Quote of the Day: The Difference Between Minimum Wages and Free Markets on Unemployment

Professor Don Boudreaux at the Cafe Hayek provides an awesome explanation: (bold mine)

(1) The unemployment caused by a minimum wage is permanent, in the sense that even in theory it will always exist. Unlike the unemployment that arises when trade becomes freer, the unemployment that is caused by minimum-wage legislation is not the result of transaction costs and other frictions that prevent workers who lose their jobs from finding alternative employment immediately. Put differently, in principle if not in practice, no workers need be rendered even temporarily unemployed by freer trade. In contrast, the minimum wage necessarily (in the absence of genuine monopsony power) causes some workers to lose their jobs and causes these destroyed jobs to remain destroyed for as long as the minimum wage remains in place.

Put in yet another different way, unlike with free trade, the creation of unemployment is not a temporary or incidental consequence of minimum-wage legislation. Lasting job destruction is part of the essential logic of the minimum wage. While in principle, and over time also in practice, free trade does not lead to permanent job losses, job losses caused by the minimum wage, in addition to springing from the very logic of the minimum wage, are indeed permanent.

Second, unemployment caused by free trade is, in reality, simply a particular instance of unemployment caused by changes in the pattern of economic activities. In both principle and practice this unemployment differs not a whit from the unemployment caused by, say, consumers coming to prefer more chicken to beef, more outdoor recreation to indoor entertainment, more wine to whiskey, or living in Arizona to living in Michigan. That is, the unemployment caused by freer trade is inseparable from the very logic of a market economy driven by consumer sovereignty and competition. Far from free trade being an exception to the rules of a market economy, it is protectionism that is an exception. The minimum wage, in contrast to free trade, is emphatically not part of the logic of a market economy; like protectionism, the minimum wage is a suspension of, or an interference with, the logic and principles of a market economy and of consumer and worker freedom. If this fact means nothing else, it means that free trade (like any competition-driven change in the pattern of consumer spending) enjoys a presumption of legitimacy while the minimum wage, which is a restraint on the operation of the market and on voluntary contracting, operates under a presumption of illegitimacy.

Third, economic theory and empirical evidence strongly suggest that the ill consequences of the minimum wage are not randomly distributed. These ill consequences are suffered only by low-skilled workers and, even among low-skilled workers, disproportionately by those who are the least advantaged (for example, by inner-city blacks rather than by suburban whites). The downsides of free trade, in contrast – and in addition to being only temporary and part of the larger logic of the real-world market – are much more random. These ill consequences are not more likely to fall only on low-skilled workers, or on blacks rather than whites.

Video: Prof. Walter Williams on the Effects of Minimum Wage

In the following interview with Heritage’s Steve Moore, Professor Williams explains the unseen consequences of the minimum wage law, for instance, how why the mandate discriminates against low-skill or "non-preferred workers"

(hat tip Cafe Hayek) Source:LibertyPen.com 

Age of Robotics: Japanese Hotel Staffed by Robots

This is revolutionary. The service industry will most likely see a widespread adaption of robots.

In Japan, a small hotel opened with a service staff manned by robots.

From the CBS:

The world's first hotel staffed almost entirely by robots is opening its doors full-time to guests this month, but CBS News correspondent Seth Doane has already been able to spend a night in the futuristic facility near the city of Nagasaki.

Doane reports that the opening of a small, low-cost hotel doesn't usually warrant international attention -- even with gimmicks like drones, or the boss arriving via robotic platform.

But the "Henn'na Hotel," which translates to "strange hotel" in Japanese, lives up to its name.

"Please ask me your request, but don't ask me a difficult question because I am a robot," says the dinosaur behind the check-in desk.

The English-speaking dinosaur robot is designed to appeal to kids. Also at reception, an almost creepy humanoid, programmed to speak Japanese, and of course, to bow in respect.

There's a robotic bag-check, even a robot concierge.

