It was a pleasure to have with us today.
Economist Bryan Caplan from George Mason
University and alter off two of my favorite
books, The Case Against Education and,
more recently, open Borders. There's
other books as well, but I'm just mentioned
those bees to that. I didn't really enjoy
Brian. So welcome. And thanks for joining
us. Thanks very much for having me, Carlos.
So with all of these conversations, I'm
starting by asking the question off. Let's
get ourselves back to march and and try
to understand from your perspective when
you do notice, or if you or if you thought
that this was a big deal, and how would
you? What was information and models or
what was in front of you that convince
you that? Okay, this is serious. There's
gonna be bad. How bad is going to be in
and sort of talked through a little bit?
How you thought about the policies being
put in front of us in the very beginning?
See? So I mean, I have been very vaguely
paying attention to news in January, February,
but I honestly did figure it would end
up being something like Ebola or SARS,
where it's limited to one small area of
the world and otherwise would have no important
effect on me personally. Anyway, on then,
I would say Honestly, I started getting
a little bit nervous when I was traveling
Latin America in February and I just noticed
a lot of people working in the airport
in masks because, like I've never seen
that before. But I think that I probably
still shrugged it off and said, Well,
people are crazy, right which I still
believe but doesn't They're not crazy all
the time And then I guess when I got back,
I talked to a few people. His judgment.
I trust a lot on matters like this, especially
my colleague Robin Hanson across the hall.
And he was saying how, even though he
agreed that usually disasters predicted
disasters do not really transpire, he
said. This one was different and I did
start paying attention then and then I
really did see, especially in the course
thesis Oh Shil reaction, which happened
much sooner than any significant number
of actual deaths or sickness. But just
when school started closing and trip started
being canceled and I think actually I was
really shocked when Disneyland clothes
and from Los Angeles, like Disneyland
close, you know, closed Disneyland so
that these were the things that got me
paying attention, the numbers. And then
once I started paying attention the numbers,
I would say that I will stop paying attention
to most of the other things which I knew
were just anecdotal the experiences and
don't prove much of anything, but did
start looking the numbers and saw how the
number of cases and the destroyed rising
in a way that was very similar to what
people who were. I would say that, like
the moderate pessimists predicted, you
know, the extreme pessimist printing millions
of deaths, they they still seem crazy
to me and again. And, of course, if
they had said it will happen unless we
do the following things that it might may
be different. But I think that many of
the pessimists were just saying, This
is going to happen so and those people,
I would say, have been shown to be wrong.
So I guess that's how most of my thinking
in the early phases when anyway, So when
you're thinking, then in the early phases,
when you start seeing things like voluntary
choices by people like closing Disneyland.
Or and then ba decided that was something
that struck me. Was like, Whoa, the
n b a is going to stop. Okay, that z
gonna be hard. And I was teaching at the
time a class in Chicago and and, you know,
we couldn't fly anymore. And there was
some something that that was very surprising
to me that I am not surprised, but it
was definitely hit home, right? That
Okay, this is happening. But those are
all voluntary choices. Um, in terms of
policies being put in place, how are you
thinking about the choices that were they
were given to us. We were given destroys
off. This seemed to be like a dichotomy
off extremes. And And how would you?
You know what we reaction to those at first.
That is an economist. You know, I would
say that I don't think that really was
the economy. It was more of a near unanimity.
If we have to go and do something very
extreme and honestly, we really have to
go and emulate communist China. Uh, which,
uh, anything like what Almost every country
on earth has done is not normal. Right?
Or at least it wasn't normal. Intel.
Communist China made it normal. And if
you know any history, anything about the
history of Communist China, I would never
consider in a country to emulate really
in almost any way. Um, but, uh, you
know, in terms of the extremism of the
reaction, that's something that I did
notice. And yeah, that bothered me very
much. Just the way that people wanted
Thio just shut everything down without
really indiscriminately, without distinctions
between what are high risk and low risk
activities, What are ways to communicate
the risk? So, you know, to me like as
an economist, I'm always thinking not
Is it safe? There's nothing's really safe
ever right? You know, you could be hit
by a bus just walking down the street.
So it's really what are the odds? What
are the actual risks? And actually one
of the earliest things that I was doing?
Waas actually trying to look into infection
mortality rates and notice that there's
a big difference between case mortality
rates, which is just number of people
died compared to the number of people that
have been tested positive first infection
mortality. When you actually know that
someone saying What are the odds they die
and especially realizing that there's enormous
selection bias because the people that
get measured are generally the really worst
cases. So I was very concerned there and
it took me very quickly. I did see this
point that the infection mortality rate
Valerie vary tremendously by age, which
then very immediately led me to think well,
shouldn't be that young people keep living
normally more or less and old people than
isolate and rather than having everybody
isolate. So that was my immediate reaction,
and then when I learned more about how
important underlying conditions are and
even doesn't seem so much that age per
se is, is the kruky issue other than older
people of more underlying conditions.
But once I realized that it is even clearer
now, it should be the people that have
underlying conditions who generally will
be old. They're not always who should
be very careful and again other people
should live a basically normal life, both
because it's very costly to ask people
and bridges the freedom and then also the
point of having healthy people catch it
does move us closer to what we call herd
immunity as to how far you have to go in
order to get there. It's a complicated
question, but what I say is, you know,
it's a continuous variable. So, you know,
if you have, you know, there is less
infection when 20% of the population has
has is immune than 10%. So just saying,
Look, if we can move along that dimension,
basically, getting healthy people sick
and then having them recover is has a very
similar effect to getting more people to
wear masks. You're fascinated. That's
the same. Is the idea of, like that,
um, effective way to get a vaccine, right?
