Coordination Problem

When Politics and Economics Meet

If you read Axel Leijonhufvud's classic satire on the economics profession -- Life Among the Econ --- you will notice that circa the late 1960s, early 1970s that the field of development economics was even lower on the professional pecking order than graduate students.  Pure theory reigned supreme at the time and challenged only by the ruling neoclassical synthesis macroeconomics of the time.  Leijonhufvud wrote his essay at a particularly bad time for the economics profession in terms of intellectual development and policy relevance.  Bad ideas, boring presentation, and bad policy advice represented the mainstream of economic thought in the 1960s-1970s.  The counter-revolution of monetarism (and eventually New Classical Economics) and new institutionalism (public choice, law and economics, property rights, and economics of organizations) were just emerging to challenge the Cambridge orthodoxy.  The "fresh water" vs "salt water" debates in economics would emerge in the mid to late 1970s and 1980s.  And the world of ideas has changed even more with the collapse of communism in the late 1980s and the problems of transition in the 1990s and the lingering questions of underdevelopment in Africa and Latin America as we entered the 2000s.

Now the best and the brightest in economics work on questions of development, and in particular the role of political systems (democracy or dictatorship, and their form) on development.  Last week the Wall Street Journal ran a discussion on-line between two the real major players in modern economics, Ed Glaeser of Harvard and Daron Acemoglu of MIT on the topic of democracy and development.

Thanks to Greg Mankiw for the cite.

The state of play in the economics profession today is so much more interesting and relevant than the world that Leijonhufvud describes in his essay.  For young scholars drawn to the logic of economic argument and who possess a desire to understand the big questions in philosophy, politics and economics this is an absolutely amazing time to enter the economics profession.

BTW, congratulations to those admitted to the 2007 PhD class at GMU --- get ready for an amazing intellectual journey over the next 4 to 5 years.   With the hiring of John Nye, Werner Troesken and Gary Richardson I believe it is safe to say that we are now among the top places for economic historians to go along with the best place to study religion and economics, law and economics, experimental economics, and of course public choice economics.  I will be writing about GMU's recent initiatives shortly, but the department continues to show the same entrepreneurial spirit it has since its founding as a PhD program in the early 1980s, and at a time when the profession at large has moved decidedly in the direction of the ideas and styles of research associated with GMU.

Can Austrian Theory Explain the Coming Credit Crunch?

Peter Boettke and I have a friend, Mr. E., who is a very successful investor who manages hundreds of millions of dollars of a few select clients. Many years ago, Mr. E. took a class in Austrian economics that Peter was offering and he became an assiduous reader of Ludwig von Mises and his Theory of Money and Credit. With perhaps the exception of Steve Hanke and Frank Shostak, Mr. E. is, in my view, the investor who is most knowledgeable in Austrian economics out there.

In the last few years, Mr. E. has alerted us that financial markets were on a dangerous slippery slope. Among the symptoms of a coming credit collapse was the US housing market and the price of gold. Both of them have gone up dramatically over the last five to ten years. The housing market has now started changing course with house prices going south and the number of new houses being built diminishing like ice in the sun. According to Mr. E., what explains the cycle is the (bad) health of the financial system, which generates outcomes best described by the Austrian business cycle theory. In a nutshell, there has been a huge increase in liquidity and debt with no corresponding real activity—except house flipping.

What are the facts?

• First, the burst of the dot-come bubble in 2000 was softened by the Federal Reserve by a massive influx of liquidity (interestingly enough the FED recently decided to stop publishing M3 data).
• Second, some assets in the economy have seen their prices increase way beyond what people should normally be ready to pay. Real estate prices in many places have been out of sync with their returns for almost a decade (the housing affordability index is at a 15-year low and the price-to-rent ratio is off the charts).
• Third, personal debt has now a difference face. Many people have bought houses with no equity collateral of any sort, using interest-only loans. This makes a downturn more problematic.
• Fourth, credit markets are now supposedly able to deal with greater risk. As a result, subprime loans have been offered to many borrowers who would not have qualified for a loan in the past. This was predicated on rising house prices.