Hideo Sawada is the man in charge. Doane asked him if robots, which rely on a set of multiple choice responses to any question asked, could really replace staff like the hotel concierge, who has actually tasted food.

The Kicker… (bold mine)

Sawada says having robots fill jobs can help reduce labor costs by about 70 percent. At the Henn'na, rooms start at only about $80 per night -- a pretty good deal in one of the most expensive countries in the world for travellers.

The hotel boss admitted that the robotic staff "don't come cheap," but said that compared to an annual payroll for human personnel, "they are quite cost-effective... and as (technology) improves I think they will become quite price-competitive."

In technology-crazed Japan, robots are becoming part of everyday life; from commercials, to appearances on TV as modern-day samurai. They're in stores greeting customers, and titillating tourists at Tokyo's famed "robot restaurant."

Hotels were merely the next logical progression.

Investors/entrepreneurs have always been on a lookout for ways around minimizing labor costs. Part of such costs may be from policy based interventions like the minimum wage. Thus proliferation of robots will likely on occur areas with high labor costs.

Watch video here. (hat tip EPJ)

View More: Strange News|Live News|More News Videos

Walter Block on Why the Minimum Wage Law is a Stab on the Back of the Poor

Austrian economist Walter Block’s take on the baneful invisible effects of the minimum wage law (sourced from lewrockwell.com, with permission of Professor Block) [bold mine, italics Professor Block]

The minimum wage on its face is an unemployment law, not an employment law. It does not compel anyone to hire anyone else. It only stipulates who CANNOT legally be employed: no one may be hired for less than the amount stipulated by law. If the minimum wage law is set at $10 per hour, the law does not require any employer to hire any employee at that wage level. It only FORBIDS employment contracts set at $9.99 or below. This is not a matter of empirical evidence, not that there can be any such thing in proper, e.g., Austrian economics; this conclusion is a matter of pure logic. We repeat: the minimum wage on its face is an unemployment law, not an employment law.

What about empirical studies (economic history, for praxeological economists)? Here, economists disagree. Some say there will be no unemployment effects whatsoever. That is, a person with a productivity level of $6 per hour will still be hired and paid $10 per hour, even though any such firm that does so will lose $4 per hour. Such “economists” are in a distinct minority. Other dismal scientists opine there will be very slight unemployment effect; some few unskilled workers will lose their jobs or not attain them in the first place; but a large number will retain their jobs and be paid more. Then there is a third or majority view: most economists conclude that this law will boost unemployment for those with low productivity, and will only raise wages for them temporarily, until employers can substitute away from the factor of production (unskilled labor) now priced out of the market.

What is the Austrian take on all of this? The praxeological view is that the minimum wage law will raise unemployment higher than it would otherwise be, in the absence of this law, other things equal, provided only that it is set above the level of productivity of at least one worker. This is an apodictic claim, not subject to refutation, falsification or testing. This claim is necessarily true, and yields knowledge about real world effects. Austrian economics is causal – realist, unlike the economics of the mainstream logical positivists, who recognize no economic law, only hypotheses to be tested, and if not falsified, then provisionally accepted.

Some economists who have recently signed this open letter in support of the minimum wage law have published introductory and intermediate economics textbooks. In those publications, they take the usual position that minimum wage legislation unemploys laborers with low skills. Thus, their textbooks blatantly contradict the open letter they signed.  I take great joy in listening to and reading their responses to this charge that they are contradicting themselves. Talk about talking without saying anything.

What of the ethics of the matter? Here, again, there can be no controversy. The minimum wage law violates people’s rights to engage in consenting adult behavior. An employer and an employee agree to a wage contract of, say, $5 per hour. Both are considered criminals under this pernicious legislation. But it is a victimless “crime” to pay someone $5 per hour for his labor services, and/or to receive such an amount of money for working. Both parties agreed to this contract! Our society is now in the process of legalizing other victimless crimes, such as those concerning prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc. Many people favor “choice” when it comes to adult behavior without victims. The minimum wage law is a step backwards from these moves in a moral direction.  And, yet, paradoxically, it is to a great degree precisely those people who advocate the legalization of these victimless crimes who are the staunchest supporters of the minimum wage law.