Yeah. Yes, yes, Yes. Right. Um, I
guess you also along the way my colleague
Robert Hanssen again, he was looking into,
you know, something called very elation.
Basically, just giving people low doses,
which is very similar to a vaccine, right?
And people got very upset. Him, of course,
is they almost always do whenever he makes
an original point. Good or bad. Right?
But usually good, in my view. Um, yeah.
So one of the one of the professions that
I've been particularly disappointed with
throughout this was was economist. And
the reason for it is because, you know,
economies are always very, very, very
careful at least tend to be very careful
thinking about this sort of unintended
consequences of doing something. And this
one, we were, you know, yes. Very quickly,
I think became available. The data that,
yes, the older and people with preexisting
conditions are the most vulnerable. Most
of us are not. Most of us are going to
die of this. And and if anything, the
risk is actually very comfortable to other
respiratory infections that we face routinely.
Right? So So that that even five times,
it's still even five times so low, right?
Lose, Right, Right. Exactly. Five.
I can get a year five losing chances are
I'm not gonna tie it right. And But But
But then then we're looking at this thing
where, um okay, we're gonna policy put
in place that policy being proposed and
implemented, and I feel that the majority
of the profession was like, Oh, yeah,
I know that seems to make sense without
really focusing on hammering on the underlying
that sort of, uh, the consequences and
the things that cost, really, that we're
gonna bear associated with. Is there a
few voices that were very loud on this?
But I would describe them. Very few.
They're not the mainstream voices. Invoices
that were, you know, are still being
deemed locked down skeptics or something
like that, right? And the anti scientists,
in some ways, um, do you have a similar
impression on on on on the profession?
So I guess that my opinion of my fellow
economists peaked around 2007 and has been
going downward ever since. S o. I guess
I was not surprised. Meaning like like,
you know, ultimately, like I, I've long
known that the table economist is a normal
human being first and an economist second
or third or fourth. And there's also been
a too big moves in the last 20 years in
economics. So one is that there's been
a move in a more left wing direction.
You know, economics was always left wing
overall, but but the balance used to be
something like 3 to 2 for Democrat Republican
ratio. So it waas one where, even though
the left wing view was predominant still,
it was a very mild predominance. And there's
a lot more room for other views. And over
time, especially with the next generation
economist, it's been replaced with a very
heavily left wing, uh, demographic.
So there's that. And the other thing is
that as the focus of economics has moved
towards doing empirical work and just focusing
very heavily on getting proper constant
identification, your paper there's just
been a great forgetting of thief fundamental
tools of economics like cost benefit analysis
and expected value, and just just the
idea that economics is primarily a grammar
of thinking. It's away the organized.
Organize your thoughts again. This is
not lost entirely, but the share of economists
that when they hear they have to take a
precaution in order to achieve a benefit
who now say, Well, wait, how, like
how good like, what is the actual size
of the benefit? What does this say? How
much produce that reduce the risk? How
much is the game? I think that has diminished
considerably from where it would have been
in seventies or eighties or even nineties,
And so I think that's another thing. But
I mean there I already did realize how
things have gotten worse on. Do you know,
it's very disappointing, but unfortunately,
there's not too much I could do about it
other than to say that there was that we
used to know better. We used to have a
better way and rend also like, Why are
you teaching your students the right way
to think? Why aren't you teaching them
economic thinking? And yes, I know that
it's hard to teach people how to think.
But good God, try At least we need to
try. Right? Right. Exactly. I think
you're right. Here, I think was in Maybe
June 1st, I'm going to quote you here
for a second, Um, that you accept a strong
presumption in favor of human liberty.
You cannot rightfully shut businesses in
order people to stay at home out of an
abundance of caution. Instead, the burden
of the advocates of these policies to demonstrate
their benefits drastically exceed their
costs by at least 5 to 1. And nobody did
that. Nobody even tried t talk about that,
right? I mean that that's to me. So clear.
What? The point that, you know I shouldn't
be Here is an interview telling what I
believe, but that's that's the frustrating
me the most. Like, without any indication
of the trade offs. We're facing these
decisions as draconian as they come. Right
that this has been, um, as they come.
Yeah. So again, that sounds quite right
to me. See, What was I thinking about
all of that? Oh, yes, eso Here's the
thing. I mean, I think most people would
hear those words that I wrote and say,
Well, this is just a dogmatic libertarian
who says Don't they're going to go and
support these elections principles if you
get over a near interminable, insurmountable
barrier. What I would say is, actually
this test I'm talking about is one that
most people use actually for anything that
takes seriously. So if someone came out
with a cost benefit analysis saying that
banning Satanism would pat would just pass
ah cost benefit test by 5% I think almost
no one who ever cared about free speech
would say All right, fine, let's round
up the sameness now. Instead, they say,
Look, that's not enough. Like it's one
thing if we got around them up to go and
prevent the Satanic like a series of massive
Satanic attacks or something, but otherwise
eyes like even if yes, it turns out that
every Satanist really messes up their family
and their parents are miserable. And you
know what causes suicides? Because people
can't handle the fact their kids become
a state n'est. Even so, like, we've
really got you really gotta show an enormous
benefit of bending this principle e that
that applies to almost any principle that
anyone really cares about. So to me,
the idea that you wouldn't care about the
principle of don't go and tell people they
can't leave their homes right, that seems
at least as important as your freedom to
practice Satanism and and And do you share
the view that I think a lot of people defend
those policies still on? Like, you know,
there was a moment in time where we didn't
know enough about it. There was so much
uncertainty, unknowns were too large and
and there was a fear of looking what was
happening inordinately. Perhaps it was
about to happen in New York City off our
inability to process the cases. So, like
I shut down, let's say of two weeks was
something that would lead at least to avoid
and solve the hospitals being overwhelmed
and and flatten the curve idea. Right?
