Latest news with #ThomasSowell
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trade-offs and solutions for judicial officers
Indiana legislators both added and eliminated courts in the recent legislative session. (Getty Images) We are living in interesting times. Maybe you've noticed. And I'm not just talking about the vehicles in the Statehouse parking lot, or the hot history takes on social media. Hopefully, you've also detected the great reshuffling of priorities taking place right before our eyes. Less money from the federal government and pervasive economic uncertainty are wreaking havoc on the state budget. Property tax relief is putting pressure on local governments to find new revenue or reduce services. And Medicaid growth is forcing smokers to pay more for their already expensive habit. The shakeup has even come to a courtroom near you. Under the recently passed HEA 1144, some locales, notably the ever-expanding Hamilton County, will get new judicial officers. Others, like the demographically challenged Blackford County, will see theirs taken away. All this rebalancing shows policymakers engaged in the perennial contest between trade-offs and solutions. Thomas Sowell described the history of this contest in his classic A Conflict of Visions. According to Sowell, optimizing trade-offs is the mission of those who operate under what he terms the constrained vision of human nature, which sees us all irredeemably imperfect and lacking the capacity for solutions. The yin to this yang is Sowell's unconstrained vision, which sees humankind as perfectible and its challenges as ultimately solvable. Indiana lawmakers approve reduced court eliminations HEA 1144 shows the constrained view ascendant. Lawmakers like Rep. Chris Jeter and Sen. Liz Brown recognize it is unsustainable to continually add courts without examining the system in its entirety. We can't materialize judicial officers from thin air. So, when judges in overworked counties ask for more resources, it makes sense for lawmakers to find a way to pay for it. The simple trade-off is to cut underutilized courts. But the unconstrained vision should not be ignored. It is indisputably a world of finite resources. There is only so much time, so much money, and so much energy to go around. And yet, over tens of thousands of years, our species has demonstrated an uncanny ability to expand the realm of the possible. Lives have been lengthened, wealth has been created, and new sources of power have been tapped. In the fullness of time and imagination, there may be solutions after all. The judicial utilization problem perfectly illustrates a policy challenge that would benefit from both the constrained and unconstrained views. According to the 2024 Weighted Caseload Measures, the judiciary is operating at 102% capacity, meaning we collectively have almost exactly the right number of judges we need. It's just that some courts are overloaded while others are underused. The simple solution is to put the underused courts to work. I'm guessing the put-the-judges-to-work solution looks a lot better to most Hoosiers than the eliminate-the-judges-in-my-county trade-off. And fortunately, we have a model that will allow us to actively pursue the solution without settling for the trade-off. Historically, judges 'rode circuit,' traveling on horseback from town to town to hear cases. This allowed sparsely populated areas to pool their resources and create a justice system they couldn't otherwise afford in their small frontier communities. A vestige of this system survives in Indiana to this day: our smallest community, Ohio County, shares a circuit court with its much larger neighbor, Dearborn County. In our more urbanized society, the design problem is different, but the circuit court solution is still relevant. Today, it's not about pooling resources but about projecting resources where they're needed. Still, sharing what we have is the solution. The Supreme Court has already divided the state into 26 administrative districts. With small rule changes, the judges in these districts could be allowed to hear cases across county lines. No horses required. Instead, through the magic of Zoom and the miracle of electronic filing, our existing judicial officers can do the work in their existing chambers. In the end, Sowell's dichotomy is a brilliant way to think about the ongoing battle of ideas, but, as he admits, not everyone has chosen a side. So, it is odd that it has become something of a mantra to say that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Let's wait before we carve that in stone. Certainly, we are constrained, but we are not stagnant. Most importantly, we are not doomed to false choices. For this reason, and with all due respect to Sowell, I prefer another classic work on trade-offs and solutions: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. When confronted with a scenario designed to guarantee failure, Kirk famously changed the conditions of the test. Spock sacrificed himself for the benefit of his crew. They both rejected the no-win scenario. So should we. Judging from recent comments, legislators may be on the same page. In his remarks on final passage of HEA 1144, Rep. Jeter acknowledged that there would be an ongoing effort to get our judges 'in the right spots.' If that effort comes to fruition, and if lawmakers change the conditions to make that possible, they may be more unconstrained than they think. They may be ready to boldly seek out new solutions like those that worked before. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Wall Street Journal
11-05-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Why Bad Economics Thrives
Regarding 'Notable & Quotable: Thomas Sowell on Tariffs' (April 4): Thanks to the Journal for reprinting the thoughts of a national treasure. Here is another gem from his book 'Basic Economics' (2000): 'Another reason for public support for protectionism is that many economists do not bother to answer either the special interests or those who oppose free trade for ideological reasons. The arguments of both have essentially been refuted centuries ago and are now regarded within the economics profession as beneath contempt.' Thomas Murphy
Time of India
21-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
How to profit from consumer trade-offs