Posit that the “moderate” economists were right. A few people will lose their jobs, but the overwhelming majority would either find or keep their employment slots, at higher compensation rates. Suppose I were to go to the inner city (which contains a disproportionate number of the unskilled), and did the following. I went to one in every 20 people I met, and, at the point of a gun, I relieved them of, oh, $10,000 (40 hours per week time 50 weeks multiplied by $5 per hour). Whereupon I turned to the other 19 out of 20 people and dispersed these stolen funds amongst them. If I did so, I would be promoting the precise effects that the moderate members of the economics profession who are supporters of minimum wage claim will occur. Namely, this law, they contend, they concede, will hurt very few but benefit the many. But how would my excursion into the inner city, and my wealth transfer, be considered by law? Of course, I would be considered a criminal, and very properly so.

For reasons we need not discuss right now, the productivity of whites is higher than that of blacks. It is for this reason that the unemployment of the latter is higher than that of the former, actually, as an empirical finding, about twice as high. For reasons we need not discuss right now, the productivity of middle aged workers is higher than that of young employees, who are just starting out. . It is for this reason that the unemployment of the latter is higher than that of the former, actually, as an empirical finding, about twice as high. It is for this reason that the unemployment rate of black teens is roughly quadruple that of whites of mature years. All this stems from the minimum wage law serving as a barrier to entry, a hurdle, and not a floor raising wages. Supporters of the minimum wage, who just LOVE statistics, tend to shy away from this revealing data.

Who are the beneficiaries of the minimum wage law?  Quo bono?  This will come as a shock to some people, but the people who gain the most from this legislation are skilled workers, typically organized into labor unions. When they demand a boost in their own wages, the immediate response of the employer is to want to substitute away from this suddenly more expensive factor of production, skilled labor, and into a substitute for it; that is unskilled labor. There is more than one way to skin the cat. The same number of widgets might be able to be produced with 100 skilled and 100 unskilled workers, as with, for example, 50 of the former and 200 of the latter.  If there is any such thing as fixed proportions in manufacturing and production, it must be a great rarity. How best to fight such an eventuality from the point of the labor union? One way to do so is to castigate as scabs” (why this is not an example of “hate speech” similar to the use of the “N” or “K” word is beyond me; well, not really) the unskilled laborers hired in response to the union’s demand for higher wages. But there are problems here. For one thing, these newly hired employees would be disproportionately minority group members. It really looks bad for liberals, “progressives,” to be fighting this particular demographic. For another, these people can fight back. If you slash their tires, and hit them over the head with a baseball bat, they can reciprocate. No; this will not do. Organized labor has come up with an ingenious counterattack. Are you ready for this? Please take a seat, for you are now in danger of keeling right over. Yes: the minimum wage law; that is the solution to this quandary for organized labor. There is perhaps no better way to eliminate competition than to price it out of the market. (Hint, to burger providers; if you want to adopt crony capitalism, try to get a law passed compelling the prices of competitive products such as pizza, hot dogs, to be raised ten-fold. You can claim it is for health reasons.)

Who else benefits from the minimum wage law? This is like asking, who gains from high unemployment rates of young people, and unskilled workers? When looked at in this manner, several candidates immediately come to mind, given that unemployment breeds boredom and criminality: social workers, psychologists, psychologists, prison guards, policemen, etc. I don’t say that all of these people favor the minimum wage law because it will feather their nests. I only say their financial situation improves from its passage, and therefore empirical research into this possibility might be fruitful.

