Blueprint for America

"Blueprint for America" is a collection of essays, organized, edited and inspired by George P. Shultz. You can get an overview and chapter by chapter pdfs here. The hardcover will be available from Amazon or Hoover Press October 1.

Some of the inspiration for this project came from the remarkable 1980 memo (here) to President-elect Ronald Reagan from his Coordinating Committee on Economic Policy.

Like that memo, this is a book about governance, not politics.  It's not partisan -- copies are being sent to both campaigns. It's not about choosing or spinning policies to attract voters or win elections.

The book is about long-term policies and policy frameworks -- how policy is made, return to rule of law, is as important as what the policy is --  that can fix America's problems. It focuses on what we think are the important issues as well as policies to address those issues -- it does not address every passion of the latest two-week news cycle.

The book comprises the answers we would give to an incoming Administration of any party, or incoming Congress, if they asked us for a policy package that is best for the long-term welfare of the country.

The chapters, to whet your appetite:

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: The Domestic Landscape by Michael J. Boskin
IN BRIEF: Spending by George P. Shultz
CHAPTER 2: Entitlements and the Budget by John F. Cogan
CHAPTER 3: A Blueprint for Tax Reform by Michael J. Boskin
CHAPTER 4: Transformational Health Care Reform by Scott W. Atlas
CHAPTER 5: Reforming Regulation by Michael J. Boskin
CHAPTER 6: National and International Monetary Reform by John B. Taylor
CHAPTER 7: A Blueprint for Effective Financial Reform by John H. Cochrane
IN BRIEF: National Human Resources by George P. Shultz
CHAPTER 8: Education and the Nation’s Future by Eric A. Hanushek
CHAPTER 9: Trade and Immigration by John H. Cochrane
IN BRIEF: A World Awash in Change
CHAPTER 10: Restoring Our National Security by James O. Ellis Jr., James N. Mattis, and Kori Schake
CHAPTER 11: Redefining Energy Security by James O. Ellis Jr.
CHAPTER 12: Diplomacy in a Time of Transition by James E. Goodby
CLOSING NOTE: The Art and Practice of Governance by George P. Shultz

My chapter on a Blueprint for Effective Financial Reform is a better version of the talk on Equity Financed banking which I posted here. (The talk was based on the paper. Now you have the paper.)

My chapter on Trade and Immigration is new, and an uncompromising red-meat free-market view. I don't think one should compromise centuries old economic understanding just because it's not politically popular at the moment.
 
If you got this far, you might also be interested in my Economic Growth essay written for a parallel but similar project.

Immigration sentiment

Above, a lovely graph from The Conversation. A common story says that opposition to immigration comes from people in high-immigrant communities, who suffer externalities from the presence of many immigrants. It is not true.

Brexit or Fixit

Many commenters compare Brexit to the American revolution. I think the constitutional convention is a better analogy for the moment and challenge ahead. A first attempt at union resulted in an unworkable Federal structure. Europe needs a constitutional convention to fix its union.

The EU's first attempt was basically aristocratic/technocratic. Brussels tells the peasants what to do. The EU  needs a hardy dose of accountability, representation, checks and balances -- all the beautiful structures of the US Constitution. What little thought the EU put in to these matters is clearly wanting.

America did not wait for a state to leave. But, though even the Pope admits the EU structure wasn't working, the EU needed this wake up call. Bring the UK to the convention, and bring them back. Fixit. (#Fixit?)


Out of control economic regulation, labor laws, mandated social programs and "60% of British laws are made in Brussels" (I don't know the source of the widely quoted number, but the sentiment is as important as the fact)  are the most sensible arguments I heard for Brexit.

Fraser Nelson's WSJ essay expressed this well

The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary... Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.

The important point, I think, is not the outcome -- too much silly regulation, labor laws, and so on. The process is the important point.

America is, in my opinion, also a victim of stifling economic regulation, job-killing labor laws, incentive-destroying social programs. But, we still have a process in place -- in trouble, creaky, under attack by results-at-any-cost progressivisim.  But we have a process. Regulations are supposed to be authorized by Congress; should follow the Administrative Procedures act, with public comment, cost benefit analysis, and so forth; can be challenged administratively and then in court; and Congress itself can pass laws over-ruling regulators (which the President can veto, as he has).  Europe is missing this process; and european law is even worse than economic regulation here.