'There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs'-Thomas Sowell. Our life runs on trade-offs. Brands are chosen on trade-offs. Even some of the negative characters portrayed in religious epics trade off on their positive traits before they decide to act. So, what's new about trade-offs? Recent research has opened many interesting insights into this domain; besides, these research pieces enable a marketer to think in an era where they are hard pressed both for time and strategies due to competitive pressures. Human beings seem to be created to make use of trade-offs. Perceived pleasure and loss of something that is traded off in almost every decision we make, and neuro research has established the importance of emotional feeling and rational thinking being useful in decision making, contrary to the widely held beliefs on completely rational decisions in decision making with respect to high involvement purchases. In 1847, the Governor of Gomm (Mauritius) issued a limited-edition stamps (500 red ones and 500 blue ones) to commemorate the fifth anniversary of his Government. The engraver made a mistake with respect to the stamps. Instead of 'Post Paid', the stamps had Post Office' on them. Subsequently after a century, two of these stamps costing 2 p each were sold to a collector, in an auction for US $3.5 million !Citizen the watch brand in Feb 2025, introduced a limited-edition Citizen 8/831 Mechanical model (restricted to 1800 pieces worldwide) at a price of US$1800. The examples reflect that trade offs associated with consumer behavior is not just limited to functional aspects of an offering ; they may also include social signaling value. Triggers on insights A paper published in Journal of Consumer Research (Dec 2024) , differentiates between two categories of consumers, one category consistently preferring quantity over quality in their purchases and the other category the other way over. We all decide on this simple criterion in various buying contexts. The paper found that consumers who have the quantity criteria exhibited behaviors like spending more, borrowing more and accruing more debt ( interestingly, such a direction of thinking could also be applied to the data on credit cards and huge data sets are available given the usage of cards in a retail context). Another research paper that was published in Journal of European Marketing (Dec 2024) suggests that whenever consumers perceive anthropomorphism with respect to objects /products having human like qualities , they are likely to compromise on monetary value . For instance , if a two-wheeler is given a smiling look by design ,consumers may compromise on the monetary value. Incidentally, providing human names is quite common these days. Cyclones are given human names. Celebrities who are important influencers provide human associations to brands. Basics of category development and the impact of culture In an interview with Economic Times, Sanjiv Mehta, the former Chairperson of Hindustan Unilever had underlined the importance of basics with respect to category development in India -the four approaches are raising the consumption, penetration, increasing the frequency of consumption and premiumization. A product line is a string of similar offerings that have distinctive segments of consumers who choose their trade-off. A shampoo category has the basic one to convert a non-user of shampoo into shampoo usage and ladders up with several levels of benefits at varying prices. Higher the price, more exclusive in the benefit. Demographic and psychographic data trends can identify inflection points in consumption that lead the marketer to acquiring consumers at higher price points. But the approach is not linear; the changes in consumer behavior reflecting trade-offs happen in a cultural setting. For instance, after the introduction of instant coffee during the seventies, filter coffee (the one prepared in a traditional manner) has declined and over the last five decades the penetration and consumption of instant coffee variants have diffused considerably. Recognizing the need for a quick process of preparing coffee (the convenience offered by instant coffee) and the trade-off made by consumers of instant coffee with respect to taste , Tata Coffee introduced a premium offering Quick Filter, that provides the taste of the traditional filter coffee and can be prepared instantly. But cultural practices may not always support products that bridge trade-offs. At one point in time, P&G's research showed Italian housewives used to spend 21 hours a week, on household chores besides cooking as compared to 4 hours for Americans. Italian women used to wash kitchen and bathroom floors 4 times a week compared to Americans who were doing it once in a week. Time taken for cleaning and the cleaning efficiency of a product are generally the two criteria for choosing a cleaner. Unilever's all-purpose spray Cif and P&G's best-selling mop Swiffer were failures, because consumers were not interested in trading off the performance of cleaners and use cleaners that will save time. In fact, Italian women who were using dish washers used to rinse the dishes before they were loaded into dishwashers because the users did not completely did not attribute reliability to the machine. Research also revealed that 72 percent of housewives at that point of time owned more than eight cleaning products to ensure that the cleaning job was completed to perfection. Cultural trends and lifestyles too drive trade-offs that consumers apply in situational contexts. During the sixties and seventies, consumers had relatively a conservative lifestyle and discretionary income too was limited to a few households. Despite limited options for entertainment, Indian Coffee House branches in cities (some of them also had a juke box that would play film songs from records for a charge, when a coin is inserted) attracted limited consumers. But after the new millennium, Café Coffee Day other cafes became a hit. The trade-off was on the socialising experience in a café Vs monetary value. Importance and Complexities of price-benefit relationships In a category like cars or mobiles, trade-offs can be complex. How do consumers go about making decisions using trade-offs ? Do consumers use trade-off amongst several attributes of the offering? Does more than one attribute appear important with respect to decision making? Are there primary and secondary attributes in the perception of consumers? How do consumers vary across segments? These interesting ways to approach trade-offs have several implications on brand strategies. Advanced marketing research and analytical techniques are used to resolve such challenges. Psychology on trade-offs will ensure that brands will use appropriate trade-offs with respect to their strategies. (The author was Professor of Marketing at IIM Bangalore from 1995 to 2022. Opinions are Personal. The article is for general information purposes makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information. It does not assume any responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or damages arising from the use of this reserve the right to modify or remove any content without prior notice. The reproduction, distribution, or storage of any content without written permission is strictly prohibited.)