What worries Mr. E. is that the systemic risk of financial markets has not gone down, as many have said, but up. This is because financial institutions sell their mortgages (especially subprime loans) onto others. As the rates move up and house prices slow down, the initial borrowers cannot pay back and the loans become more risky. Those who bought the loans want to sell them back to the original mortgage-writers but they can’t because many of them are in financial difficulty or have already gone belly-up. In the old system, mortgage lenders would worry about borrowers repaying their loans in full. In the current situation lenders sell their loans to private investment banks generating cash to make more mortgages. These buyers also go on to resell them as complex mortgage-backed securities with various terms, yields, and level of risk. (See here for an article on this subject in The Economist this week.)

Clearly, real estate is subject to the same forces as any other asset in the economy, and it can’t go up for ever without some artificial inducement. The number of house foreclosures has gone up in the last two years. House inventories are also on the rise. What we are currently witnessing may be the beginning of the final collapse of a boom brought about by an expansion in the super-complex credit derivatives and collateralized debt instruments markets. This may lead to a domino effect whereby many financial institutions default, jeopardizing the whole system. In the worst-case scenario, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC won’t be able to do much to stop the system from collapsing.

It sounds similar to what Mises described in Human Action. As he put it:

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved. (p. 572)

While the nature of the credit expansion has changed, the principle may still be the same. In other words, the Federal Reserve has not been able to manage the impact of its monetary expansion because a lot of what happens is beyond its control. The US economy is now living with a huge amount of liquidity that has little visible impact on the CPI, but has a much higher impact on other asset prices. But the day of reckoning may be coming. We are living under the illusion that central banks have figured out a way to manage the entire money supply well—but they haven’t and they will never do so.

If the Austrian view of (unwarranted) credit expansion applies to the current case (and I believe it does, at least to some extent), the $64 million question is: how big the adjustment is going to be and will it affect the entire economy? There is now a superstructure of debt and derivatives upon which the real estate market has been built. This may have become a house of cards. Merrill Lynch analysts recently said that house prices could tumble 10 percent this year and the stock market could lose as much as 30 percent (see here). I personally don’t have an answer to my question, but I would probably wait before buying a house, and buying gold might not be a bad idea.

March Madness

Well March Madness is upon us.  I honestly had VCU beating Duke in my brackets!!!  Anyway, on Wednesday evening I was on the Bloomberg Radio Show "On the Economy" with Tom Keene discussing the economics of basketball and the NCAA.  You can find the podcast of this show here.

Enjoy the next few weeks.  I have Ohio State winning it all.

The Science of Success

As with most academics I read a lot.  At the moment I am reading two books on Pete Maravich (a boyhood idol of mine), Michael Lewis's new book Blind Side, which is excellent, and then a host of more academic books.  The biographies on Maravich and Lewis's books deal with sports, but I read these books from the point of view not only of a sports fan, but also as a political economist.  I cannot help but see the "political economy" elements in the narratives offered.  Maravich was an innovator, a genius on the court, and a cultural icon.  His father was the architect of this dream in the same way one reads of the life experience of Mozart and of John Stuart Mill in the realms of art and science.  BTW, quotes from Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek may be found in my papers, but the "wallpaper" on my computer at the office is Pistol Pete.

Lewis's book deals with how rule changes impact the relative value of different players on the football field, and how these changes at the highest level of the sport (NFL) will trickle down to the HS level.  In this instance it is the evolution of the West Coast passing offense, the athletic outside linebacker, and the left tackle to counter the blitz.  It is a fascinating story that is wonderfully written.  Alongside of Moneyball, I think Blind Side probably establishes Lewis as the most insightful observer of sports that we have seen --- no offense to John Feinstein, but while he tells a great sports story, Lewis sees the bigger picture and dissects with analytical precision.  His works are full of useful economic ideas that someone who pursues an entrepreneurial market process perspective in economics can sympathize with and use to illustrate major points in providing an understanding of the world around us.  Lewis and Malcolm Gladwell might be my personal favorites among public intellectual observers of the world to read.

