning of their thousand-year history; and other fascinating stories of progress and reaction, and innovation and suppression. The final category, of gene-based medicine, is flashing enormous potential right now, much of which is still unrealized. People with cancer, organ damage, birth defects, and genetic diseases such as sickle-cell anemia are all potential beneficiaries. However, they are threatened by a significant anti-science movement from both the right and the left.

This book came out in 2019, right before the COVID-19 pandemic. If Hager writes an afterword or an updated edition on the 2020 pandemic, it would be fascinating to see his thoughts on how the speed of invention has sped up over time.

For comparison, smallpox first appeared in third century, B.C. Egypt. It took more than a thousand years for the first inoculations to be invented in 9th century, A.D. China. It then took another 900 years or so for people like Lady Mary Wortley Montagu to popularize the practice in the 1700s, and then another 200 years to eradicate the disease entirely. In modern times, HIV/AIDS took decades, rather than centuries, to move from a death sentence to a chronic, usually manageable condition. Time will tell if COVID-19 is ever eradicated. But its timeline took a little more than a year from the disease’s first appearance to its vaccine being taken by millions. This is a big deal. For all the pain 2020 has brought, this record speed should be a strong source of optimism for dealing with the next pandemic—and for further progress with existing diseases.

Hager does a good job of staying neutral in his stories, though on several occasions he shows the intellectual’s common distaste for the idea that someone, somewhere, might be making a profit by helping people. Fortunately, he doesn’t go much into public policy in this book. He would likely have little to add that would help patients, speed innovation, or reduce costs—all of which profits incentivize.

Book Review: Ian S. Port – The Birth of Loud: Leo Fender, Les Paul, and the Guitar-Pioneering Rivalry That Shaped Rock ‘n’ Roll

Ian S. Port – The Birth of Loud: Leo Fender, Les Paul, and the Guitar-Pioneering Rivalry That Shaped Rock ‘n’ Roll (New York: Scribner, 2019)

A dual biography of Leo Fender and Les Paul, as well as a history of the instruments that bear their names. Fender, whose full name was Clarence Leonidas Fender, got his start in radio repair. He founded his own company in 1946 and began building his own PA systems and amplifiers for local musicians. By the 1950s, he was building the first mass-produced electric guitars. He was heavily influenced by his love of Hawaiian music, an dsome of Fender’s first electric instruments were Hawaiian-style lap steel guitars with pickups that wrapped around the strings in a circle. Today’s guitar pickups are typically flat slabs underneath the string. Fender’s customers were mainly working musicians who need instruments that were loud, reliable, and easy to repair.

Before Fender, most electric guitars were hollowbodies. They were built similarly to traditional acoustic guitars, but with pickups. Fender’s solidbody designs were almost impossible to destroy. They are also easy to mass produce, since they are essentiallu flat planks of wood carved into a standardized Telecaster or Stratocaster shape. The necks were a bolt-on design, which meant they were interchangeable and easy to replace if they broke—or if the player preferred the feel of a neck from one instrument, but preferred the body of another.

A pre-Fender guitar’s glued-in neck was permanent. One stage mishap could mean the end of the instrument—and a hefty expense for a musician who might not be able to afford it. Fender’s guitars also had a thinner, brighter, treble-heavy sound that belied his Hawaiian influences. In this way, 1930s Hawaiian music had an underappreciated influence on everything from country music to Jimi Hendrix’s searing guitar solos.

Fender also created the first mass-produced electric bass, the Precision Bass. As with Teles and Strats, these were designed for gigging musicians. Electric basses are far, far smaller than a traditional stand-up bass. They were also far louder, which meant they could keep up with modern rock bands—especially when played through a Fender Bassman amp. They had frets, which inspired the “Precision” name. A few years later Fender introduced the Jazz Bass, which has a slightly offset body shape and a brighter, more articulate sound. The two designs remain the standard choices for genres ranging from Motown blues to metal.

While Fender’s company had a rough going in its early days, the success of the Telecaster, introduced in 1952, and the Stratocaster, introduced in 1954, and its basses, allowed Fender to sell his company to CBS in 1965 for $13 million, or about $100 million in today’s dollars.