Last week's immigration ruling is an example of the same forces under strain in the US. I happen to agree with the Administration on policy grounds: People who have been here their whole lives, parents of US citizen children, should not face the constant risk of deportation, and should be allowed to work legally. (I had no idea there was such a thing as a "work permit" in the US, until President Obama mentioned it.) But, Congress passed silly laws mandating the opposite, and the Administration moved beyond its authority. When States are suing the Administration in the Supreme Court over its actions, we are in danger of Texit. But at least Texas can sue. Britain had no similar way to object to EU edicts.

Process matters, because democracy needs to form consensus and acceptance. When you force things down people's throats, they eventually gag.

Again quoting WSJ

Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic. 

The answer for Europe is that it must allow people the option to change things they don't like. And 1787, not 1776 is the inspiration.

On economics, I think it's overblown.

Will this be a disaster for the British economy? Probably not. Norway, Switzerland, and Japan seem to get along.  If the UK decided to be a free economy free trade and open banking center, it could do wonders.

It is nice to see a consensus (though sometimes implicit) on the advantages of free trade. Leave did not argue for the importance of preserving British jobs with trade restrictions.  Alas, "free trade" now means "access to markets" or managed mercantilism.

The benefits of a continent-wide open labor market are easy to see in my business. As I visit universities around Europe, the typical smart young professor might come from Slovakia, have done an undergraduate degree in Spain, Masters' in the UK, PhD in Italy, is working in Sweden, with spouse working in London. The result is a resurgence of European universities, now dramatically better than they were two decades ago. The irony of Brexit is that English is the common language of Europe, making this integration possible.

So why are markets going so wild? I think political follow-on is very unstable. If Brexit leads to Britain becoming Norway it's not a big deal. If the UK breaks up, and the EU breaks up, we have big trouble ahead. Fixit instead.

Bush v. Reagan on Immigration

Scott Summner posted this beautiful exchange between Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. on immigration. Direct link (youtube).

Scott titles the post "when the GOP still had some decency," which I think he should more accurately state as "when the two leading GOP presidential candidates still had some decency." There are many people in the party -- in Congress, governors, state legislators, losing Presidential candidates, in Republican think tanks and so forth --with quite sensible ideas on immigration, and with the kind of personal decency Scott notices in the video, and lacking of the presidential candidates today.  There are also many decent and sensible Democrats too.

In this era that the battles within parties are as important as those between them, we have to get out of the habit of tarring whole parties with the behaviors and attitudes of some people in them.

Scott also characterizes the debate as "Bush stakes out a very liberal position on immigration, and then Reagan responds from a position even further to the left.." That's not quite accurate either. While it's accurate that the "left" wants to allow "undocumented immigrants" access to schools and services,  they typically do not want to open labor markets. Both Bush and Reagan explicitly welcomed people to come and work. Letting people come and not letting them work is a recipe for disaster. These are now libertarian positions, not right vs. left.

But I'm quibbling. Thanks Scott for a great video.

Open Borders

Alex Tabarrok has a very nice and very short piece at the Atlantic, The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely. (HT Marginal Revolution)

In the Soviet era, there were walls and guards with guns, and we deplored that people were not allowed to cross the border. Is it that different that the guards with guns are on the other side of the walls?

If you're a liberal, you should cheer the policy with the greatest chance of elevating the world's poor and reducing global inequality. If you're a conservative, believe in the rights of individuals and freedom, don't like minimum wages, unions, protectionism, and government control, it makes little sense to switch sides on this one issue.

Adam Davidson on Immigration

Illustration by Andrew Rae, source New York Times

Adam Davidson has a very nice New York Times Magazine article, "Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant", in favor of "radically open borders."

Here's how a top professional journalist and writer puts together the central argument, so much more cleanly than I can do it:

So why don’t we open up?

The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls. If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.

But immigrants aren’t oranges. It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.

Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified. But it feels so correct, so logical. And it’s not just people like my grandfather making that argument. Our government policy is rooted in it.

The single greatest bit of evidence disproving the Lump of Labor idea comes from research about the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States. According to David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, roughly 45,000 of them were of working age and moved to Miami; in four months, the city’s labor supply increased by 7 percent. Card found that for people already working in Miami, this sudden influx had no measurable impact on wages or employment. His paper was the most important of a series of revolutionary studies that transformed how economists think about immigration. Before, standard economic models held that immigrants cause long-term benefits, but at the cost of short-term pain in the form of lower wages and greater unemployment for natives. But most economists now believe that Card’s findings were correct: Immigrants bring long-term benefits at no measurable short-term cost.