Telegraph
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Trump is right: only bold, dramatic action can defeat the quangocracy
The American economist Thomas Sowell once wrote: 'People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right – especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.' So it seems with President Trump. He has been proven right about pretty much everything and now he is trying to do something about it, the elite is howling with indiscriminate outrage. It turns out that the Paris Climate Accords led to unilateral economic disarmament in the West, especially in Britain; that China has proved to be a malevolent force and is now eating our lunch; that the overly draconian Covid lockdowns were a mistake; that the 'swamp' or 'deep state' – call it what you will – is a real threat and was subverting democracy; and that mass migration has been an economic and cultural disaster. Trump is right that towns and cities have been hollowed out, on both sides of the Atlantic: places like Ohio and Scunthorpe have suffered, with closed industries leaving dilapidated town centres and a trail of social and drug problems in their wake. This is not a new challenge. I spent my primary school years in the 1980s in Paisley. Its disused cotton mills pointed to the town's better days. But it has become all encompassing. It's actually worse here than in America – with sky-high energy prices and a refusal to permit fracking making it hard for the remaining British manufacturers to survive. This was demonstrated by Saturday's dash by MPs to Parliament to back what was tantamount to steel nationalisation – engendered by China and net zero, for which MPs had enthusiastically legislated. As they congratulated themselves for turning up to work on a weekend, few of them seemed prepared to do any deep thinking about why we were in this mess in the first place. The entire Western establishment can't bear to admit how wrong they have got it – and that their self-serving Davos groupthink has left our countries in a terrible state. Bill Clinton allowed China to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on developing country terms. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, supported by Ed Miliband, outsourced huge powers to unelected officials while expanding the state and embedding human rights laws, climate change targets and DEI ideology. The Conservative government under David Cameron and George Osborne declared a 'golden era' with China. The unelected officials at the Bank of England printed money, fuelling yet more state spending. Michael Gove cosied up to Greta Thunberg, promoted net zero and lobbied for tougher Covid lockdowns. Boris Johnson presided over a wave of mass migration. These tendencies were replicated across the West – epitomised by Canada's Mark Carney, the ultimate Davos creature, sliding from failure at the Bank of England to becoming the unelected prime minister of Canada. Yet to read the commentary from most of the British media and establishment, you'd think that these people were geniuses and Trump an idiot. Even Nigel Farage said Trump was trying to do 'too much too soon' with his tariffs policy. Yet it has to be understood that Trump is fighting a very influential groupthink advanced by people who will fight to the death not to harm their vested interests. Powerful market players are not always neutral. They do very well out of the status quo. BlackRock's chief executive, Larry Fink, calling a recession now when he was seemingly reluctant to do so while the Democrats were in power is a case in point. I know only too well how policies can be traduced and the markets weaponised against people who are trying to change things. The 2022 Mini-Budget was a sensible package of tax freezes, spending restraint and supply-side measures, including fracking, which would have generated economic growth (and was smaller in scale than fiscal announcements before or since). A huge amount of hysteria was generated, making it very difficult to get messages across. Ultimately, Conservative-in-name-only MPs, the economic establishment and their allies in the media contributed to so much turbulence that the policies could not be implemented. I was blamed for failures that were actually the Bank of England's: it has since admitted that two-thirds of the market movement was its responsibility. The idea that spending more time 'rolling the pitch' to 'introduce things gradually' would have helped is a nonsense. The environment facing disruptors is not one of ignorance; it is one of hostility on the part of those who have an interest in your failing. Any slowing of the pace simply gives opponents more time to organise and you are restricted and then crushed by internal and external opposition. The only viable strategy is the one that Trump is employing of 'flooding the zone' – of using shock and awe to challenge opponents and upend the status quo. Those wanting serious change must understand we are in a fight with an unelected establishment that will do all it can to stop change happening. Trump is right that China has cheated in international trade and that the EU and many others have acted in a protectionist way while preaching the values of free trade. His shock tactics have brought countries to the table. China is finally facing serious action after years of a dysfunctional WTO failing to do anything. Other players are being forced to choose between China and the US. If he had allowed the West to continue on its current trajectory, we would have likely seen increased industrial dominance by China and existential threats to our security. Britain's interests are not automatically aligned with the United States. We should be putting our interests first. Obviously we cannot single-handedly take on China and disrupt the global trading system. But we can get fracking, cut regulations, abolish the Human Rights Act and get on with deporting illegal immigrants. President Trump is standing up for the people of America; we should start standing up for the people of Britain. The British establishment and the country's current political leadership are failing to do so. Many of them don't even want to talk about what is happening. So rather than placing all their ire on Donald Trump, those who have run this country into the ground for the past 40 years need to look closer to home.
