I never took Director's Law seriously before...

Why must you doubt me?

Aaron Director, University of Chicago Law professor, brother-in-law to Milton Friedman and all around solid guy, had a theory about public choice and economics. He postulated that most public programs will end up supporting the middle class, at the expense of the lower and upper classes. He saw the middle class as the biggest interest group in society, one which could control the vote and get money to come its way. This little idea is called Director's Law, and I know Milton Friedman helped spread the concept.

It always seemed to me like he was doing it as a family favor. The idea that the middle class are a homogeneous group which votes together was kind of unrealistic to me. The law also seemed like a humorous stereotypical economist's opinion - the middle class is strictly self interested and will steal from the poor to feed their fat faces. Why was Milton Friedman into this idea? Was there a lost bet, or maybe a social mistake at a Thanksgiving dinner which Friedman was attempting to make up for?

Well, today on the NYT there is an interesting article which seems to support the idea behind Director's Law. Maybe the reasons behind it aren't perfect, but the concept of the middle class democratic money hole is supported here. Parts of the article itself feels like a snarky hit piece on the "supposedly independent" Tea-party types, and in that aspect I think it might fail to consider the fact that maybe people who don't support the government stealing from them are still willing to take back the money the government stole from them. The actual content, though - the middle class is getting more and more subsidized - is fascinating from a theory standpoint.