CBS was a negligent owner and allowed the quality of Fender’s guitars to decline, to the point where the company was at risk of going by the 1980s. Once the company regained its independence, it upped its quality control and embraced overseas manufacturing, established a custom shop, and began a renaissance that continues to this day. Fender is now the largest instrument maker in the world, and is a studious caretaker for other famous guitar brands such as Jackson and Gretsch that had also fallen on hard times.

Les Paul, born in Waukesha, Wisconsin, was one of the first people to make a solidbody guitar. Though he was not the first, as he liked to claim. He built his famous “log” guitar similar to Fender’s. he was the tinkering type, and after moving to New York he convinced the Epiphone guitar to give him the run of their workshop after-hours. He gave his log guitar a more conventional appearance by attaching the sides of an Epiphone hollowbody guitar to the log’s center block. Today’s semi-hollowbody designs, such as Gretsches and the Gibson ES-335, use this center-block approach to reduce feedback and give a different tone.

By 1952, the Gibson guitar company saw Fender’s success, and approached Les Paul about being the endorsee for its first entry into the solidbody market. That guitar, the Gibson Les Paul, remains in production today and has been favored by guitarists such as Eric Clapton, Slash, and Carcass’ Bill Steer.

Les Paul was also one of the first people to use overdubs and multi-tracking, which are now staples of modern recording. When he and his then-wife Mary Ford were at the peak of their popularity, Paul’s production techniques made their sound instantly recognizable.

Paul and Fender knew each other, though their careers were centered on opposite coasts, with Fender in California and Paul usually in New York when he wasn’t on the road. They were usually on good terms, although Fender and Gibson remain the two largest competitors in the instrument business.

Port is a gifted storyteller. While he usually treats Fender and Paul separately, he deftly points out common themes in their careers and their instruments. It helps that both men were a bit quirky. Fender was a bit of the nutty professor type, happier in his shop than working on the business side of his business. Paul was not the best husband to Ford, and he didn’t handle his decline in popularity very well. In his later years he became a gregarious elder statesman, and his talent for spinning a yarn made him particularly endearing, even when he was clearly exaggerating. While musicians will obviously get the most out of this book, it also makes a good case study in invention. As with most other ideas, including calculus and the steam engine, the modern electric guitar had multiple near-simultaneous inventors. There was trial, plenty of error, and the whole process was messy and unplanned. As befits the rock music Fender and Paul helped to make possible—even though neither of them even liked it.

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.

Texas Antitrust Case Against Google would Harm Consumers and Small Businesses

This is a press statement originally posted at

The State of Texas announced today it is filing an antitrust lawsuit against Google, alleging the company’s online advertising platform harms competition and allows Google to fix prices for advertising.

CEI senior fellow Ryan Young said:

“A company has monopoly power if it can raise prices, restrict supply, and still keep its dominance. Despite Google’s growth, digital ad prices have fallen by half over the last decade. At the same time, print ad prices have been increasing. Some newspapers have doubled their rates. Google and Facebook, which hold similar market shares, have made the ad market more competitive. Their innovation and price-cutting has made advertising more affordable than ever for small businesses who are struggling to find customers at a difficult time. Attorney General Paxton’s lawsuit would harm consumers and small businesses—precisely the opposite of what antitrust regulation is intended to do.”

Director of CEI’s Center for Technology and Innovation Jessica Melugin said:

“It’s hard to take seriously Attorney General Paxton’s claim that Google has, ‘harmed every person in America.’ Consumers have benefited from Google’s products, services and innovations, often for free. This suit is costly solution in search of a problem.”

Read more:

New EU Tech Rules will Chill Innovation and Harm Consumers

This is a press statement originally posted at

The European Union today announced new rules it claims will change the way technology companies operate. The EU says the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act “will create a safer digital space for users” and “level the playing field so that digital businesses can grow.”

Vice President for Strategy Iain Murray said:

“The European Union’s proposed new powers allow it to treat American tech firms as cash cows, to be fined whenever it finds them guilty of providing too much discretion to consumers or allowing too much speech. Its proposed veto on acquisitions will also chill innovation in the European tech sector as it will make the prospect of significant rewards for an acquisition-based business strategy less likely. Europe will act as an anchor on tech innovation, slowing progress and reducing consumer welfare worldwide. The incoming Biden administration should avoid making the same mistakes.”