So that was like, I think the way those
policies were advocated this is like a
temporary thing to just flatten the curve.
Um, yeah, reaction to that, of course.
And I'd say that's doing it for two weeks.
Is ah, lot lesson justifiable than doing
it for months? Yeah, but even there I
would say so. This is the same reasoning
is round up all the Japanese after December
7th, because look there, probably fine.
But let's have an abundance of caution
round them all up. How do we know there
isn't at least one terrorist cell among
the Japanese? And then I would say Yes,
I understand that point. And yes, things
are confusing right now, but that's not
good enough. And that And if you think
that things like that are good enough,
then really you are going to be doing one
terrible thing after another, right,
and ultimately comes down to the terrible
things that are popular will happen. And
the terrible things that are unpopular
probably won't. But really bad things
could be popular. So the, uh the what
I like to call the hysteria and hurting
of the population. It really does move
around quite dramatically in response to
crazy events. So in, like, the this
reaction could have been much stronger
after 9 11, for example. So, um, I
do actually remember after 9 11, some
people saying, Well, you know, I mean,
this is actually I don't even think was
even a joke saying Look, we don't really
know which countries behind this. Let's
just attack a bunch of Middle Eastern countries,
right? And it's like out of an abundance
of caution. Let's just invent you invade
a bunch of places like Alright, eso you
do realize the horrible things that you're
talking about here and, you know, like
it just seems that seems to me like that's
not sufficient, but even close to go and
justify this kind of what I would say in
the in the even the reaction 9 11 right
there was there was a We didn't face dictatorial
powers doing those things in our lives.
There's something that, you know, you
had a president reacted very strongly to
it, and all of it got voted by Congress
and, you know, you might disagree with
the way that our representatives decided
to do something, but it got voted by a
legislative body where we've been living
through a system where we have 50 desperate
plus one. What's really funny is that
there's a lot of people like arguing that
the one that's what should have been more
strong throughout the whole thing is like,
really that one you wanna tell Give more
part of the one. That's what I mean.
My dad is very, you know, is always inclined
to blame China for anything wrong in the
world. And in this case, he really wanted
to blame them for the entire for the entire
pandemic. Right? And again, the other
question, I mean, so what is it you wanted
them to dio So you know, like I think
you heard stories about how they suppressed
it, really Only in front of news for a
couple weeks off course. The day is so
like, it was not clear that was like the,
like, the very highest level. Like you
got local people suppressing it. In any
case, uh, you know, like it was given
that most countries didn't do very much
during that time. You know, I guess Suppose
your model could be that, uh, the other
countries will react eight weeks after
the Chinese have officially react. But
it's not clear why that would be your model
rather than they react. Four weeks after
it's clear that it's a serious problem,
something like that. In which case, I'll
see the China delayed anything but again.
Like when we think about the way that my
dad, we reacted if China had done something
drastic, like foreigners can't leave Wuhan
either. We don't we don't break the quarantine
just because you're not a citizen. Everyone
has to stay here. E again. That's the
kind of thing that I think would have been
a major international incident. And yet
that, you know, out of all the things
that China could it could have done, I
think that yeah, that's the one thing
I think that actually could have really
tip the balance if they just said no one
and no one gets out and tell the quarantine
is over. I mean, the amount of of international
blowback that would have caused, I think,
would have been enormous. I mean, I doubt
that would have caused World War Three.
But I would have been still like pulling
my collar like like like 2% chance of World
War Three over this. If China just said,
you know, like like no way we're doing
it our way. Tough luck, right? Let me
pick up on this point because this point
the point off all I think that a lot of
people that even was okay with extension
of lockdowns, as we had in the country,
like, you know, he said, Well, if China
could have, could have could have not
mitigated this but really suppressed the
virus, right? If they had lock down Wuhan
somehow you know, there is a state of
the world where this could be suppressed
there. And I think there's a lot that
we're learning now. Even places that did
that, it seems like it's almost like a
losing battery doesn't seem to be possible.
Australia seem like a huge, huge ramp
up in cases now, after what effectively
an island was able to keep it under control
and suppress it. Eso And that's the part
that I I a t least you know, I think it
was a big shift in the goalpost off. We're
tryingto to flatten the curve to now.
Let's try toe, keep a shot to mitigate
Thio. Suppress this, end the virus.
And, you know, cold viruses are really
hard to make to to suppress. They just
apparently are incredibly resilient, and
they're gonna be around us. And that's
why I think it's It's to me, very frustrating
to be looking at the recurrent asked for
lockdowns as it's just like, What are
you trying to accomplish at this point?
Why don't you just pushing those infections
to the future? And perhaps maybe you're
just hoping that a vaccine shows up first.
How do what do you think that that that
sort of the idea out there, Right? So
the the view that, you know, delaying
actually has saved a lot of lives just
because even though we don't have vaccine,
we've got better anti virals, better treatment.
That may be true. So I mean, I tried
looking into it and it didn't seem clearly
wrong, but on the other hand, the people
that were really optimistic like and told
me things were great, like it wasn't clear
their claims were checking out either.
So again, I really I'm not too clear on
that in terms of whether it just can be
like, completely, completely, kind of
like whether we actually could just get
rid of it. So they're getting it seems
like there, you know, there's some countries.
