Sunday (Tuesday) in the Park (at Home) with George (Russ)

Every Tuesday for the last fours years or so I have downloaded Russ Roberts's EconTalk podcast and spent an entertaining hour or more listening to his interview of an interesting character--often, but not always, a fellow economist. Last week (March 6) was typical: an 87 minute talk with Columbia University Professor Charles Calomiris about banks' capital structures, the effect of leverage on risk and the role of financial regulation. While the audio was downloading I made a quick detour to Cafe Hayek, the blog that Roberts shares with his colleague Don Boudreaux. There I stumbled across a video of Russ giving a talk at Southern Methodist University's (SMU) Cox School of Business in Dallas. Since I was the executive-in-residence at Cox 2005-2007 I couldn't resist watching his performance. Between the SMU video and the EconTalk podcast I spent a good part of Tuesday with Roberts.

The video was enlightening as it was the first time I had seen the professor in action and the first time I had encountered him as a soloist rather than in a duet. Roberts teaches economics with stories rather than using arcane mathematics and charts. That makes him much more engaging than the average econ prof. As I watched him pace the stage I thought how much his approach was similar to the ministers that preach in the churches surrounding the SMU campus. Roberts's sermon was about the superiority of the emergent order of a free market economy compared to one where decisions are made by committees or regulatory agencies. He ridiculed the 40 members of L'Académie française who are charged with protecting the purity of the French language. But his real target was politicians. In his talk he derided politicos from both parties although on the podcasts he leans more heavily on Democrats. It was all very entertaining.

But worrisome, too. There was absolutely no hint that emergent free market economies might fail to efficiently deliver certain kinds of goods and services (e.g. public goods, natural monopolies, externalities). There was no consideration that free people might intentionally trade off some of the efficiency of a free market in favor of other values. Although there was brief mention of regulatory capture, there was really no worry about the power that huge global corporations now exercise both directly and through business associations and front organizations. There was prolonged derision for politicians but no serious suggestions as to how the nation's governance could be reformed.

In other forums Roberts has admitted that he does not consider economics a social science. For him libertarian economics is an ideology--one that he promotes with the skill and enthusiasm of an accomplished preacher-man.  Like most good preachers he has some large blind spots and he is very selective about the evidence he brings to his arguments.  Knowing that, I continue to listen to him because one can learn from great preachers even if not subscribing to their creed. But I worry about our college freshman and sophomores who get their first taste of economics from such a smooth talker.  And I worry about the mostly gray heads in the SMU audience who left with all of their preexisting assumptions confirmed.