Back to the books.  Maravich was a creative individualists trapped inside the confines of a team game.  He never did win that championship he so craved. He was ahead of his time and thus his creativity rarely meshed within the confines of the team game.  Maravich, himself, wanted to be a team player and he did do some spectacular things that translated into team success. But never at the level he aspired. But he made it possible for the Magic Johnson's, the Michael Jordan's, and now the Steve Nash's to be flashy, fundamental, and lead a team to winning records and championships.  Maravich fell short in certain dimensions that Johnson, Jordan, and Nash didn't and don't (Nash still needs to win an NBA title to go along with those MVPs).  Maravich was a flawed genius, but his flaws remind the reader that this amazing athletic showman was human --- a fact brought home so clearly by his untimely death at the age of 40.

In Blind Side Lewis describes how the broader organization of sport --- the rules, the perception of experts, etc. --- changes the value we place on particular skills and attributes.  Sports are a "school of rules" for many, but they also highlight the basic insight that strategies evolve in rule specific contexts and not in any abstract and general context.  Incentives and knowledge in sports, as in all of life, are contextual in nature and as such are of "specific time and place".

This is why sports can teach us so much more than just winning and losing on the field of competition.  This winter I read an absolute fantastic book about the legendary basketball coach John Wooden, You Haven't Taught Until They Learn: John Wooden's Teaching Principles and Practices -- this book may very well be the best book I have ever read on education.  During the early 1970s a study was done on Wooden's effectiveness as a teacher and the researchers were astonished by the retention rate of knowledge among his players. It far exceeded that of any other teacher studied in depth at the time.  His teaching methods obviously worked.  Wooden was the master teacher on the basketball court, but what he did there is just an example of what we try to do in the classroom, in our families with our kids, and in our businesses.  The master teacher is part motivator, part disciplinarian, and part master of his craft.*  The master teacher creates an environment in which inquisitive and creative individuals can express themselves without losing sight of the common cause of the enterprise (team, class, firm).  It is, I contend, about CREATIVITY WITHIN DISCIPLINE. 

Effective entrepreneurship is not creative destruction, as Schumpeter argued, but creativity within discipline through encouraging continual adjustment on the margin to add value to the enterprise (whether that is learning and communicating economics, winning sporting contests, or earning profits in a firm).  Activity without accomplishment is to be avoided as wasteful, activity toward specific value-creating accomplishments is to be encouraged.

It is the rare individual who can build organizations that allow creativity within discipline and flourish as an organization for a length of time.  Charles Koch is one of those individuals, and in the process he has built the world's largest privately held company --- Koch Industries in Wichita, KS --- over the past 40 years.  I recently read Koch's new book, The Science of Success and I have to say it is extremely well-written, very informative, and full of brilliant insights into the organization of activities within a firm, the nature of free societies, and the rules of social interaction that provides the best opportunity for individuals to live flourishing and meaningful lives while giving space to others to live flourishing and meaningful lives themselves.  I had read a manuscript copy of this book several months back, but I read the final published book 2 weeks ago during a day of flying that started at 4:30am and I couldn't put it down.  Koch draws on the writings of Mises, Hayek, Polanyi, and Maslow to frame his discussion of the evolution of his own business career and his experience with running a large firm.  He also draws on best practice in fields of engineering and scientific research.  He calls his management philosophy "market-based management" (MBM) --- a term Koch came up with to capture the sort of creativity within discipline that I was talking about above within the firm.  MBM has five main areas of emphasis: vision, virtues and talents, knowledge processes, decision rights, and incentives.  The book attempts to show how by emphasizing these five principles and learning within them and refining ones understanding of them in practice, Koch Industries was able to continually find new and better ways to create value for their customers and grow into the largest privately held firm in the world.  I cannot recommend this book highly enough.  The book is a must read not only for businessmen hoping to learn how to better organize and manage their enterprise, but for anyone who wants to think about building a successful organization (in the for-profit and non-profit sector), and also the larger picture of working toward a more prosperous and free society.

Reading Koch's principles reminded me of Wooden's pyramid of success, and just like Wooden's pyramid it is not enough to list the characteristics of MBM, but you actually need to LIVE by them. When you do, you might not only win 10 NCAA titles or grow a business enterprise into the largest privately held firm in the world, but live a life full of the peace of mind that comes from the satisfaction the you did your best to become the best you are capable of becoming.  We don't have enough narratives of holding to a standard of excellence in our culture.  John Wooden demanded excellence, so does Charles Koch.  In doing so, both men rely on timeless principles of individual freedom and responsibility.  The Wizard of the Westwood meets Wisdom from Wichita and a science of success is born.