They managed to get it down to such a small
fraction of where it waas that it does
seem least plausible that they could drive
it into extinction, but at least with
it before one for a country. But then
there's the question of what do you do
about relations with the rest of world,
So making the country you know? So you
know, this is something where I am not
super confident. But listen to me that,
like Germany got the number of cases down
really low and then we supposedly their
contract racing teams were so good. You
know, they where they actually and you
know, they had enough of them relative
to the problem that a lot of times they
don't have anything do anymore, right?
So if you could actually have something
like that, it's a fairly modest cost to
be able to go and just getting just hold
things down, especially given that Germany
still is open to all these other European
countries. That's pretty striking that
anyone is able to do it. So using it,
like what I've said recently, is you're
not your foot. Well, so but I don't think
they the borders are not still closes for
the Open now. Yeah, yeah, and then they
actually are. They are suffering from
cases coming from Spain, apparently,
and they're struggling a bit with that,
right? Right. But immediately like morning,
my main thoughts is, you know, like if
you're not confused, you just don't understand
what's going on. So I said, like, I
wouldn't be surprised when three months,
every country ran. You should get it down
to the same level that Germany has got
it in. I wouldn't be surprised when three
months, every country is doing as badly
as the United States of Brazil. And I'm
just like, honestly, I'm just pretty
confused of the situation. And, you know,
like I noticed that people who pontificate
almost never have any concrete prediction.
They almost like, almost never say anything
that could be definitely showed me right
or wrong much. Let's put some money on
it and steak. The reputation on the line.
So I mean, I think, honestly, the the
amount of of of respect that I give, you
know, for people who say professionally,
they're doing it. But find your professional
so you know more than other people do.
So say something specific. Give me a number.
Give me a date, right? And give and and
put some money on it, and you stake your
reputation. This is what's going to happen
to me when someone says I'm an expert much.
But I'm just gonna go on speaking platitudes.
Well, the experts have said it and they
they've used numbers. They're like they've
been. I mean, either it's coming or they
were absolutely wrong, right? 2.3 million
people gonna die in the U. S. They said
it by a day. They even said by July,
2.2 million people in us is gonna die normally.
When they say that if you actually pay
attention, they have a bunch of qualifying.
Words could die. You About two million
could die. What I like about you 2.2 million
could die like okay? Yeah, like I completely
agree. 2.2 million could die, right?
Or they'll or they'll have. Like unless
we go and take drastic measures, 2.2 million
will die, right? So normally again,
like normally well, people there in the
public eye have an instinct to avoid saying
anything that could ever be demonstrably
shown to be wrong s a million, which is
a big point of Phil Tet locks. Fantastic
book, super forecasting where you realize
Look, anyone who does that you really
show that they do not deserve your time.
They don't serve your attention. They
don't deserve respect. Really. People
don't say what could happen. They say
what will happen? They give you a date,
they give you numbers and also give you
probabilities and they give you money if
they're wrong. So that's the issue that
those people go went in and even making
those statements and convince a lot of
our governments to do radical things.
They're convincing your government's thio
not open schools for the rest of the year.
A. So far as I know, I don't know about
telling Maybe maybe maybe I missed it,
but I don't know of any state legislature
in the U. S. It has tried to take back
powers from the governor's there. Is there
any legislature? Is one. There's one.
So so so the. I think that was not a legislator,
but it was a court. So the Wisconsin courts,
different courts. Like what? But that's
because of a legislative trying to say
you like where they were even trying to
push forward a measure saying, The governor,
the governor has become a dictator and
you can't do this stuff without our permission
and we don't get permission. But it was
actually very interesting. I don't think
people paid enough attention to this is
that the legislator in Wisconsin has a
the what they call the emergency powers
of the governor have to be justified on
a room making basis So they actually have
a administrative law procedure to justify
the existence of those those powers they
can give you for two weeks. But after
that, you have to go and do some justification
for the emergency powers. And it turns
out that the data available here was not
enough to pass the bar. What we call you
know. So then the force that you cannot
continue this unless you go through the
rulemaking process the government gave
upside like, Oh, I can't do it because,
you know, I don't think this is made up.
I don't I don't have This is like in a
bad flu. Um, e shouldn't say that because
I gotta be in real trouble when I say that,
but but that's That's essentially what?
What? You know what gave the legislature?
The gave stopped the governor of Wisconsin
to continue the emergency powers that he
had in place. Um, so All right, so let's
fast forward to now. Like what? What?
How do we read? In fact, actually, go
back a little bit. You wrote something
a while ago, talking about what you were
doing so again, putting your money on,
you know, or your mouth is here. So how
did you handle personally? Some of the
stuff lately. You wrote about it and you
told why you're doing it. And you're surprised
by the fact that a lot of smart people
that you know, we're not acting in that
way? Right, s So how did you interpret
evidence and how did you act upon that?
That evidence? Yeah, something like I
say, You know, like, there's the meta
point of the way you think about things,
and then there's the actual concrete behavior.
So what really surprises me is when smart
people don't think in terms of probabilities.
So when smart people just say Look, scientists
have found there's a risk of walking through
a room that someone that a sick person
breathed in, say Okay, like, I'd be
amazed if they didn't find that there was
a risk. But how big is that risk? Right.
And like, is there any actually like Like,
is it like, Is there evidence that this
this dosage, that this is actually going,
that this ever gets people sick? What
are the odds that it gets people sick?
Right. So that's the kind of thing that
really surprised me when smart people were
just like smart people, especially people
that are quite that normally have spotted
native ability, just started talking like
normal people, right? And a duty. We
have a duty, right? Everything is just
like any risk is too high. Oregon. Just
like, you know, just saying there is
a risk like this is, or or using hyperbolic
language that's too dangerous. Or just
imagine what would happen if some of you
who died right I think like these are all
the kinds of questions where I would say
quantitative people need to be trained
to to say those air terrible questions
ask their ones that make people that confuse
people prevent them or they clearly because
everything you do can lead you to your
death and the death, the death of other
people around you. So it's a question
of what are the actual odds that you should
be focused on. And if you're not interested,
those odds, then I would just say it's
very hard to take anything you say. Seriously,
eso me. That's sort of the meta point
of the number of people that were just
not thinking in a quantitative way on then
in terms of the Civic, so, like on the
specifics, I could much more understand.
