Brexit or Fixit - Barokong

August 18, 2020    Comment   

Brexit or Fixit - Barokong

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. Theprocess 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 optionto 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.

Blueprint for America - Barokong

August 16, 2020    Comment   

Blueprint for America - Barokong

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.

Settlement skulduggery - Barokong

August 12, 2020    Comment   

Settlement skulduggery - Barokong

Andy Koenig had a WSJ oped on a subject getting far too little attention. When the government goes after big companies such as banks, and obtains huge out of court settlements, just where does the money go?

...In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group ["a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors"] has reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America.

...in April ... the Justice Department announced a $5.1 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs. In February Morgan Stanley agreed to a $3.2 billion settlement. Previous targets were Citigroup ($7 billion), J.P. Morgan Chase ($13 billion), and Bank of America,... $16.65 billion... The money does not go to any individual who demonstrably lost money as a result of the banks' actions. Instead,

... a substantial portion is allocated to private, nonprofit organizations drawn from a federally approved list. Some groups on the list—Catholic Charities, for instance—are relatively nonpolitical. Others—La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and more—are anything but.

...Many of these groups engage in voter registration, community organizing and lobbying on liberal policy priorities at every level of government. They also provide grants to other liberal groups not eligible for payouts under the settlements...

...Most of the deals give double credit or more against the settlement amount for every dollar in “donations.” Bank of America’s donation list—the only bank to disclose exactly where it sends its money—shows how this benefits liberal groups. The bank has so far given at least $1.15 million to the National Urban League, which counts as if it were $2.6 million against the bank’s settlement. Similarly, $1.5 million to La Raza takes $3.5 million off the total amount of “consumer relief” owed by the bank...

As part of their “consumer relief” penalties, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase must also pay a minimum $75 million to Community Development Financial Institutions—taxpayer-funded groups propped up by the Obama administration as an alternative to payday lenders. “Housing Counseling Agencies” also get at least $30 million. This essentially circumvents Congress’s recent decision to cut $43 million in federal funds routed to these groups through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The politicians who negotiate the settlements as part of the RMBS Working Group have also directed money to their supporters and states. Illinois’s Democratic attorney general Lisa Madigan announced she had secured $22.5 million from February’s Morgan Stanley deal for her state’s debt-ridden pension funds—a blatant payout to public unions. The deals with J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup yielded a further $344 million for both “consumer relief” and direct payments to pension funds.

New York hit the jackpot too. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, also a Democrat and chairman of the RMBS Working Group, arranged for Morgan Stanley to fork over $400 million to New York nonprofits and $150 million to the state. I wrote about this quite a while ago, when I was astonished to find the Federal Reserve going along with the DOJ and attorneys general, using its "safety and soundness" regulatory power to force banks to give money to activist groups.

This story rings a few bells.

1) Regulation. What's wrong with regulation and economic law is not really "too much" or "too little" -- the standard old argument --but how it works -- the steady politicization of economic law and regulation, the decline in rule-of-law protections, the increasing use of the Administrative state to force political compliance.

Why didn't the banks fight? Why didn't they object to where their money was going? Why do they (except B of A) not even disclose their "charitable" contributions under the settlement? The government, now with the Fed along for the ride, can really make their lives difficult, of course! Hefty speaking fees to likely political officials, a strong revolving door to Washington, and keeping the payments secret are cheap investments to keep this sort of thing at bay.

2) Nonprofits. The public image of nonprofits are Red Cross, or Stanford. As you can see, many "nonprofits" have become a way to funnel money to politics.  I'd like to get rid of "nonprofits," or to the corporate tax and estate tax which creates nonprofits.  I think the good ones will survive. The substitution effect should outweigh the income effect.

3) Spending. Another tired argument is too much vs. too little spending. But look how our government manages to direct A to give to B, all the while keeping the tax and spending off the books.

What to do? Koenig suggests

... Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) introduced a bill in April that would prevent government officials from enforcing settlements that funnel money to third parties, and it needs to gain wider traction with his colleagues. The political shakedowns disguised as public service must end.