Senior Fellow Ryan Young said:

“The European Union’s two proposed tech regulation bills have two fatal flaws. One is that, on purpose or not, they are trade protectionism under another name. Many of their provisions are aimed at the large U.S. tech companies. Taking them down a notch would give an opening to EU-based tech companies, the thinking goes. As with President Trump’s trade wars, this will harm consumers without actually helping the industry. The two bills also leave in place the EU’s stifling regulatory culture that is the root cause of Europe’s lack of tech sector innovation.

“The second fatal flaw is that the EU’s proposals would actually lock in the existing American firms’ dominance. They are the only companies that can afford the massive content moderation costs the EU is demanding, or the large fines. Startups that might one day dethrone today’s giants cannot afford these costs, and may not even bother trying to compete.”

Read more:

A Big-Picture View of the Antitrust Debate

In this month’s issue of Reason magazine, I have a feature-length article on the bipartisan push to revive antitrust enforcement. If you don’t have the print edition, it is now online. Here is the introduction:

Mark Zuckerberg was having one of 2020’s worst Zoom meetings. It was July 29, and one of the most influential men in the world was sitting, pale and perspiring, in a sparse white room getting attacked by members of Congress from both parties. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican and close ally of President Donald Trump, was scolding the Facebook CEO about the “content moderators that you employ [who] are out there disadvantaging conservative content.”

But before Zuckerberg could offer much in the way of a response, he was attacked from the left, as Rhode Island Democrat Rep. David Cicilline castigated Zuckerberg for not taking down the same content. For Cicilline, “the problem is Facebook is profiting off and amplifying disinformation that harms others because it’s profitable.”

For good measure, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, asked Zuckerberg why Facebook temporarily took down Donald Trump Jr.’s account over a post promoting hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. Zuckerberg pointed out that the incident happened on Twitter.

After discussing how conservatives’ and progressives’ ideological priors are warping the antitrust debate, I point to a better way: abolish antitrust regulation outright. Or at the very least, require proof of consumer harm before unleashing it.

Read the whole thing here. See also CEI’s dedicated antitrust site,

It’s Good to Think Long-Term

From Kindle location 710 of Adam Thierer’s excellent 2020 book Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments:

If the primary indictment of technological innovation is that it has inundated us with too much information or too many options, those are good problems compared with the more serious problems our ancestors faced.

You can read about some of those problems in Fernand Braudel’s The Structures of Everyday Life or William Manchester’s evocatively titled A World Lit Only by Fire.  Today’s political debates would improve if more people had that larger historical arc in the back of their minds.

Andrew McAfee – More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources—and What Happens Next

Andrew McAfee – More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources—and What Happens Next

This would be good for an undergraduate economics course. McAfee’s thesis captures the core insights of economic growth and what causes it. He also makes the true but unpopular case that prosperity results in a cleaner environment. Poverty pollutes. In wealthy countries, people can afford to care about environmental quality, and also develop more efficient production processes that cause less harm in the first place. McAfee never uses the term, but economists call this phenomenon the environmental Kuznets curve. Basically, pollution and other harms increase until a country reaches roughly $4,500-$5,000 of per capital GDP. At that level of wealth, people don’t have to worry as much about their next meal will come from, or basics such as sturdy shelter and tolerable sanitation. Children can go to school instead of working on the farm. With those needs mostly being met, people then become interested in next-level wants, which include a clean environment.

McAfee writes a simple, direct style that reads a little bit like an introductory textbook. He also doesn’t go into the nitty-gritty the way similar works by authors like Hans Rosling, Matt Ridley, and others do. This isn’t a bad thing; he’s serving a different niche than they are.

He is quite direct in stating his belief that free markets are the reason most of the world are now on the right side of the environmental Kuznets curve, and that markets are why he is confident enough that improvements will continue. So confident that he is willing to bet his own money that numerous indicators will improve—see his website for more, and to bet against him if you wish. He is willing to wager up to $100,000 of his own money.