So, like, if I had a friend who said,
I'm still pretty worried and here you'll
hear my reasons why or I still think this
approved measure and they went through
the math, you know that then I think we
could still have a very good conversation.
But you know what, I basically, what
I'm doing is trying to find the most up
to date numbers on infection mortality
rate by age by health status and then figuring
out how that compares for me. Two things
that I already do routinely. Like driving
a car, right and again by, you know,
by my by my math my my covert risk is probably
really like you basically. And then,
of course, the other thing is, even if
you try to stay very safe, you could still
get it. And, of course, even if you
start living in a more relaxed way, you're
very, very likely will never get It s
all right. So let's ballpark. So suppose
that changing my behavior to you live like
a 90% normal way would move my infection
rate or infection probability from 15 to
40% that Then you're talking about something
like, I think, like a year's worth of
driving risk, which to me, is not bad,
right? And especially realizing that when
I'm driving, I'm often risking the lives
of all my Children. Right? Uh, who,
actually, I would really like Honestly,
I'd rather that I died. One of them died.
And, you know, they're all caves, so
their risk is really low. So when you
put it that way. So like in terms of the
familiar risk, I just don't see that this
is very risky to my family. Now again,
I'm not blind to the possibility of infecting
someone that is high risk. And you know
what I say is, you know there's a lot
of common sense measures you can take their
most obviously just avoiding contact with
people that are high risk or if you know
they're high risk. Then saying, Well,
wait, we should probably avoid contact.
Or of course, there's also asking, So
like, are you high risk? And, like I'm
happy to go on, accommodate you in ways
that seem reasonable to you, right? So
those are all ways that I would handle
on have handle these things on the At the
same time they're saying, Look, if you're
very high risk, then it is reasonable
to say that you should be the one that's
taking extra precaution, and there's no
reason to be resentful of that. Uh, compared
to other people so we could say yes if
everybody would just the world. We just
revolve around me. I could live my life,
and everyone else would withstand side.
Yes. Well, that's not a reasonable expectation
to put upon strangers. You ask for moderate
things. So, you know, I said, if I
see someone wearing a mask, then I try
to drive. Then I try to stay further away
from them because I take that as a sign
that they're worried, Right? So I don't
want to upset anyone or make anyone nervous.
On the other hand, I'm not going to go
and wear a mask outside to take a hike
just because someone is terrified of seeing
100 ft away or because the governor told
you to do so, right? Yes, brilliantly.
There. Honestly, everyone breaks loss
every day. That might have actually stopped
during the quarantine, because people
are inside. So maybe they're not breaking
laws every day. But any time you're actually
moving around interacting with other people,
you're always breaking laws. You are always
breaking the law when you're driving.
Practically I've never met a human being
who actually falls traffic laws in any
scrupulous way because the laws are unreasonable
and ridiculous and really there, there.
So the police could go on hassle people
whenever they want Thio for other Really,
for other reasons rather than to actually
dio and enforce the law per se. So yeah,
So my view is when laws are stupid, people
already break them routinely. And honestly,
I don't see anything wrong with this,
and I do it too, and I'm happy to do it.
So So a point that I think escape a lot
of even economists writing about This is
something you mentioned that that well,
you're going out you're doing, You understand
the risk that your face and and I just
just you mentioned Ah, your worst or driving
and probably driving is the most dangerous
thing that you do in a routine basis.
So, you know, it's not trivial that you're
adding that right, But again, you start
from such a low level. And I would say
that the latest calculations I've been
looking at, I think it's something one
way to look at a covert risk for people
in our age bracket without conditions.
It's something like adding somewhere between
two or 20 days in a year. So you just
use a little true that's way below what?
I figured what I calculated about six weeks
ago. Eso I mean, you know, So you started
to me. I'm very curious. Like, uh,
a whether it's in British numbers. So
maybe, you know, we need to be a little
careful. Careful with that. But the point.
I was trying to make British number some
pretty good to me, actually. E if I had
to either generalize about my own risk
from New York City or the entire country
of Britain. That's a great thing, right?
Yeah, that's right. That's right. Um,
well, the point. The point that I was
gonna make about about, you know, one
of the one of the issues that people say
Well, but you're making your own choice
is creating externality. That's like a
thing that we'd like to talk about in economics.
An externality is that by you going out,
you might increase the transmission of
the virus, and therefore another vulnerable
person might get it. And I'm or people
who died as a result of your choices off
going out right? You're not bearing the
cost off that. But But I think that's
not necessarily the whole way to think
about this. Because as we talked about
earlier, people like you and me getting
in fact, it's actually, perhaps a positive
externality on, And that has been sort
of completely lost in the discussion of
this, uh, positive if if you could do
it responsibly. Exactly. You know, then
you isolate. So which again is just what
I would dio e remember? Like even in March,
I asked my memory. So what is our plan?
If one of us gets sick, what are we doing?
Right? And that's actually where a lot
of the stuff on dose response function
what was relevant to me Because, Okay,
what we don't want to do is put a bunch
of sick kids together in a small room.