This does seem like a practice that Congress could end, this way or others. Any money paid in a legal settlement must go to people actually hurt by the illegal action, or to the US Treasury.

There isn't a magic bullet. The dissolution of rule of law has to be met by, well, laws with rules in them.

Testimony - Barokong

August 11, 2020    Comment   

Testimony - Barokong

I was invited to testify at a hearing of the House budget committee on Sept 14. It's nothing novel or revolutionary, but a chance to put my thoughts together on how to get growth going again, and policy approaches that get past the usual partisan squabbling. Here are my oral remarks. (pdf version here.) The written testimony, with lots of explanation and footnotes, is here. (pdf) (Getting footnotes in html is a pain.)

Chairman Price, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the committee: It is an honor to speak to you today.

Sclerotic growth is our country’s most fundamental economic problem. If we could get back to the three and half percent postwar average, we would, in the next 30 years, triple rather than double the size of the economy—and tax revenues, which would do wonders for our debt problem.

Why has growth halved? The most plausible answer is simple and sensible: Our legal and regulatory system is slowly strangling the golden goose of growth.

How do we fix it? Our national political and economic debate just makes the same points again, louder, and going nowhere. Instead, let us look together for novel and effective policies that can appeal to all sides.

Regulation:

Let’s get past “too much” or “too little” regulation, and fix regulation instead.

Regulation is too discretionary – people can’t read the rules and know what to do. Regulatory decisions take forever. Regulation has lost rule-of-law protections. Agencies are cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled in to one. Most dangerous of all, regulation is becoming more politicized.

Congress can fix this.

Social programs

Let’s get past spending “more” or “less” on social programs, and fix them instead.

Often, if you earn an extra dollar, you lose more than a dollar of benefits. No wonder people get stuck. If we fix these disincentives, we will help people better, encourage growth and opportunity--and in the end we will spend less.

Spend more to spend less.

Spending is a serious problem. But moving spending off the books does not help.

For example, we allow a mortgage interest tax deduction. This is exactly the same as collecting taxes, and sending checks to homeowners – but larger checks for high income people, people who borrow a lot, and people who refinance often.

Suppose we eliminate the mortgage deduction, and put housing subsidies on budget. The resulting homeowner subsidy would surely be a lot smaller, help lower-income people a lot more, and be better targeted at getting people in houses.

The budget would look bigger. But we would really spend less -- and grow more.

Taxes

Tax reform fails because arguments over the level of taxes, subsidies, or redistribution torpedo sensible simplifications. We could achieve tax reform by separating its four confounding issues.

First, determine the structure of taxes, to raise revenue with minimal economic damages, but leave the rates blank. Separately negotiate the rates. Put all tax incentives in a separate subsidy code, preferably as visible on-budget expenditures. Add a separate income-redistribution code. Then necessary big fights over each element need not derail the others.

A massive simplification of the tax code is, I think, more important than the rates – and easier for us to agree on.

Debt and deficits

Each year the CBO correctly declares our long-term debt unsustainable. Yelling louder won’t work.

First, let’s face the big problem: a debt crisis, when the U.S. suddenly needs to borrow a lot and roll over debts, and markets refuse. This, not a slow predictable rise in interest rates and crowding out, strikes me as the biggest problem.  Crises are always sudden and unexpected, like earthquakes and wars. Even Greece could borrow at remarkably low rates. Until, one day, it couldn’t.

The answers are straightforward. Sensible reforms to Social Security and Medicare are on the table. Address underfunded pensions, widespread credit and bailout guarantees.

Buy some insurance. Like every homeowner shopping for a mortgage, the US chooses between a floating rate, lower initially, and a fixed rate, higher initially, but forever insulating the budget from interest rate risks, which are the essential ingredient of a debt crisis. Direct the Treasury and Fed to buy the fixed rate.

Above all, undertake this simple, pro-growth economic policy, and grow out of debt.

Concluding comments

You may object that fundamental reform is not “politically feasible.” Well, what’s “politically feasible” changes fast these days.

Winston Churchill once said that Americans can be trusted to do the right thing, after we’ve tried everything else. Well, we’ve tried everything else. It’s time to do the right thing.

