The Bob Zadek Show

Gallup’s Principal Economist Dissects Just vs. Unjust Inequalities in

*Republic of Equals*

Have Americans become jaded by unjust inequality?

Two data points are informative.

Few expect the celebrities caught in the college admissions scandal to do jail time for their criminal bribes.

Those associated with Jeffrey Epstein appear to be unlikely to be held accountable any time soon.

Perhaps even more seriously, however, Jonathan Rothwell believes that inequality and the political forces underlying it are actually undermining the public’s faith in our government.

He says that the wave of populist nationalism that swept Trump into office is driven by a deeper discontentment and insecurity resulting from widening income inequality. [Paradoxically, Rothwell argues that many of the same nativist attitudes are also cementing the very policies that are exacerbating unjust inequality.]

Buy the book

Of course, it’s vitally important in this debate to distinguish between inequality that is the result of people’s subjective preferences for work vs. leisure, that which is based on supply and demand, and that which is based on pure political privilege.

In his new book A Republic of Equals: A Manifesto for a Just Society, Rothwell ushers an impressive body of data to show just how much of the current inequality is caused not by free markets, but by the political powers that be. In doing so, he upsets both the right and the left’s narratives around inequality.

We do not live in a perfectly free market based on mutually-beneficial exchange. From education to housing, the current political system further rewards those who have already made it with additional spoils.

As a “market egalitarian,” Rothwell claims that we do not need government to act to redistribute unjustly acquired wealth so much as we need government to set the rules of the game such that incomes more closely align with relatively evenly-distributed abilities in the population. There’s a lot to unpack there.

I spend the full hour this Sunday dissecting the poll numbers in Jonathan’s book to determine whether his thesis is correct.

A Republic of Equals envisions what would happen naturally to equality of outcome if we stopped giving those with political power special access to markets and public services.

We discuss what count as “basic liberties,” and what government must do to ensure equal access to markets and the right to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Provide universal education? Job training for unemployed workers? Or simply get out of the way?

Don’t miss this show. Listen Now!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Do markets always corrupt? A thought experiment with Prof. Michael Munger.

Mike Munger is taking Public Choice seriously.

How seriously?

So seriously that his new book calls many of the sacred cows of the free market crowd into question – asking whether real capitalism is even a stable equilibrium, or if it always morphs into its ugly twin: cronyism.

While public choice is best known for its analysis of the rational, self-interested behavior of so-called “public servants”, Munger steps back and asks when the rational interest of CEOs and corporate boards might also betray free market principles. In other words, does competitive rent-seeking becomes the norm in a world where executives are expected to get the sweetest deal possible from the government?

Is Capitalism Sustainable? is a collection of essays published by the American Institute for Economic Research that will provoke central planners and free-marketeers alike to consider how real-world frictions, ethical norms, and those pesky transaction costs muddy the waters of pure economic theory.

Find out what violations of norms provoked not one, but two old German women, to publicly shame Munger while he was living abroad… and what this has to be with the study of economics and political science.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

“Tough-on-crime” is possibly the most abused political slogan – almost as bad as proposing a balanced budget by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Unlike empty promises to cut spending though, politicians actually keep their promises to go hard on the “bad guys.”

From a public choice perspective, acting tough on crime is the perfect ploy for a politician. Here’s why:

Prison sentences are expensive long term, but cost little up front.

The politicians gets a quick boost in the polls, and society pays the majority of the cost later, once the perpetrators are released.

In short: A good mob needs a good scapegoat.
Tough on crime was the strategy that George HW Bush used to hammer Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.

It’s also why Bill Clinton took time off the campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally disabled man in 1992.

Lastly, it’s why Trump frequently mentions atrocities committed by illegal immigrants in his speeches to packed arenas.

Rachel Elise Barkow is a professor of regulatory law and policy at NYU and author of Prisoners of Politics [Buy it on Amazon] – a comprehensive look at how our criminal justice system has turned the United States into the leader in incarceration. Barkow has come to the conclusion that mass incarceration is a product of too much democracy and not enough data.

Barkow’s Q&A with the Cato Institute’s Clark Neily (formerly of the Institute for Justice) is a fascinating survey of the abuses of power by federal prosecutors, who have turned plea bargains and mandatory minimums into coercive tools to deny the accused their right to a jury trial.

The Framers are rolling their graves.
While there are some silver linings, such as a bi-partisan reform that passed the Senate last year, the bitter truth is that the overall trend is toward more prisoners, more plea bargains, and more politics as usual.

New statutes consistently make it easier for law enforcement to do their job. Prosecutors are captured by special interests in law enforcement, and judges and politicians are afraid to appear lenient in the event that they let the next Willie Horton off the hook.

While no one wants to bring back Dukakis’ “weekend furloughs” for murder convicts, there are a range of common-sense reforms working their way through state and federal legislatures. These include clemency for non-violent, non-serious offenders, as well more data-driven proposals to reduce recividism rates.

A Necessary Function of the Administrative State?
Barkow’s solution to the mass incarceration crisis involves a greater role for the administrative state — the bureaucratic arm of the executive branch, which I’ve covered extensively on my show.

While most of my coverage has been negative, Barkow sheds some light on the question of when rule-by-expert might be preferable to pure democracy or congressional lawmaking. Congress could write the laws, but members of both parties seem to prefer scoring cheap political points through scapegoating over fixing a broken system.

Would an administrative agencies tasked with reforming the criminal justice system be subject to the same lobbying and electoral pressures as Congress?

Can data-driven experts fix the criminal justice system – or do we perhaps need a mass lesson in jury nullification?

Is more democratic participation or less needed to keep our prisons from filling up due for non-violent offenses?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Rachel Elise Barkow’s *Prisoners of Politics* reveals a broken criminal

justice system behind mass incarceration

How to diffuse disagreement and create effecive transpartisan coalitions

How the fundamental principle of American government was transformed from

liberty to democracy

Being against democracy does not make you an elitist.

Far from it.

It might mean that, like Aristotle, you are against demagoguery, or like Randall Holcombe, you are for liberty – even when the majority opposes it.

Today, most Americans think of “democracy” as the principle underlying government. In 1776, most Americans would have said “liberty.” Democracy was an after-thought, meant to keep elite powers at bay.

Hans Herman-Hoppe has called democracy "the God that failed." In his recently revised book Liberty in Peril, Independent Institute research fellow Randall Holcombe elaborates on the history of how the false idol of democracy has undermined freedom in America – and it's not pretty.

We must be reminded that democracy is not always in harmony with liberty.
Our Founders worried that the Constitution might lead to too much democracy, and judging by the results, it's hard to argue they were wrong.

Holcombe provides the long view in his new book.

The transformation of the U.S. from a republic, founded on libertarian principles, to a system of majority rule threatening our liberties didn’t happen overnight.

Listen now to hear the full history from a leading scholar of liberty.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Political echo chambers are dividing the country, say AllSides.com founders

Joan Blades and John Gable