So if one of you gets sick of, like,
each person should be spread out of the
house as much as possible, open up the
windows and there was that way. You don't
wind up getting a really high dosage of
it in the same place. Um, yeah. I mean,
you know, of course, what you like with
any externality, Of course. Driving an
externality and no silver person says that
you should never drive. It's one thing
to say you, like, take, take precautions.
Look both ways don't drive too fast. These
are all things that prudent people dio
and that I'm happy to dio, you know,
not just for my own safety or the safety
of other vulnerable people, pedestrians
and so on. But when someone, if someone
said, never drive because you could hurt
someone who's an externality, I say that's
that's crazy. And again, like, you're
like, you're ignoring the enormous cost
you're putting on me, right? Uh, you
know, And then I would say the same thing
with infection, saying Yes. Well, you
know, if it's, ah, substantial benefit
to others that I could give it a modest
cost myself great if or other. But if
it's the other way around, then I don't
think that is so great. Yeah, I was actually
doing some Twitter polls on, like when
would you consider something murder? So,
you know, like, I suppose that you know,
you're sick and you deliberately coffin
somebody's face and they get sick and die
like Is that murder? Yeah, probably it
iss right. But how about if you, like,
have no symptoms? You stay 6 ft away from
other people, and then someone happened,
and then someone happens to get sick and
the result was that murder and saying like
That's no, you know, I would say that's
no more murder than if you actually kill
someone. Writing on your bicycles were
like you like you were doing very reasonable
things. And yet once in a long while,
something really bad happens when you're
behaving responsibly. But it doesn't show
that when you're doing so responsible.
By the way, this is one of the great lessons
that economists ought to teach their students
more. Which is that just because of bad
thing happens doesn't mean you should change
your level of precaution, right? So look,
I have a level precaution. The lower precaution
is designed to achieve a certain level
of risk. The fact that the risk happens
once doesn't show that you weren't cautious
enough. And yet, of course, you know
to not economists No, no. Like like there
was a fire that show that we need more
fire precaution. It's like, Well, like,
what is the overall rate of fire? If it's
like one in a million, then maybe this
is This is actually a totally acceptable
one, and we shouldn't do anything right.
Call that exposed freshen, Albert. Exactly.
Right, right right. So you're accented
Decision making was the right one. Don't
don't exposed evaluated because that's
gonna be that's gonna be bad. Right?
Um so two things I want to talk about now,
just moving a little bit to to to school.
That's something that we're having A big
policy decision that's taking place right
now is like whether or not to open schools
and your work has been a very and I want
to quote you, I think again here. Maybe
not perfectly, but but But, ah, lot
of your work questioning the value of education.
Um, it's quoted a lot focusing on high
school in college. But I think you you
went out. We were more vocal about us.
And then, you know, I question all of
it the whole and by education, you know,
mean teaching people stuff. You mean the
way we currently teach people stuff are
like when a politician says we need more
money for education. That's what I think.
It was exactly exactly so. But now here
we are, here we are. And somehow we're
gonna live in a world this fall where I
can go out and do anything, literally
anything in Texas, but my school's gonna
be closed. Our kids are gonna be, like,
literally anything. Not going to a bar,
I think not going to a bar, but anything
else we could go to college. We could
go to a football game in college. My little
kid could go to daycare, but we cannot
go to a school to Mike McKay through helps
close public schools, private schools.
Well, there's a big fight going on currently.
So? So local health authorities are issuing
mandates, saying the privates cannot open
as well nor charters. And that's a political
battle off funding. Why you don't want
people to get under enrolled from from
from the public. So the question is,
I guess the question to you To you Is that
Is that, um how do you look at this and
you react to say Okay, I know this is
this is pointless. So So who cares? Or
are you particularly worry about? I mean,
do you do you worry about the fact that
somehow we're not gonna have education
in the country for perhaps entire fault?
Eso you think of that impact is gonna be
in terms of student learning. I would
be amazed if you saw any long run harm
in terms of people's math and reading abilities.
However, the the point that I mostly talk
about in high school college and but I
also occasionally mentioned younger grades.
Eso Whenever I talk about education, I
I always tried to be fair, and I say,
Look, whatever else they do or fail to
do, at least K through eight delivers
daycare or now I say it well, it used
Thio. It used thio. So even if they're
not learning anything useful, you're just
wasting their time making a bunch of stupid
posters and singing songs. There are a
lot of the kids don't want to sing songs,
but I have seen plenty of miserable kids
being forced to sing songs and schools.
I mean, even if that's going on, say,
at least schools provide daycare where
kids a place where kids to go and they
could see other kids and someone watches
them so their parents could go and do their
job and relax, right? And now it turns
out the schools are not even gonna provide
this one function where I've Long said,
it's an undeniable thing service that they're
providing? Yes, I say, like if schools
aren't even gonna be a, you know, but
especially for K through eight, then they
are totally worthless. At this point.
The idea that you're going to do online
education for kindergarteners is just absurd.
Right? So the best case scenario is the
parents to sit there making the kindergartner
do the work. So much case, it doesn't
save the parent anytime they can't do their
job. They can't relax. So why not? Just
at that point, you might as well just
do home schooling and save a lot of time
and cut out the middleman. So, yeah,
it is just a case where the schools want
to keep getting enormous amounts of tax
dollars and don't believe people say schools
were underfunded. They get an enormous
amount of money per student per year.
So you're like the national average years
ago was already up to, like, 12,000.