Immigration, trade, and child care - Barokong

August 11, 2020    Comment   

Immigration, trade, and child care - Barokong

Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton want to lower the cost and, presumably, increase the amount of child care. A quick economics quiz: What is the policy change that would have the greatest such effect?

I hope you answered: legal immigration of child care workers! And remove the large number of restrictions on providing child care.  As the WSJ points out in a recenteditorial,

... regulation drives up the cost of care. States set minimums on square feet per child; licensing requirements; ratios for staff-to-children; group sizes. Zoning laws prevent care centers in convenient places such as residential neighborhoods. Regulation also limits options like informal care at grandma’s house or families who share nannies.

On the latter, zoning, for example, forbids commercial activity in residential-zoned areas, like the ones where people live. And WSJ left out the full weight of American labor law and taxation. Anyone who has tried to legally hire a nanny has a good sense of that. (See alsoIvanka Trump's oped  describing the plan.)

Needless to say, that is not the candidates' preferred approach, who were vying with each other to offer federal subsidies. Mr. Trump is, needless to say, simultaneously vowing to deport large number of child-care workers. Mrs Clinton is not making any noises about removing legal restrictions or taxes on low-skill part time employment. (The WJS offers that "Mr. Trump deserves credit for noting" the above comments on regulation, but did not offer a link. If anyone knows where this is, put it in a comment, as I had not heard about it.)

A lot of economics comes down to: Supply competition is the best answer to just about every economic problem.

This is a small example of a spreading disease in American economic policy. The recipe: 1) introduce strong supply and competition restrictions, usually to politically favored groups. Soon, however, those groups start charging higher prices. So 2) give subsidies so people can pay the higher prices induced by 1). It's perfect: now both sides depend on politicians. See, most egregiously, health care and housing.

The trouble is, you can only make one thing (child care, now) cheaper by making everything else more expensive. A tax credit for child care means higher taxes on everything else. We're running out of everything elses fast!

This is a good moment for supply and demand, and a good illustration of how this basic economic tool gives insights that are not obvious.

(If you can't see the supply and demand graph, try here.)  Demand slopes down. The less child care costs, the more of it people buy.  Supply curve slopes up. If child care workers can charge more, more people take those jobs or set up child care businesses.

The red graph shows what happens if we allow lots of immigration, and also deregulate supply. The supply curve shifts to the right -- more child care offered at the same price. Moreover, if we allow immigration, the supply curve becomes flatter -- a smaller increase in price produces a larger increase in the amount of child care.

There is a very important distinction between domestic and international supply. In the end, the US workforce is limited. The more people who go in to child care, the fewer do something else. The upward slope of the child-care supply curve represents an inward shift of the supply curves of everything else, meaning higher prices and lower quantities. Immigration gives us a free upward slope.

This graph analyzes a federal subsidy for child care. If people get a $100 subsidy, they are willing to pay $100 more for the same amount of child care, so the demand curve goes up by $100, as shown. I drew the supply curves with more extreme slopes, to make a deeper point.

The "restricted" supply curve is nearly vertical. This is what happens in an industry with strong supply restrictions, like, say, epi-pens. The subsidy means people are willing to pay $100 more. With no more supply forthcoming, the result is simply that people pay $100 more and get the same quantity.

Subsidizing something with restricted supply does not benefit consumers. It just raises the price and benefits the producers.

The consumers, unaware of what's going on, become dependent on the subsidy of course. See health care and education.

With lots of supply competition, and a flat supply curve, the subsidy instead raises the quantity of child care delivered, which is presumably what both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump desire from the policy. A subsidy only increases quantities if there is lots of supply competition and easy entry.

The journal gets this

Mrs. Clinton raises the Trump offer in every regard, from more Head Start funding to salary support for day-care workers. And if you think care is expensive now, wait until Mrs. Clinton wades in. She likes to say that child care can be more expensive than college tuition, which is false. The irony is that her day-care blowout would recreate what has made college notoriously expensive—large subsidies for the provider and buyer. Day-care centers and pre-Ks could raise prices, confident that government will cover the increase.