Why do we have this law on the books if it is so evil, so pernicious? One reason, already discussed, is that there are beneficiaries: organized labor, and our friends on the left who support them. Another is of course monumental economic illiteracy. Obdurate economic illiteracy. I teach freshman economics at Loyola University, and I usually take a survey of my students on opening day. Typically, a large majority favors the minimum wage law, and they do so not out of malevolence. Rather, they really think that this law will raise wages and help the poor. My students think this law is like a floor rising, and thus raising everyone with it. They do not realize that a better metaphor is a hurdle, or high jump bar: the higher the level stipulated by the minimum wage law, the harder is it to “jump” into employment. This law eliminates the lowest rungs of the employment ladder, where especially young people can gain valuable on-the-job training, which will help raise their productivity. If this legislation were of such great help to the poor, I ask my students, why are we so niggardly about it? Why limit the raise to $10, or $12 or even $15, as some radicals favor? Why not really help the poor, and raise the minimum wage level to $100 per hour, or $1000 per hour, or maybe $10,000 per hour. At this point they can see that virtually the entire population would be unemployed, because it is a rare person who has such high productivity. But, then, hopefully, then can begin to see that a minimum wage of a mere $7 per hour is an insuperable barrier to employment for someone whose productivity is $4 per hour.

When the minimum wage was raised from $.40 to $.70 cents per hour (the largest percentage increase so far) we went from manually operated elevators to automatic ones, helping high skilled engineers at the expense of the unskilled manual operators. This transition took a few years, but that was the cause. Initially, before anyone could be fired, wages did indeed rise. If the present minimum wage goes from $7.25 to, horrors!, $15.00, people who ask if you want “fries with” that will be supplanted by self serves and automatic machinery which will then be competitive with labor, but cannot now compete with low skilled people. Those jobs will go the same place, namely, booted out of existence, as the ones that used to exist at gas filling stations.

What should be done? We should not raise the present national minimum wage from its present $7.25. Nor should we maintain it at that level. Nor should we decrease it (some politicians advocate a lower minimum wage, for example, $4 per hour, just for the summer and only for high school kids to help them get jobs; but to counsel such a course of action is to admit that the law is a hurdle which must be jumped over, not a floor supporting rises). We should instead eliminate it entirely, and sow salt where once it stood. More than that. We should criminalize passage of this law. That is, we should throw in jail, or deal with these miscreants as we would other criminals, all those responsible for the passage of this law and for its implementation, such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it and the judges who gave it their seal of approval. After all, is this not the way we would treat a person who unemployed other people at the point of a gun? Suppose there were a law that explicitly did consign people to involuntary unemployment, not implicitly and indirectly as does the minimum wage law, but direcetly. That is, an enactment such as this: It shall be illegal to employ black people. It shall be illegal to employ white people. It shall be illegal to employ young people. It shall be illegal to employ old people. It shall be illegal to employ Jews. It shall be illegal to employ Christians. It shall be illegal to employ gays.  It shall be illegal to employ heterosexuals. It shall be illegal to employ men. It shall be illegal to employ women. How would we treat all those responsible for the passage of such laws and for their implementation such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it, the judges who gave it their seal of approval? Precisely, we would throw the book at them. We would penalize them to the fullest extent of the law.  Why should we do any less for those responsible for the minimum wage law?

I may add that the recent trends in globalization particularly outsourcing [as this 2010 yahoo article points out “The United States has one of the highest rates for minimum wage. In fact, there are some countries that do not set minimum wage rates. As of 2008, minimum wage in China was $ .60 (US Dollars), while in India it was $2.15 (US Dollars), and it was $2.46 (US Dollars) in Mexico.* Besides higher minimum wage in the United States, companies must contribute to Social Security, Medicare, FICA and unemployment insurance. These payments do not have to be made for foreign employees, and therefore the American companies save on payroll and costs for payroll.”]…as well as China’s export boom via “cheap labor” may partly have been one of the unseen consequences of the US minimum wage law.

Indonesia Crisis Watch: USD-Rupiah Pierces 12,000 level

The US-Indonesia rupiah pierced on the 12,000 psychological threshold today

Intraday, the US-IDR closed at the highest level

Indonesia’s LCY 10 year bonds also fell again at the last minute.

