February 17, 2021
The inimitable Walter E. Williams passed away in December, 2020.
At the time of his passing, he was one of the clearest expositors of the property rights approach to economics, of whom Armen Alchian (Williams' teacher) was one of the giants.
My reflections, from December, can be read at The American Spectator.
Here's an excerpt:
“Thankfully for us, Williams didn’t nurse the grievances he’d endured at the hands of racist Army officers; instead, they were a source of curiosity to him. He became a fervent disciple of Armen Alchian’s distinct “UCLA” approach to microeconomic theory. The UCLA approach pursues “opportunity-cost” reasoning unflinchingly, all while emphasizing that opportunity costs vary with the property rights arrangement. For Williams, this meant asking questions like: “Why could I experience such vicious discrimination in the military, all while African Americans have begun to dominate the NBA?” Williams found the answer at UCLA: The opportunity cost of acting like a bigot is lower for the military man than the owner of a professional sports franchise. The latter will see his income fall if he indulges his bigoted tastes by passing over the best ball players merely to avoid association with African Americans. The military man’s income is secure regardless of his prejudicial behavior. One man can discriminate with virtual impunity; the other must forgo profits to exercise his bigotry.
Williams taught me and my classmates that “discrimination” is merely a synonym for “choice.” Each of us discriminates when we choose a college, a spouse, a church, and so on. So, the question arises: What are the conditions that allow space for racially discriminatory actions to breathe? In books such as his classics The State Against Blacks, South Africa’s War Against Capitalism, and Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?, Williams incisively demonstrated the role that public policies play in lowering the costs of racially discriminatory behavior. Reading Williams’ airtight logic, grounded in his UCLA price theory days, is a devastating blow to all who reason that union activity, minimum wages, or anti-discrimination laws are a boon to the disenfranchised.”
Ennio Piano’s reflections are here:
“The best thing I can ever say about Professor Williams is that he was a master at making me feel just ‘dumb’ and ‘ignorant’ enough to motivate me to study hard. Walking home from campus on late Tuesday nights after his graduate micro class, I often second-guessed my decision to get a PhD in economics. This was the result of the mild humiliation to which I subjected myself every week by attempting (and failing) to answer the questions he asked during class. How could I ever get my PhD in economics if I couldn’t even answer right just one of his questions?
The last day of classes, Professor Williams began testing our understanding of the material one last time. This edition of the show had a biblical theme. He went through a long list of peculiar obligations one finds in the Old Testament. I only remember two of them. The prohibition of wearing clothing made for the other gender and the rule that one could work his land with the aid of two oxen or two donkeys, but not one of each. He then asked us what economic notion may explain such rules. Without raising my hand, I blurted “price discrimination!” Professor Williams turned towards me for a second, smiled, and went back to his lecture. I was not sure my answer was right (when it came to his questions, no answer ever seemed to be) but I interpreted his smile as acknowledging that I had an economic thought. It was my first such thought. It was as if something had ‘clicked’ in my head and now I could just think like that, like an economist. That’s what Professor William taught me and generations of students before me, and for which I will be forever grateful.”
Chris Coyne says:
“Walter Williams was a first-rate economist. He was an inspiring and compassionate teacher, an accomplished scholar, and a master at communicating complex economic ideas to the public.”
Peter Boettke writes:
“Walter was an astute economic thinker, and he focused his critical mind on serious questions in labor economics from the beginning of his career. His research studied the impact of government policies on economic opportunities of the disadvantaged, particularly minorities. His views were clearly argued and backed by data, but throughout his career his ideas were always contested and at times controversial. Walter did not seek confrontation for the sake of confrontation, nor did he run away from it. He sought truth in the human condition aided by the rigorous logic of economic reasoning and the discipline of the scientific method. Like his teachers, he was confronted with doubters for his analysis of the negative consequences of public policies designed to help the poor but that instead further disadvantaged them. He tried to get those doubters to see through received political rhetoric, to get them to study the world as it is, not the fanciful one they might imagine. [Milton] Friedman convinced him to write for the general public. If you can’t explain an economic concept in less than 800 words, Friedman reportedly told him, you don’t know the concept that well. Walter worked to hone his craft as a thinker and communicator.”