by Lenore Skenazy, Reason, August 9, 2025.
Excerpt:
During a recent home visit, a social services worker confirmed that our living space was tidy and that my children were content, well-fed, polite, and articulate. However, she firmly stated that I must oversee them at all times when they’re outdoors. When I probed into what exactly “supervision” entails, she insisted I needed to be visible to my neighbors while the kids played outside, irrespective of whether I could see them myself. Curious about the legal basis for this demand, I asked where it was codified in Virginia law. Her response? It’s not. Social Services apparently operates under its own separate set of guidelines.
by Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2025.
Excerpts:
A coalition of progressives and an increasing number of Republicans are advocating for cash handouts as a viable solution to the myriad of social issues plaguing America. In light of this, a recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research examining the effects of $1,000 monthly payments may pique readers’ interest, particularly since it reveals that these payments yield few long-term benefits.
Researchers from OpenResearch, alongside various universities, conducted a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of cash transfers on lower-income, working-age Americans. One group received $1,000 each month for three years—a total of $36,000—without any conditions. The control group, meanwhile, received a mere $50 a month for their participation.
And:
Interestingly, the recipients of the cash transfer worked less, clocking in about eight fewer days than the prior year. OpenResearch highlights that “the average household income for recipients was approximately $6,100 higher than that of the control group, factoring in the transfer amount,” and that these payments “empowered recipients to work fewer hours or even reduce the number of jobs they held.” In simpler terms, the cash led to a reduction in work hours.
DRH comment: Eight days a year may seem significant, equating to about 3% of a typical 2000-hour work year, though it’s less impactful than I initially anticipated.
by Dominic Pino, Civitas Institute, August 7, 2025.
Excerpts:
In their new book, The Triumph of Economic Freedom, Phil Gramm and Donald Boudreaux dismantle seven economic myths that underlie much of contemporary American policy. This book serves as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking a refresher on the case for free markets grounded in historical evidence. Both authors are educators at heart; Gramm taught economics before his congressional tenure, while Boudreaux is a professor known for his clarity and precision in communication.
Yet, the challenge lies in the fact that many believe the New Deal was responsible for ending the Great Depression, that free markets triggered the Great Recession, that the Industrial Revolution increased poverty, and that free trade decimated American jobs. These beliefs are held with sincere conviction, and that genuinely matters.
And:
From 1980 to 2000, the percentage of the global population living in extreme poverty fell from 34% to 25%. The death rate due to malnutrition dropped by 43%. Additionally, rice yields increased by 41%, and wheat yields rose by 47%. Global average life expectancy increased by six years, all while the global population surged from around 4.5 billion to over 6 billion.
DRH Note: Although I haven’t yet delved into their book, I suspect it traverses similar territory to that which I covered in a lecture I delivered at Stanford University. By the way, I must admit I misrepresented Malthus somewhat in my presentation, as David Friedman aptly pointed out. Although Malthus held a rather grim view, he believed that people would adapt their behavior before reaching the brink of mass starvation.
by Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution, August 9, 2025.
Excerpt:
Imagine the U.S. can import Hyundai Sonatas from Korea and Toyota Camrys from Japan, with consumers perceiving these two vehicles as perfect substitutes. Let’s analyze three scenarios:
- A) Free trade
B) 10% tariff on both countries (uniform tariff)
C) 10% tariff on Korea only (selective tariff)
The surprising takeaway? B can actually outperform C, despite the latter being ostensibly closer to free trade (the “ideal” policy) since it imposes tariffs on fewer countries. To illustrate this, let’s assume a static group of 50 car buyers and disregard the typical deadweight loss associated with reduced quantities.
DRH note: Notably, while Alex doesn’t specify in the title, a critical assumption underpinning his analysis is that tariffs are uniformly applied to imports from both Korea and Japan.
Note: The featured image was generated by ChatGPT.