Indonesia’s officials dismissed concern over the rupiah’s unhinging noting that this would “help local manufacturers increase their exports”

Unfortunately Indonesia’s stock markets hardly seemed to agree as the JCI slipped, albeit modestly.

The falling rupiah which means higher CPI inflation also extrapolates to a significant distortion of economic calculation for commercial or business enterprises. For instance in response to popular clamor, the Indonesian government pushed up minimum wages significantly, although varying at local levels.

Higher minimum wages means an increase in input costs which erodes on any advantage from a weaker currency.

This hasn’t just been an Indonesian story.

Thailand surprisingly cut interest rates yesterday which spiked up local stocks yesterday.

Unfortunately the zero bound rates policy appears to have only an overnight magical impact as the Thai SET fell by 1% today.

The good news is that the IDR plunge has not triggered a panic. Yet it remains to be seen how ASEAN financial markets will react if the rupiah and or if Thai’s stocks continue to substantially decline. 

Risks remains very high.

Video: Milton Friedman on Inequality and Minimum Wage

One aspect where the late illustrious economist Milton Friedman impresses me much has been with his lucid and eloquent defense of many aspects of the free markets in public. 

The video video on inequality and minimum wage is a good example. (hat tip Cafe Hayek)

But the Austrian economic school has had many issues with Mr. Friedman (income tax, monetarism, school vouchers, anti-trust laws, flexible exchange rates, opposition to gold standard and etc...) see F.A. Hayek here, Murray Rothbard here, Walter Block here debating Friedman, Roger Garrison here, and David Stockman who accuses Mr. Friedman of opening the door to monetary central planning. 

Although Mr. Friedman in the later phase of his life seem to have changed his mind on his monetarism to eventually call for the abolition of the US Federal Reserve here and here in public.

Thomas Sowell: Why the minimum wage isn’t compassion for the poor

Snippets from economist Thomas Sowell’s article entitled Minimum Wage Madness  at the lewrockwell.com

Minimum wage hurt the young and the minority:

Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate — 1930 — was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.

In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

Some “compassion” for “the poor”!

Minimum wages as instruments for racial discrimination

Minimum wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.

In 1925, a minimum wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A well regarded Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less….

People whose wages are raised by law do not necessarily benefit, because they are often less likely to be hired at the imposed minimum wage rate.

Minimum wage discriminates non labor union workers and promotes the interests of union members

Labor unions have been supporters of minimum wage laws in countries around the world, since these laws price non-union workers out of jobs, leaving more jobs for union members.

Feel good policies are likely to backfire

People who are content to advocate policies that sound good, whether for political reasons or just to feel good about themselves, often do not bother to think through the consequences beforehand or to check the results afterwards.

Read the rest here

As a proverb says “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”

More Signs of Asia’s Credit Bubble: Soaring Wages

I have pointed out that Thailand’s minimum wages surprisingly polevaulted by 89% in 2012. This led me to discover a massive build up in systemic debt, particularly weighted on the short term which makes the Thai’s economy highly sensitive or vulnerable to a spike in interest rates. 

Well soaring wages have not been limited to Thailand but a symptom evident throughout Asia.

From the Bloomberg,

Average pay in Asia almost doubled between 2000 and 2011, compared with a 5 percent increase in developed countries and about 23 percent worldwide, according to the International Labour Organization in Geneva. The gain was led by China, where average remuneration more than tripled during the period. Southeast Asia is catching up, with new minimum pay levels in at least five nations eroding companies’ ability to make cheap toys, clothes and furniture.

“Producers are no longer able to absorb rising wage costs and ultimately will have to jack up prices for consumers in the West,” said Frederic Neumann, co-head of Asian economics research at HSBC Holdings Plc in Hong Kong and a former consultant on Asian economics and politics to the World Bank. “It’s the manufacturing hub of the world, and if prices rise here, then inevitably the global price level will have to rise as well.”