So I'm doing this enormous level of spending
per student on average. And what are they
offering you? They're offering you something
that's barely better than showing them
YouTube videos. So I think that that's
a thought process that you have rip off
and Yes. So, you know, like people saying
like, give the parents back the money
and then let and then let them let them
go and figure out what they want to do
with their kids. Education seems like
huge improvement to me. Eso I've been
homeschooling my older kids for years and,
of course, never got a dime back from
that. And originally my younger kids,
we're gonna have school open two days a
week and like, all right, maybe that's
not terrible, but it will be better than
nothing. But anyway, now it was announced
in our area that there will be no in person
school whatsoever. So now I'm just gonna
be home schooling my kids for at least
the first quarter. So as to why I don't
get that money back, right? Or of course,
you go further and say, Hey, maybe we
should just give the taxpayers back their
money, right? Who are not quite the same
as the parents, right? We've been ripping
off taxpayers for all these years to get
for these dubious services, and now we're
not even giving you that. So why not just
say, look like we don't want our rationale
for us existing has gone e mean. I have
little doubt that if schools would just
receive no money if they didn't reopen,
I think that maybe pushing to reopen,
which, by the way, I haven't heard economists
saying things like, Well, so you're like
you're only you're worried about saving
lives? What about people's livelihoods?
And whenever I hear that, you have to
remember, the people who want things shut
down also want the level of redistribution
to compensate for the loss to be so high
that that especially most good workers
were actually making more money now than
they ever did. So they're not worried
about their livelihoods very much so.
There is a reason, you know. So you know,
people also say, Well, it's not at all
clear why the left is more supportive.
Locked down to the right. It could have
gone the other way. I'll see you could
have gone the other way in a system without
redistribution, but once you have very
high levels of not only redistribution
general but especially extra emergency
redistribution, then it all lines up ideologically
because the left likes the idea of people
getting paid to not have to Dio do not
have to do their job. They don't like
the idea that you should have to do have
a have a job to get work. They don't appreciate
the the enjoyable consumer products that
most people mostly spend their time saying.
Most of what we do is not essential, right?
And so and of course, yes, but it's not
essential, but it is. But it is enjoyable.
Why isn't that good enough? Well, essential.
I don't like I don't like the term it all.
I think essentially something that e exactly.
I like to define what's essential for me
and not not not letting somebody else to
do really like definitely the categorization
of essential or non essential was laughable.
Yes, liquor stores are essential cannabis,
cannabis stores, cannabis stores in places
that cannabis is again. I'm completely
support that, but it's like you're gonna
have that the essential and and not schools
schools. Not essential. Um, so so so
that that is interesting point you make
about, like, you know where in the country
going to get the ability to in short period
of time. Say, oh, we're gonna defund
the schools if you know they're not open.
Right? But if parents were to un enroll,
then they the fact to get the funding because
I think most states the homeschooling sort
of like basically the money goes back to
the state coffers. They don't depends
on number of students who have. I think
that that's the normal system. Of course,
the schools really hurting. I think the
laws get changed. Well, sure, but at
least you put some pressure. And I'm surprised
that that has not been at all anywhere.
A big campaign on this. I've been I've
talked to some people like shouldn't have
some campaigns on, like home school your
kids If the states asking to home school
your kids home to your kids. Onda, let's
let everybody, you know, be honest about
it. But nowhere. You see nowhere. The
fight for for that also means So you know,
there there's a list of government employees
where people love them based upon the ideals
that they associate with associate them
with. So, you know, veterans course,
fireman police until recently, and teachers,
right. And, of course, healthcare workers.
So these are occupations where because
what they do, what they do sounds good
that you know, of course, soldiers in
general, not just veterans, but they
do sounds good. And so they get a lot
of love just for existing. So, yeah,
I mean the number of times where I've seen
big signs around saying like like during
the lock down, saying We are so grateful
to our wonderful teachers. This is a time
I have to say, Look, I'm actually teaching
my kids. Where's my side e? No one's
putting up signs saying Thanks, Brian,
for going and doing the job that teachers
are getting paid to do, and you're not
getting paid to do it, but you're doing
anyway. So, e, I have to say, I know
some people don't like the idea of Stockholm
syndrome. I'm a big fan of it. So, yeah,
I think that's a lot of what's going on.
And people are here getting totally ripped
off, and teachers are basically giving
them next to nothing in exchange for large
amounts of money. And yet, because teachers
are usually personally likable and nice,
people wanted to persist. But, you know,
like your garbage man was a nice guy.
But he stopped picking up your garbage
because of Covic. You wouldn't keep him
right. Right on. That's, uh, you like
to use the word you told me once They would
like to rescue the word austerity. You
think I started the good word and you like
the fun stuff. So? So I think there's
a lot of talk about defunding police this
day. So So you're pro defunding. Police
protein funding, education system defunding
generally. Right. Okay, so you defunding
is greatly underrated writer, like you
said, you know, just austerity e. It's
kind of funny because, you know, like
you funding a sort of the new positive
term with a positive connotation for austerity,
but even like the idea is what, like my
dad was like in the eighties. So you go
and say, Hey, Dad, can I have 20 bucks?
First question. What do you need it for?
And then then it's like, Well, what over
the last$20 I gave you, right? And what
can I expect to see for my money? Right.
And these are good questions for anyone
that is handing out even their own money
to ask. And we're handing out somebody
else's money. You're handing out taxpayer
money donor money. It is duty breach of
fiduciary duty not to ask questions like
this, right? If you are running a charity
and you don't ask hard questions like,
Well, what do you need the money for?
What happened last money I gave you? What
have you accomplished with, like, How
will I know whether this is working? You
weren't doing your job and I say the same
thing for whenever government officials
handing out taxpayer dollars. These are
the questions that you should always be
asking to find out, like our taxpayers
getting their money's worth. Or are they
getting ripped off and to say, what's
a mean question when teachers need their
salaries like, Well, like isn't there?