*Wooden's characteristics of the effective teacher are: (1) make learning engaging; (2) passion for the material; (3) possess deep subject knowledge; (4) extremely organized; (5) intense; (6) recognize students for even small progress; (7) treat everyone with respect; (8) fair; (9) believe all students are natural learners; (10) like being with the students; and (11) put priority on individual learning.

More on Montenegro: Baduci Mediteranski Tigar?

For those who are interested in the subject, but don’t have time to read the Mercatus Country Brief that we co-authored with Maja Drakic (see here), Kyle McKenzie and I wrote a short essay together on Montenegro. TCS published it today.

Addendum:

Vijesti Daily, the biggest newspaper in Montenegro picked up our article published in TCS (see here). And visitmontenegro.com translated Vijesti’s article from Montenegrin into English (see here). All this follows a series of articles a few days ago in Vijesti and elsewhere discussing our Country Brief and its stance on the European Union option. My hope is that policymakers, intellectuals, and people in the Montenegrin civil society will realize that their country is sitting on the most amazing opportunity in a century—and that they should seize it!

Coyne Wins Prize

Co-blogger, Chris Coyne, recently received the 12th $10,000 prize from the Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Orders for his work on post-war reconstruction. This is a great honor and truly well-deserved.

For those who know Chris and are familiar with his important work, the fact that his research is generating prizes will come as no surprise. For those who are not, I highly encourage you to check out his website and download his papers, including the first chapter of his forthcoming book with Stanford University Press, After War. This will help you understand why Chris is perhaps the most insightful and important political economist of his generation.

Please join me in congratulating Chris on this impressive achievement and for his outstanding contribution to political economy; in both cases there are many more to come.

From Smith to Hayek and Back Again

Dan Klein has always been one of the most insightful and thoughtful intellectuals in my cohort.  We all met through the libertarian movement in the early 1980s --- IHS, CATO, CSMP, CSE, etc.  I have always listened closely to Dan --- probably more than he would realize because I don't follow his lead as much as I probably should.

Dan has a wonderful essay on the "Smith-Hayek" character and identity in economics.  In recent essays I have been pushing a distinction between "mainline" and "mainstream" in economics and I argue that the terminology of Austrian school makes sense when one is talking about modern 20th century and early 21st century discussions of the debates with "mainstream" economics over the character of economics.

However, if we are talking about the longer-term discussion of the "mainline" of economic thinking through the ages then the discussion of a "unique" Austrian school is probably counter-productive and most certainly inaccurate.  A point, I should add that both Mises and Hayek understood when it came to theory development.

Dan and I have been discussing for the better part of a decade whether or not the name Austrian economics sholud be retired.  As he characteristically points out in straightforward terms --- the last time a significant figure in "Austrian" economics was born in Austria it was the 19th century, so what does it mean to use the term Austrian?

There is something valuable, I would argue, in the contributions from Menger to Mises and Hayek in the further development of the "mainline" of economic thought that I would like to honor, but I agree with Dan that the vital issue for the further development of that line of thought is not the school name but the content of the argument.  "Austrian" may actually deter advancement not promote it.  I try to focus on Austrian economics as a progressive research program in political economy, but what I really care about is a progressive research program in political economy, and sound teaching of economics in written and spoken word to students and the public.

So Klein refers to this as the "Smith-Hayek" economist and I completely agree. That is the sort of economics I want to practice and it is the sort of economics I want my students to learn.  How to advance that in a profession that has to some extent abandoned its "mainline" in favor of "mainstream" fads and fashions?  That is our challenge.  Dan suggests that we need to transform the character of a Smith-Hayek economist into an identity and in order to do that we need a name.  The existing names are not doing the job according to Dan, and on this, he is of course correct.

I don't know what the right answer is to Klein's challenge.

The Cuban Gulag and Its Heroes

Two articles attracted my attention this week. The first one was authored by Armando Valladares in the Wall Street Journal last Monday. The second one was the obituary in The Economist about the passing of Mario Chanes de Armas (see here).