The graph offers a little more precision. Subsidies only raise college expenses because of restricted supply. The Administration's war on for profit colleges unambiguously pushes the supply curve to the left.

On the human side of our immigration restrictions, I recommend a beautiful New Yorker article by Rachel Aviv on the life of a woman who immigrated illegally from the Phillippines to care for the children of... well, people like the Trumps and Clintons. The US will not kick out illegal immigrants because deep down we know that without them the cost of child care will skyrocket. But the cost to a low-wage worker of illegal status -- never being able to see family again -- is worth remembering.

The New Yorker article makes clear also how much immigration to the US is driven by desperate conditions elsewhere. If you don't want immigration to the US, the best possible solution is to aggressively buy what other countries have to sell, so people can make a living there. Needless to say, neither Mr. Trump nor Mrs. Clinton seem at all aware of this obvious connection.

(Vaguely competent foreign policy is the second best possible solution. Refugees from Syria and Honduras would not be coming here if we had not let their country fall apart, or fueled a drug war.)

Most child care is not Mrs. Trump, handing off children to a loving nanny in Manhattan as she speeds off to her job as.. whatever it is she does. Tellingly, the Trump plan takes the form of a tax credit and a new addition to the bewildering number of tax sheltered savings vehicles. What, doesn't everyone have a tax lawyer? A lot of child care is done off the books, for people who also work off the books.  This is also a good moment to reflect on the wisdom of the new ban-cash movement plus e-verify so that every single transaction in the US is taxed and appropriately monitored for compliance with labor laws, licensing, OSHA, and so on...

Boot Camp - Barokong

June 03, 2020    Comment   

Boot Camp - Barokong

The Hoover Institution will host another "Policy Boot Camp" August 16-22. See here for details and how to apply. It's a one-week survey of serious policy analysis.

The program includes  economists such as John Taylor, Ed Lazear, Amit Seru, Caroline Hoxby, Erik Hurst, and yours truly. Learn about international affairs from H.R. McMaster, Jim Mattis and  Condoleezza Rice. Niall Ferguson on Nationalism vs. Globalism and Bjorn Lomborg on climate should be worth it all on their own. And many more.

It's designed for "college students and recent graduates," but I think that is a bit elastic. Food and lodging free.

Update: in response to a commenter. Yes, PhD students and even those a year or two out are welcome.

School of sustainability - Barokong

May 04, 2020    Comment   

School of sustainability - Barokong

In a few recent posts, I was critical of university endowment practices. Why build up a stock of investment, rather than invest in faculty, research, or other core activities? Why wall that pile of assets from being spent, especially when budgets are cratering in a pandemic? When we see businesses with piles of cash, we infer they don't have any good investment projects, and the piles are ripe for diversion to bad ideas.

But universities are non-profits, and one major piece of being a non-profit is that the business is protected from the market for corporate control. If you see a business wasting money on bad investments, buy up the stock, fire management, and run it right. Repurchases were part of an earlier reform effort, to stop management from wasting money on aggrandizing projects.

Perhaps restrictions on endowment spending serve a somewhat parallel function for universities. Perhaps I was wrong to criticize so harshly.

These thoughts are brought to mind by Stanford's announcement of a new school "focused on climate and sustainability." A "school" is bigger than a center, an institute, a department, a division. Stanford has seven "schools," Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities & Sciences, Law, Medicine, and, yes, Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.

Why a new school? It will

"amplify our contributions in education, research and impact further by aligning people and resources more effectively.

Says university President Tessier-Lavigne. Vice Provost Kathryn Moller will

"lead an inclusive process designing the school’s structure....consult with key internal and external stakeholders to develop a school organization that amplifies faculty and student contributions to address the most urgent climate and sustainability challenges."

creating an

"impact-focused community, with new opportunities to enhance the impact of their work on the issues they deeply care about,”

"Impact" and "amplify" repeat quite a few times.

Importantly for a university, it will

run degree-granting programs for undergraduate and graduate students.