This is not charity. They're supposed
to be doing a job in exchange for this
money. And if they don't do their job
anymore, then it's totally fair to say,
Well, we don't want to pay money to have
people do nothing. Yeah, that's that's
That's the especially now if they're actually
not even gonna provide a daycare. So So
that's That's the parts really crazy.
All right, last question for you. And
that's maybe a little provoking a little
bit. Um, you wrote about this wonderful
idea off open borders, immigration being
a completely, completely no laws of immigration
anywhere. Just people can move back and
forth. It would be amazing for the world
that would that would increase GDP by by
enormous a mountain. And it's hard to
disagree with that notion in a sort of
hypothetical level. You go through a lot
of arguments supporting that and arguments
against it, and so on it. I recommend
the book highly after a pandemic, Do you?
Is there any change in your in your thinking
about immigration? Is there anything that
gives you pause or give you second thoughts?
Right. So the main thing, I would say
is that tourism is more dangerous than
I thought here because here's the thing.
Foreign immigrant, even a seasonal immigrant.
If you were to say you have to go through
a two week quarantine on on both sides
of the trip in order to do it almost every
year, it would still say yes because there's
enormous game to them for tourism. On
the other hand, if you were to go and
do that, then actually probably would
greatly to tourism, right? So again,
of course, you could You could try to
have high speed Kobe testing or something
like that. But how do you know there won't
be another disease? You know, that's
that's hard to say. So anyway, what I
say is that, um you're just just to set
back. So you might take a look this and
then say See, See? This is why we just
shouldn't have anyone ever come to our
country anymore, because we don't have,
like, we don't have a bad disease right
now. The only place is really gonna come
is gonna be from another country. So if
we just stop letting people in, then we're
safe. Right? And I said, That's not
really true. You know why? Because you
would also have to prevent anyone from
your country from leaving and coming back.
So it it actually is not enough just to
keep people out. You actually would have
to turn your country into the old Soviet
Union, where people either can't leave
or if they do leave the right style. Can't
return. All right, now, when you say
Well, look all right, that's ridiculous.
Then why don't we go up testing and quarantining
and so on which they said, Okay, we'll
find maybe there's some use for that,
but that is you know, But, you know,
that would be actually a very minor barrier
thio immigration for work purposes. Which
is, of course, the main reason why people
want to migrate because it is a substantial
up front cost for enormous overwhelming
benefits. So I just don't think would
make very much difference. Um, again,
the ending In the end, I would still say
that. Um, yeah, if you, you know,
like, if there could have been some very
carefully crafted limits on mobility early
on again, like, you know, like if china
actually said foreigners can't leave Wuhan
either there there's one month quarantine.
Sorry, Right. If they had done that,
I would have been nervous about the peace
of the world, but in terms, But knowing
what I know now, I think that actually
really would have had a high chance of
actually saving the rest of world from
there from these horrors. And of course,
the amount of gratitude China would be
getting or that would be less than zero,
I think said there'd probably be a lot
of people that were there stuck there and
they're saying, You know, like or if
you could find one American who died there
because they weren't able to go and get
high quality American medical treatment
outside of Wuhan, you know, then that
could be an international incident, right?
But still So something like that, where
there's a small where there's a reasonably
small area where you actually can do enormous
good by going and having the state of this
temporary abridgment of human freedom.
For a modest number of people do something
like that to me like That's not crazy at
least. But I think what we have done is
crazy. What what is going to continue
doing? I think it's good. It's crazy.
That seems to be the case very right.
That seems to be the case. Um, so what's
the What's the estimate again for? For
if we had open borders everywhere, in
terms of how much richer the world will
be, eso sort of sort of like immediate
estimates, something like a doubling of
the production of mankind again, this
is like, you know, reasonable person
says this would happen immediately because
the way you get that large increases by
moving large populations from low productivity
countries. I could high productivity countries
and again it's on the order of billions
of people, which is not feasible during
the course of a month or a year or even
five years. But over the course of 50
years, moving billions of people is totally
feasible, right, and people that can't
be done now it can be done. In fact,
China, India have had hundreds of millions
of people move just within their own countries
over the past few decades. So either you
couldn't do this all over the surface of
the earth is just wrong. It's totally
realistic to think that we could move billions
of people over that long, long period
right and again and then, like the kinds
of fears that people have about moving,
that many people are reasonable at the
duration of a month or a year. They're
not reasonable, the duration of decades,
where there's plenty of time to build housing
and new businesses and everything else
for all the people that are coming. And
you know, my point of making that is that
is that you know, I maybe I'm willing
to trade off double the GDP over spirit
of time for for yeah, even with a higher
risk of the disease spreading around and
killing a certain number of people because,
I don't know, part of me also thinks that
that's an unavoidable right We have. We
have. Ah, and I think that if you double
GDP, life expectancy is gonna grow by
so many other reasons. People gonna get
better and, like, you know, live longer
and so on that that feeling long long enough,
right? Something we're gonna kill you
and including covert and cancer and so
on. And the point is that I think that
those the I wouldn't give up on on the
immigration a benefits by looking at.
There are a lot of diseases that epidemiologist
classifies disease of poverty that basically
diseases where they mostly originate and
and spread in places where people are poor
for a wide range of reasons. So But of
course, once they originate and start
spreading an area with a lot of poor people,
they can go and spread through contagion
richer areas. So I would say this is a
reason to want to speed poor countries
through the period of poverty to get them
out of that danger zone not only for themselves,
but also so that you least wind up reducing
the risk of a lot of diseases. Which one
could actually affect you? That's right.
That's right, Brian. Thank you so much.
And good luck. Good luck with the home
schooling, right? Yeah. So always great
seeing him and face. So now, more than
ever. Exactly. Bye bye.