The lives of these two men have many similarities. They both resisted the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista; they were both personal friends and supporters of Fidel Castro; they both cheered when Castro threw Batista’s regime out in 1959 and promised the establishment of democracy; and finally they both resisted him when Castro’s real intentions became manifest. As a result they were both thrown in prison for three decades. The treatment in those prisons was so severe that it is more accurately described as a gulag.

The articles are very moving. For instance Valladares was tried on charges of threatening the security of the state. He then received a 30-year sentence. In his article, Castro's Gulag, he states:

I received a 30-year prison sentence as a potential conspirator. Two men in the same court room falsely accused of shooting at a government spokesman were executed by firing squad. When their defense attorney (whom they had met just minutes before) pleaded with the prosecutor to reduce the sentence, the prosecutor responded that he had received orders to have them shot, no matter what, as a means of social prophylaxis. Once in prison, if the guards felt like punishing us, they would put us in cages, with mesh roofs, and walk along the edge while pouring buckets of urine and excrement all over our bodies. Sometimes, guards would shoot prisoners for target practice. That is how they killed Alfredo Carrion and Diosdado Aquit. Many of the men whom Castro had imprisoned, tortured and killed had been his comrades in overthrowing Batista. But most of them were innocent people eliminated in Ernesto "Che" Guevara's psychotic quest for what he and Castro called the "new man."  […]

Terror was Castro's main tool. The tactics used for enemies of the regime included the exploitation of phobias such as reptiles and rats; the use of drugs so as to have prisoners lose all notion of time and place; blindfolding prisoners, hanging them by their feet, and then lowering them into wells they were told are filled with crocodiles; the use of guard dogs that had their teeth removed and which were set upon prisoners with hands tied behind their backs. Usually, these dogs attacked the genitals first. All of this was investigated and extensively documented by a visiting delegation from the United Nations. The evidence can be found in Geneva.

Chanes de Armas received the same sentence and was sent to the gulag on the Isle of Pines. As The Economist puts it:

Prisoners—in 1961, around 6,000 of them—were meant to submit to communist “re-education”; he became the leader of those who resisted. He refused to wear the blue uniform of a common criminal, instead going naked or in underpants. He took part in forced labour as slowly as he could, digging ditches or chopping up blocks of marble in the fierce, dripping Cuban heat. For weeks at a time he was put in tapiadas, steel isolation cells, and gavetas, “drawers”, so narrow that he could only stand. He and his followers were called plantados, planted squarely—though sparsely—as tree across Mr Castro’s path.

As Valladares and Chanes de Armas show, the legacy of Castro’s regime is similar in kind to that of other communist dictatorship such as that of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. What is remarkable is the double standard that many intellectuals and governments in the West have used. While it is not our goal here at The Austrian Economists to engage in political debate, one must not forget that among those who first denounced the utopia of communism were Austrian economists (cf. Mises’s demonstration of the impossibility of economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth). As Peter Boettke documented it in his excellent book The Political Economy of Soviet Socialism, even Nikolai Bukharin admitted the failure of war communism, the limits of socialist central planning, and the value of Ludwig von Mises’s criticisms. (Bukharin was purged by Stalin a few years later.)

The Austrian lesson is as follows. The impossibility of economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth amounts to say that violence will necessarily replace the peaceful allocation of resources via the private property rights system. In other words, the diktat of the proletariat and the permanent revolution are nothing else than the replacing of peaceful exchange between private individuals by the decisions of a violent group. Alain Besançon in The Rise of the Gulag explains that after Lenin had destroyed capitalism, he realized that socialism was no where to be found. Socialism was not the natural alternative to the old social order. It had to be built. How was it built? Through the only means available when the private property order has been abolished: the diktat of the party. Mises’s view is clear: there is no viable alternative to the private property order. Interfering with it is playing with fire.

Castro and his attempt to impose a socialist paradise in Cuba are no exception. Marxian polylogism is wishful thinking. There is only one logic, that of reality. Economic laws are the laws of reality; there is no possibility to remove oneself from them. I wish most (Western) leaders could understand this after almost 100 years of failed socialist regimes over the world. But it doesn’t seem to be the case when you observe what goes on around the planet.

There is still hope. I just saw that a monument will be erected in Hungary to the 100 million victims of communism (see here). May they rest in peace. Valladares, Chanes de Armas, and many many others are the real Cuban heroes. Like many who resisted tyranny, they are saints upon the earth. For those who are interested, Valladares’s book on the Cuban gulag is available on Amazon (see here).