The threat of inflation prompted Pacific Investment Management Co., which runs the world’s biggest bond fund, to plan Asia’s first fund to protect against it. The investment will aim to return at least 2 percentage points more than the average consumer-price gains in Singapore and Hong Kong, Michael Thompson, head of Pimco’s wealth-management group for the region excluding Japan, said in a March 7 interview in Singapore.

Unfortunately this comes amidst falling labor productivity and deteriorating balance of payments.

More on Southeast Asia’s wage gains.

In Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia and home to 10 million people, Governor Joko Widodo last year approved a 44 percent increase in minimum pay for workers, to 2.2 million rupiah ($226) a month. The national government is considering extending the plan across the country, which has the world’s fourth-largest population, after China, India and the U.S.

Thailand raised its national daily minimum wage to 300 baht ($10) in January. Malaysia introduced a base salary last year, benefitting about 3.2 million workers before elections that must be held within three months. A similar tactic helped Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou, who won a second term in 2012 after increasing the lower limit on earnings by 5 percent.

Credit booms, which will be compounded by public works or government spending, will mean competition for scarce resources. Such dynamic will be expressed through higher costs of factors of production or input prices for industries experiencing such boom.

As I previously wrote,

we should expect that pressures to build on either relative input prices (wages, rents, and producers prices), particularly on resources used by capital intensive industries experiencing a boom, and or, but not necessarily price inflation.

Such dynamics would exert an upside pressure on interest rates that would eventually put marginal projects, including margin debts on financial assets operating on leverage, on financial strains which lay seeds to the upcoming bust.

The bottom line is that unless Asia’s central banks desist from her current engagement in accommodative policies, which signifies an attempt to align with policies of developed economies (yes central banks collaborate with each other), malinvestments will eventually unravel in the fullness of time. 

Yes, Asia’ bubble cycle is in progress.

Quote of the Day: The Ethics of Minimum Wage

The biggest problem I have with the standard analysis of the minimum wage–on either side of the ideological divide–is that it shows a certain lack of imagination. It presumes that market forces work only on quantity and price. So that when legislation artificially raises price, the debate is over the impact on quantity–how many jobs will be lost (or gained if you’re on the other side.)

But price and quantity are not the only way market forces work. And they are certainly not the only attributes of a job. There is how hard you have to work, how many breaks you get, how much training or mentoring or kindness. What amenities are in the workplace–snack bar, vending machine, nicely decorated walls and so on. When the government requires that wages be higher than what they would otherwise be, that creates an increase in the number of people who would like to work and reduces the number of opportunities available.

Ironically, the minimum wage creates a reserve army of the unemployed. That in turn allows employers to be less thoughtful, helpful, and kind. It destroys the civilizing effect of competition by muting it. That encourages exploitation. It reduces the cost to employers of racism or cruelty. Before the increase, being obnoxious or racist made it much harder to find employees. A minimum wage makes it easier to indulge in bad behavior. The costs are lower. Before the minimum wage, a cruel, selfish employer might have had to mentor his employees or train them or be nice to them despite his nature. Now he won’t have to. He can still get workers to work for him. Even more cruelly, the minimum wage encourages workers to exploit themselves.

This is from Standard University research fellow, author and blogger Russ Roberts at the Café Hayek.

Mr. Roberts captures the largely unseen human dimension in the impact, not just of minimum wages, but of the stereotyped debate on myriad regulations: the excessive focus on price and quantity via mathematical formalism or "scientism" which plagues mainstream analysis.

Quote of the Day: The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00

But there's a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or - better yet - help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.

An increase in the minimum wage to, say, $4.35 would restore the purchasing power of bottom-tier wages. It would also permit a minimum-wage breadwinner to earn almost enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty line. There are catches, however. It would increase employers' incentives to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.

If a higher minimum means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals? A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable. The argument isn't convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs…

The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable - and fundamentally flawed. It's time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little

This stunning quote comes from the editorial of the New York Times whom have paradoxically been mostly “interventionists” (hat tip AEI’s blogger and Professor Mark Perry).