Walter Williams filling in for Rush this Friday!

[max]

For those of you who have never heard "self hating black" economics Professor Walter Williams speak....you'll be in for a real treat on Friday. He's filling in for Rush.

Pure Austrian economics taught in layman's terms with a flair and lots of humor.

[Son of Detroit]

I'll definitely be tuning in. I love Williams.

[specsaregood]

Hrm, I wonder if there would be any that he would let Rand call in for a quick discussion, campaign plug....Williams is great either way.

[Kotin]

the first day this year I'll have listened to Rush's show..


Walter Williams is one of my greatest heroes... he should be the REAL first black president.

[RSLudlum]

Thanks for the heads up. The only time I listen to Rush's show is when Williams is hosting.

[dannno]

Excellent

YouTube - Walter E Williams - Economics of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUL152yGVGI)

[Son of Detroit]

the should be the REAL first black president.

This.

Either Williams or Thomas Sowell. I'd love either one as president. Certainly two of the greatest minds alive.

[Bucjason]

Dr. Williams is great.

[Flash]

From Wiki :


Presidential draft campaign

Cartoonist Bruce Tinsley, in his conservative comic strip Mallard Fillmore, launched a campaign to draft Williams for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2008 United States presidential election.[6] Although Williams initially stated that he wouldn't completely rule out the possibility, he ultimately decided against such a run, and endorsed Ron Paul. [1]

Walter should consider running for Congress or something. Hes a very intelligent guy.

[lx43]

Just from that article alone he's got my vote. lol



http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/08/A%20Nation%20of%20Thieves.htm

A Nation of Thieves



Edgar K. Browning, professor of economics at Texas A&M University, has a new book aptly titled "Stealing from Each Other." Its subtitle, "How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit," goes to the heart of what the book is about. The rise of equalitarian ideology has driven Americans to steal from one another. Browning explains that certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity is consistent with a free society. Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny.



Browning entertains a discussion about when inequalities are just or unjust. For example, college graduates earn income higher than high-school dropouts. Some people prefer to work many hours and earn more than others who prefer to work fewer. Students who spend 25 or more hours a week on classroom preparation earn higher grades than students who spend five hours. Most would agree that these inequalities are just. There are other sources of inequalities that are unjust, such as: when incomes result from fraud, corruption, stealing, exploitation, oppression and the like. Such sources of inequality play an insignificant role in producing income inequality in America. Most economists agree that income is closely related to productivity.



Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality by making income transfers to the poor. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.



Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it.



Browning's concluding chapter tells us what the welfare state costs us. He acknowledges the non-economic costs such as infringements on liberty and strains on the political process, but focuses on the quantitative economic costs. The disincentive effects of Social Security have reduced the GDP by 10 percent, the federal income tax (as opposed to a proportional tax) by 9 percent and past deficits by 3.5 percent for a total of 22.5 percent. He guesses that welfare programs have reduced GDP by 2.5 percent. The overall effect of redistributionist policies has created incentives that have reduced GDP by a total of 25 percent. Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion.



So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality. Browning's solution is captured in the title of his last chapter, "Just Say No," where he proposes, "The federal government shall not adopt any policies that transfer income (resources) from some Americans to other Americans." He agrees with James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."



For years I've used Professor Browning's and his colleague Mark A. Zupan's excellent textbook "Microeconomics: Price Theory and Applications" in my intermediate microeconomics class. "Stealing from Each Other" is a continuation of his academic excellence.



Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

[Son of Detroit]

Bump, on now.

Listen live here:

http://wjr.com/article.asp?id=142275

[Epic]

From Wiki :



Walter should consider running for Congress or something. Hes a very intelligent guy.

NO.... being a politician is not the pinnacle of influence.

The division of labor most properly applied in this situation allows Dr Williams to continue his academic work and syndicated columns. Plus, he's guest hosting for Rush!

Oh yeah, and he's 73.

[Epic]

Promoting Free State Project now....

AWESOME

Millions will have heard this...

[amy31416]

the first day this year I'll have listened to Rush's show..


Walter Williams is one of my greatest heroes... he should be the REAL first black president.

I could not agree more. I love Williams--I hope this means that he just might be getting himself out in the public a bit more.

Yay!

[dannno]

Promoting Free State Project now....

AWESOME

Millions will have heard this...

Hah, I just hope they don't end up with a bunch of neocon war mongers moving their :rolleyes:

[erowe1]

Are people actually listening? Or just praising Williams based on other things he's said. I just had it on in the car and he and Thomas Sowell were going on and on about how we can't let Iran get nukes.

I like both of them, but only when they stick with the subjects they're experts in, economics, and matters related to collectivism. But once they go off on foreign relations they get swept away with the mindset that sank the old right in the Cold War, which is that we don't want some foreign power to kill us or subject us to big government, so we need to subject ourselves to big government (under threat of being killed) that we'll use to stop them.

[Epic]

Are people actually listening? Or just praising Williams based on other things he's said. I just had it on in the car and he and Thomas Sowell were going on and on about how we can't let Iran get nukes.

I like both of them, but only when they stick with the subjects they're experts in, economics, and matters related to collectivism. But once they go off on foreign relations they get swept away with the mindset that sank the old right in the Cold War, which is that we don't want some foreign power to kill us or subject us to big government, so we need to subject ourselves to big government (under threat of being killed) that we'll use to stop them.

True, I think we're just talking about their economics.

[max]

Are people actually listening? Or just praising Williams based on other things he's said. I just had it on in the car and he and Thomas Sowell were going on and on about how we can't let Iran get nukes.

I like both of them, but only when they stick with the subjects they're experts in, economics, and matters related to collectivism. But once they go off on foreign relations they get swept away with the mindset that sank the old right in the Cold War, which is that we don't want some foreign power to kill us or subject us to big government, so we need to subject ourselves to big government (under threat of being killed) that we'll use to stop them.

i just heard that too......i felt like a little kid who just learned that there is no Santa.

That was very disappointing to hear Sowell and Williams warmonger like that

[erowe1]

i just heard that too......i felt like a little kid who just learned that there is no Santa.

That was very disappointing to hear Sowell and Williams warmonger like that

There's nothing about anything they said that's uncharacteristic of either of them. Neither has ever been a noninterventionist, at least not since I've been reading their columns. Admittedly, I've noticed more problems from Sowell than from Williams in that respect. Williams at least occasionally writes about the broken window fallacy, and during the 2008 primaries Williams never said anything that seemed directed to hurt RP, where Sowell did many times in painting the so-called war on terror as the single most important issue. I think Williams may be more of an Austrian as well, where as Sowell is more of a monetarist. I recall reading something Tom Woods wrote recently that mentioned that Sowell's book on the meltdown that he and Williams were talking about places none of the blame on the Federal Reserve.