Gordon Tullock — The Champion of Virginia Public Choice

Last night The Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Orders at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, The Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and the Institute for Humane Studies held a reception in honor of Gordon Tullock at the George Mason Law School. Tullock was presented the Fund’s Lifetime Achievement Award for his career. The MC was Prof. Charles Rowley, one of Gordon’s main disciples—who explained to the audience that he “worships” Gordon Tullock (in an academic sense). Rowley is the editor of the Selected Works of Gordon Tullock, published by Liberty Fund.

I never had Gordon Tullock as a professor, which is a shame because I was never exposed to his acid remarks and insults on a weekly basis. However, he did make fun of something I said once in a presentation and this was a great moment for me. As Don Boudreaux explained in his comments during the reception, it is a privilege to be insulted by Tullock…

Of course, Tullock is not (only) known for his demeanor, but for the way he has revolutionized political economy in the last 50 years. Along with James Buchanan, he is the greatest economist in the Virginia tradition of political economy. He is a giant who will be remembered the way Alfred Marshall is remembered today. His genius can be seen in his unusual academic path. He received very limited formal training in economics when he was at the University of Chicago pursuing a law degree. As Rowley often explains, Gordon Tullock is a natural economist—he breathes and thinks economics, and his gut feelings are all about the logic of the discipline. Tullock has made seminal contributions in many different areas: constitutional political economy, voting, rent-seeking, bureaucracy, and even bioeconomics.

To everyone’s surprise, Charles Rowley raised the issue of the Nobel Prize last night. Tullock was good sport about it and explained that if he didn’t receive the Prize in 1986 (along with James Buchanan), it was because of a remark he made that there were more good economists in the state of Virginia than in all of Scandinavia. Tullock thinks the Nobel committee didn’t appreciate his comment much…

Tullock told us in his speech that the economist’s goal should be to change the world, something he has pursued all his life. (In order to help us do this, Tullock graciously gave the prize money he received last night for the establishment of a Duncan Black chair of political economy at GMU.) Anyone who wants to change the world must understand the difference between the “invisible hand” of the market and the “visible boot” of government, and thus should become familiar with Tullock’s work. I wish Gordon Tullock many more years of fruitful scholarship.

Leonard Liggio --- The Champion of Liberalism

I just attended a wonderful reception in honor of Leonard Liggio sponsored jointly by Liberty Fund, Institute for Humane Studies, and the School of Law at GMU.  Leonard has been a mentor of mine since I got interested in classical liberalism.  Both Walter Grinder and Leonard Liggio encouraged my enthusiasm and steering it in productive directions.  The intellectual and personal debt I owe to both of these men and the Institute for Humane Studies for my education outside of the university is immeasurable.

Leonard is one of the most genuine individuals anyone could have the good fortune to ever meet.  As was mentioned tonight, Leonard treats every individual with respect and dignity.  From my first contact with Leonard, I felt a special intellectual bond with him.  His trick is that I believe he has this affect on many young students who want to learn about the science of liberty.  Besides history, political theory, and economics, I also learned from Leonard the values of scholarship, and the ethics of pursuing an intellectual life.   Leonard's demeanor is the opposite of the obnoxious intellectual culture which tries to exault by tearing others down.  Instead, Leonard believes in advancing the cause of liberty and truth through genuine argument and engagement.  The motto I always attribute to Bastiat might as well be Liggio's --- never fear a harsh criticism, but always fear the weakest defense of your position.  Study hard, think hard, write clearly, and rewrite even more clearly.  This is what I learned from the Institute for Humane Studies and Leonard Liggio when I was trying to become a professional academic.

The occasion of the reception tonight was the introduction by Liberty Fund of the new DVD "An Intellectual Portrait of Leonard Liggio."  Along with Richard Cornuelle's intellectual portrait by Liberty Fund, Leonard's is vital for anyone hoping to understanding revitalization of the classical liberal intellectual movement in the late 20th century and the people and institutions who spured the counter-revolution for markets and limited government.

Thanks to Leonard Liggio for all he has done for the cause of freedom throughout the world.  He truly has been the Champion of Liberalism.