USA Today
05-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
'Probably unconstitutional': Trump's world trade war spotlights conservative fault lines
'Probably unconstitutional': Trump's world trade war spotlights conservative fault lines Show Caption Hide Caption Sneaker prices likely to surge following global tariffs The impact of Trump's tariffs may mean higher sneaker prices. President Donald Trump has hailed his sweeping tariffs on all U.S. trading partners and imports as a "declaration of economic independence" that has largely been cheered by his populist base as another example of his "America First" priorities. But a backlash appears to be brewing on the political right as a handful of Republicans in Congress, former Trump administration officials, conservative activists and other prominent supporters are expressing doubt about this move as anxieties about higher consumer prices rise. "President Trump declared that it was in fact 'liberation day' his giant tariff policy that he just dropped on the market unilaterally, probably unconstitutionally," Ben Shapiro, founder of the Daily Wire, said on his program this week. "There are real-world implications for this sort of stuff," he added. "Trade wars are in fact not good, and not easy to, particularly if you don't have a plan." Americans also appeared to have soured on this idea even as the administration promises long-term gains. Trump saw his approval rating dip to 43%, the lowest since his return to office, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released after the April 1 announcement. Fifty-two percent of respondents said putting tariffs on vehicles will have a negative impact, including 53% of independents. And after riding a wave of anxiety about risings costs back into the White House, the survey shows 57% of Americans think Trump's moves to shake up the economy are "too erratic" with 59% of independent voters agreeing with that statement. "The Trump Tariff Tax is the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history," Republican Mike Pence, who served as Trump's vice president during his first term, said in an April 2 post on X. "These Tariffs are nearly 10x the size of those imposed during the Trump-Pence Administration and will cost American families over $3,500 per year." Conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Rand Paul are in opposition to tariff plan Whether in Congress or think tanks, fiscal hawks aren't shying away from sharing their wariness in Trump's dramatic shift in U.S. trade policy, which includes a 10% baseline tariff on goods from all countries. The Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank, have mocked the administration for slapping tariffs on islands inhabited only by penguins, while echoing Pence and other conservatives. "On the serious side: This isn't trade strategy," the group said on X. "It's a massive tax on US consumers." Thomas Sowell, a well-known economist often cited by GOP officeholders, called the administration's decision "disturbing" adding it runs the risks a significant downturn. "It's painful to see what a ruinous decision from back in the 1920s being repeated," he said. On Capitol Hill, where there could be legislative consequences, the most noticeable GOP opposition is coming from the Senate side. Longtime Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has introduced a bipartisan bill that would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours if the administration imposed a tariff. That proposal has attracted other Senate Republicans who have flirted with the idea of support it, such as Thom Tillis, of North Carolina, who faces reelection in 2026. Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski vote to end some of the tariffs on Canada Then there are retiring lawmakers, like former Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who hasn't shied away from expressing his disagreements with Trump nominees and moderates such as Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, who all voted to end some of the tariffs on Canada this past week. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has arguably been the most outspoken, but others such as Sen. Ted Cruz, of Texas, and Sen. John Kennedy, of Louisiana, have sprinkled cold water on the strategy, too. "We do not know yet the impact of these (tariffs)," Kennedy said Friday in an interview with Fox News. "We just don't know and anybody who tells you otherwise that says they know has been smoking the devil's lettuce. I'm not going to bubble-wrap it." 'Breaking the globalist order': Most Republicans stick with Trump on tariffs, poll finds Things look much better for Trump on the House side where almost no members have come out against the plan save for Rep. Don Bacon, of Nebraska, who reportedly plans to draft a companion bill to the bipartisan Grassley proposal. Most other GOP members have rushed to say they believe Trump's plan puts U.S. interests first as he promised to do during the campaign. That is where a majority of Republicans stand, according to polling. On the question of a negative impact on automobiles, for example, the Reuters/Ipsos survey finds 47% of GOP disagree that it will hurt people versus 30% who agree. The remaining 23% did not answer. Similarly, 25% of Republicans think Trump is being "too erratic" with the economy while 63% think he isn't and just 11% who didn't answer. "Trump is breaking the globalist order. Hold," Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said Friday on X. "The BEST is yet to come!"