Needless to say the "lump of labor" fallacy pervades politics, policy, and popular discussion on more than immigration. But Adam doesn't bother with the 100 other fallacies.

A beautiful stylistic choice: Adam's antagonist is ... his grandfather. That lets Adam have an anonymous, sympathetic antagonist, who is slowly changing his mind in Adam's favor. Adam doesn't have to pick on a particular individual or set of individuals with complex opinions; he doesn't resort to the horrible vague antagonist, "some think;" and he avoids the usual partisan politics and vilification of so much political blogging and editorial writing.

Students: notice concrete not abstract words. "Using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones."  Not "Using earned income to demand goods and services."

The case for open borders

Alex Tabarrok has a splendid post "the case for open borders" on Marginal Revolution.

Along the way he points to "Economics and Immigration: Trillion Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" by Michael Clemens and forthcoming Journal of Economic Perspectives, "The Domestic Economic Impacts of Immigration" by David Roodman and "The case for Open Borders" by Dylan Matthews, a Bryan Caplan interview and story on vox. All are worth reading.

1) Women

Anecdotes and analogies are important for how we understand events, beyond equations and tables. Bryan makes this point, with a lovely "elevator pitch" metaphor. Bryan comes up with a good story as well, that I hadn't thought of:

How much has the entry of women to the labor force lowered men's jobs and wages? (I was tempted to write "access to jobs," but someone might take it seriously!)  Should the US government have prohibited women from entering the labor force, in order to shore up the wages of men?

The increase in women's labor force participation was huge -- from 32% to 60%, resulting in an increase in overall labor force participation from 59% to 67% of the population from 1960 to 2000. 8% of 320 million is 26 million, so we're talking about a lot of extra people working.

The answer to the first question is surely yes, but not a lot. 26 million men did not lose their jobs so women could work.  And the answer to the second question is surely no.


Put similarly, should we be glad of falling birthrates because that means far fewer young people coming to compete for the jobs of older people?  Are countries like Japan and Europe breathing a sigh of relief that there are not a lot of youngsters pushing down wages?

David Roodman's excellent quantiative review makes the point well

The debate over the economic impacts of immigration can be seen as a battle between metaphors. Is an economy like a pie, with a set number of jobs, so that one person’s employment gain is another’s loss? Or is it like a church congregation, which one person can join to experience communion and fellowship without costing anyone else the same?

To a first approximation the answer is clear: the latter.

2) Charity

Roodman starts with

My client GiveWell, working closely with the foundation Good Ventures through the Open Philanthropy Project, is seriously considering labor mobility as a cause to which Good Ventures should commit resources:

It appears to us that moving from a lower-income country to a higher-income country can bring about enormous increases in a person’s income (e.g., multiplying it several-fold), dwarfing the effect of any direct-aid intervention we’re aware of.

I found it interesting that GiveWell commissioned the study. Many of our charities send cows, goats, adventuresome undergraduates and high school students anxious to improve their college admissions chances to Do Good in foreign villages. If you really want to improve their standard of living, letting them work in the US is far more effective. MR says "plaudits are due Give Well," and I agree.

3) The wedge

How much is the world losing overall by keeping people from moving? Clemens review the literature

For the elimination of trade policy barriers and capital flow barriers, the estimated gains amount to less than a few percent of world  GDP.  For labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP.

That's a lot.

4) Inequality

Bryan and Alex have been adding another point. Letting people work in the US lowers, and has lowered global inequality. Letting foreigners sell things in the US has done the same.

Immigration reading

Does Economics 101 Apply to Immigration? by Robert VerBruggen, a review of George Borjas' new book Immigration Economics.

The question is central to the immigration debate. If new people come in, do they depress the wages of competing workers here, and if so how much? "But it's 'suprisingly difficult' to demonstrate that this actually happens, according to the famed Harvard labor economist George Borjas. Very good review, need to read the book.

Of course, protectionism 101 still applies. If cheap Chinese sneakers come in, do they depress the profits of competing sneaker producers here? Yes. Does that mean we wall off trade? No, but neither ignore its distributional consequences.