It will

include a sustainability neighborhood that would provide place-based education and infuse sustainability in the education of all students across campus...

"Infuse" is a lovely word. Inculcate might be better. Indoctrinate might not be far off.

In a revealing quote,

“Living sustainably on our planet requires more than advocacy, we need deep scholarship,” said Sally Benson, co-director of the Precourt Institute for Energy. “The paradigm that’s led us to the world we have today is based on growth that’s not sustainable. ... We need to transition to an economy where more value is created by restoring and preserving Earth’s resources than by activities that degrade and deplete them. This school will provide a home to support the scholarship needed to realize this vision.”

"Advocacy" comes first. Scholarship is an addendum to advocacy. The question whether our current paradigm  produces "growth" that is "sustainable" is apparently settled before the institute even gets going on that scholarship. All the other schools are organized around questions. This is is organized around an answer.

(Never mind our "paradigm," regulated capitalism, is the only one that produced the environmental movement, and is rapidly transforming all on its own. And just what does "sustainable" mean? Of course nobody wrestles with the definition in any of these documents.  I somehow suspect it is not the dictionary definition of "can growth go on," Jones/Gordon debate over the end of ideas, and and will not include the effect of regulation or other disincentives on idea-driven growth. This is not the sustainable you're looking for. Suppose a scholarly paper finds that markets, property rights, and corporate structure produce the most "sustainable" growth by any metric. Will that result be welcome?)

If you get the faint impression that this is an advocacy-based initiative, I would not blame you. I will be curious to see how many climate skeptics, geoengineers, nuclear power plant designers,  GMO foods experts, they hire. Heck, it will be interesting to see if they hire any registered Republicans.

Where did this idea come from? A

...committee, ... carried out a campus survey, held five open forums, met with faculty, staff, students and other stakeholders from across the university, and interviewed past and current campus leaders.

A consistent message from those conversations was an enthusiasm for the idea that Stanford’s ambition and commitment to climate and sustainability must be as large as the challenge, according to Diffenbaugh. “We heard that sustainability should be a top priority in research, education and impact,” he said. “We also heard that the structure should be inclusive and that sustainability needs to be infused in all aspects of the university.”

My emphasis. They surveyed the inmates to find out how to run the asylum. Thank goodness however, that by walling it off in a separate school, "sustainability" will not be "infused" in all aspects of the university, Hoover for example. And be thankful for small things. It's not officially a school for climate, sustainability, social justice, diversity, equity, and so forth.

Well, maybe  you are of a different frame of mind, and climate and "sustainability" still rings as your top worries, over war, civil or nuclear, pandemic, crop failure, bio terrorism, or any of the other civilization-ending possibilities out there. (We shall see just how sustainable the school of sustainability will turn out to be.) Perhaps you too think the time for inquiry is over and the time for "advocacy" is now, and we'll all go right back to business as usual post Covid.

Still, perhaps you too will think it wise that university presidents can't spend the whole endowment in a year on the Next Big Idea. After all, the next president might survey Hoover, and decide we need a school devoted to "advocating" and achieving "impact" in a School of Freedom, devoted to personal, economic, political and social freedom; constitutional rule of law, relieving global poverty and improving the environment through the only known method, widespread idea-based economic growth. The President might name Dierdre McCloskey to run it. Well, it's not likely, but you get the point.

Of course, I should acknowledge the other reality of campus life. When you hear such gobbledygook, search for something deeper. A "school for sustainability and climate," so clearly structured to advocate and inculcate rather than research and debate, is a superb fund-raising tool to attract wealthy tech titans and other non-profit organizations. There are big economies of scale in fundraising, "big" projects raise more money than yet another center, project, initiative, program. That view explains a new "school" very well.  My School of Freedom might raise $12.

Viewed this way, our leaders are doing a great job.

Update: Actually there is something like a school of freedom at Stanford: Hoover. OK, we're not a "school" by a long shot, but our motto is "ideas defining a free society." And I take a little self-interested pleasure in the new school. Quite a few faithful Stanford alumni donors come our way when they decide the rest of the university has gone nuts. We're still here!