Immigration and wages

Following up on my last immigration post, a thought occurred to me.

The most common objection is the claim that letting immigrants in will hurt American wages. Before, I've addressed this on its merits: If labor doesn't move, capital will. Your doctor's lower wages are your lower health costs. Immigrants come for wide open jobs, and to start new businesses. And so on.

What occurs to me this morning is the inconsistency that conservatives make this argument.

Suppose it were true. Would that mean the government should keep out migrants to keep American wages up?

Well, do you believe that the Federal government should mandate a large minimum wage, to raise American’s wages? Do you believe that the Federal Government should ban imports and subsidize exports, to raise American’s wages? Do you believe that the Federal Government should give more power to unions, to raise American’s wages? Do you believe that the Federal Government should pass even more stringent rules in its own contracts to pay higher wages? Do you believe that the government should pass more licensing restrictions, to lessen competition and raise American's wages? Should Illinois restrict people Indianans working in Illinois, to keep up Illinoisans' wages?

These are all the same sorts of steps. At least people who believe all these wrong things believe them together. It makes no sense whatsoever to oppose, correctly, all of these counterproductive economic interventions, but to support exactly the same intervention aimed at immigrants.

As usual in the immigration debate, incoherence is a sign that the real arguments are not the ones people are talking about.  On both sides. 

The optimal number of immigrants

Hoover's Peregrine asked me to write an essay with the title, "What is the optimal number of immigrants to the U.S?"  (Original version and prettier formatting here. Also a related podcast here.)

My answer:

Two billion, two million, fifty-two thousand and thirty-five (2,002,052,035). Seriously.

The United States is made up of three and a half million square miles, with 84 people per square mile. The United Kingdom has 650 people per square mile. If we let in two billion people, we’ll have no more population density than the UK.

Why the UK? Well, it seems really pretty country and none too crowded on “Masterpiece Theater.” The Netherlands is also attractive with 1,250 people per square mile, so maybe four billion. Okay, maybe more of the US is uninhabitable desert or tundra, so maybe only one billion. However you cut it, the US still looks severely underpopulated relative to many other pleasant advanced countries.

As you can see by my playful calculation, the title of this essay asks the wrong question.

What is the optimal number of imported tomatoes? Soviet central planners tried to figure things out this way. Americans shouldn’t. We should decide on the optimal terms on which tomatoes can be imported, and then let the market decide the number. Similarly, we should debate what the optimal terms for immigration are – How will we let people immigrate? What kind of people? – so that the vast majority of such immigrants are a net benefit to the US. Then, let as many come as want to. On the right terms, the number will self-regulate.

Econ 101: Figure out the price, set the rules of the game; don’t decide the quantity, or determine the outcome. When a society sets target quantities, or sets quotas, as the U.S. does now with immigration, the result is generally a calamitous waste. With an immigrant quota, an entrepreneur who could come to the U.S. and start a billion dollar business faces the same restriction as everyone else. The potential Albert Einstein or Sergey Brin has no way to signal just how much his contribution to our society would be.

Why fear immigrants? You might fear they will overuse social services. Morally, just why your taxes should support an unfortunate who happened to be born in Maine and not one who happened to be born in Guadalajara is an interesting question, but leave that aside for now. It’s easy enough to structure a deal that protects the finances of the welfare state. Immigrants would pay a bond at the border, say $5,000. If they run out of money, are convicted of a crime, don’t have health insurance, or whatever, the bond pays for their ticket home. Alternatively, the government could establish an asset and income test: immigrants must show $10,000 in assets and either a job within 6 months or visible business or asset income.

In any case, welfare is a red herring. Immigrants might go to France for a welfare state. The vast majority of immigrants to the US come to work, and pay taxes. Overuse of social services is simply not a problem. But if you worry about it, it’s easy to structure the deal.

You might fear that immigrants compete for jobs, and drive down American wages. Again, this is not demonstrably a serious problem. If labor does not move in, capital – factories and farms -- moves out and wages go down anyway. Immigrants come to work in wide-open industries with lots of jobs, not those where there are few jobs and many workers. Thus, restrictions on immigration do little, in the long run of an open economy such as the US, to “protect” wages. To the extent wage-boosting immigration restrictions can work, the higher wages translate into higher prices to American consumers. The country as a whole – especially low-income consumers who tend to shop at Wal-Mart and benefit the most from low-priced goods – is not better off.

And finally, if it did work, restricting labor benefits some American workers by hurting Mexican workers. Is it really America’s place in the world to take opportunities from poor Mexicans to subsidize our workers’ standard of living? We are a strange country that rigorously prohibits employment discrimination “because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group, or accent….” [EEOC] and then requires such discrimination because of, well, birthplace.

But if that’s a worry, fine. The government could license protected occupations such that only US citizens can hold the protected occupational licenses. Too intrusive? Well, that’s what we’re trying to do by keeping people out, and good policy is not produced by putting nice appearances on nasty policies.

More seriously, one can worry that our society quickly absorbs educated people: engineers, programmers, venture capitalists, MBAs, and professors, but does not quickly absorb people with less education. If the low-skill, low-assimilation objection has merit, let in anyone with specific skills and credentials. Let’s talk about the terms, not the numbers.

Maybe you worry about social values. One can easily demand that immigrants speak English, and have a vague understanding of American institutions, history, and law, though we don’t require this of our citizens. Fine. Let’s talk about the deal, not the numbers.

Maybe you worry, how will we build homes and find jobs for all these people? “We” don’t. They will. Markets, not the government, already provides homes and jobs for citizens. And anyway, aren’t we supposed to be worried about our stagnant economy? Everyone wants more housing construction in the US, yet there are only so many people who need only so many houses. Imagine the construction boom from millions of additional immigrants each year. Our ancestors did not need the American Indian Federal Government to provide them jobs or build them houses. Neither do new immigrants.

The first order issue facing the US is the ridiculous number of talented people who are forced to leave after visiting, often getting engineering diplomas from US colleges, and our mistreatment of de-facto immigrants who are here. Anyone who gets a degree here should be able to stay. Instead, we kick them out. Another 11 million people are here, working hard, paying taxes, owning property, but scurrying around in semi-legal status. This is a national embarrassment. We criticize other nations for “apartheid” when they deny legal status to people who have been living there for decades, or even generations. Yet one in twenty people living within US borders suffers the same fate.

If you’ve been here x years, have a job, stayed out of trouble, then you should get to stay. If we let everyone else who wants to migrate on these same terms, then we don’t have to worry about the unfairness of letting illegals “jump the line.” Get the terms right, and there will be no lines and no unfairness.

Let’s talk about the deal, not the numbers. For every objection to open immigration, it’s easy enough to find terms of the deal to resolve the matter. The right terms will allow the optimal amount of immigration to settle itself, so that no apparatchik in Washington has to come up with a number. Once we get the terms right, every person who can benefit our society will come, and America will truly be a great nation of great immigrants again.

*****

If I were to write it again, I might add doctors and nurses. While revising "after the ACA," an essay on health issues,  I realized how immigration and health economics are linked. We keep doctors and nurses out. And we bemoan how expensive health care has become. Well, immigration restrictions are designed to keep American wages up, and there they are, working as promised. But keeping doctor wages up means keeping your health costs up. The principle applies everywhere.

I also have been looking for a more forceful analogy for  the plight of 11 million "illegal alien" (right) or "undocumented workers" (left) (I would like to find a neutral, unpoliticized word). Here we have 11 million people, living among us, often for decades or their whole lives, working here, owning houses and cars, starting businesses, paying taxes, taking part in our society... and yet with few legal rights. They can't really sue if swindled, they certainly can't vote on how the society they live in works, they can't get driver's licenses, they live in constant fear.

Watching some of the civil rights anniversaries, perhaps the plight of African-Americans in the 50s south is a resonant example. They had similarly few legal rights and in particular the right to vote. We are outraged. Why are we not outraged at the same plight of 11 million immigrants? OK, they are "illegal." But Jim Crow had the full force of law too.  Does "they should respect the law" apply to segregation laws? The fugitive slave act was a law too. Not all laws are good. And "they should get in line and follow the law" is empty -- it is simply impossible for the average migrant from Mexico, China, or India to come legally to the US.

It's not a perfect analogy. There is not a KKK or systematic violence against immigrants.  Historical analogies too quickly trivialize the past, like calling people Nazis.  But I do think that eventually we will see our current treatment of immigrants as an almost similar moral outrage, and good analogies to things we rightly deplore are worth pursuing. I need better ones.