New at Reason
Deirdre McCloskey gets the chance to re-assess the work of two pivotal 20th Century economic thinkers. Who comes out on top: Schumpeter or Galbraith?
Comments to "New at Reason":
BakedPenguin | September 18, 2007, 7:19am | #
Hmmm. A free market economist compares a free market economist and a near-socialist to see who wins. I'm going to guess................ Schumpeter.I'll be back after I RTFA to see how I did...
BakedPenguin | September 18, 2007, 7:50am | #
Oops. McCloskey wrote the review, not the book. Still, Schumpeter wins....both Schumpeter and Galbraith thought that committees would kill [the economy]...
To be fair, committees are doing their best. Markets are just too powerful.
jbd | September 18, 2007, 8:54am | #
"Most of us get our politics in our early 20s and then never change."That's untrue of most people I know who think and read. Much more common is the "socialist at 20, conservative (or libertarian) at 40" pattern.
Radicals on the the left and right have always conceived of economic policy as the field of honor on which Titans fight to the death - Capital vs. Labour, Capitalism vs. Socialism, the Bourgeoisie vs. the Proletariat. They can never quite believe that something as prosaic, incremental, and petit bourgeois as overlaying a liberal welfare state on a fundamentally capitalist system could actually produce a sustainable armistice. But it did.
x,y | September 18, 2007, 10:07am | #
"Sustainable armistice"?In what world are you living in? Have you checked the national debt? Do you realize there's no SS "trust fund" and that it will be insolvent in a few years? Etc. Etc. Etc.
VM | September 18, 2007, 10:07am | #
Professor McCloskey has an impressive catalog of work: hier is her homepage. Highly worth browsing!lurkin merkin | September 18, 2007, 10:26am | #
Professor McCloskey has an impressive catalog of workMILF!
emme | September 18, 2007, 10:49am | #
"Professor McCloskey has an impressive catalog of work"Unfortunately that body of work also includes slandering Michael Bailey.
mitch | September 18, 2007, 11:11am | #
"Sustainable armistice."The vampire, realizing that dead peasants have no blood, promises to only drink a few pints at a time, and the villagers promise not to burn down his castle and put a stake through him. Maybe sustainable, but the vampire relaxing in his castle is still taking advantage of the villagers who spend their days toiling in the fields.
Mike Laursen | September 18, 2007, 11:13am | #
overlaying a liberal welfare state on a fundamentally capitalist systemWow. This comment dovetails with an excellent article I read last night, "Libertarianism: Left or Right?":
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp
The article has a quote from Rothbard that is really saying the same thing as joe, but with a not so flattering light:
".... socialism, while to the 'left' of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means."
Mike Laursen | September 18, 2007, 11:19am | #
But, of course, Rothbard was a bit of a fundamentalist dick. I'd gladly accept a basically libertarian, free market society with a government safety net. If we could eliminate all the huge government wastes like wars and corporate welfare, providing assistance to people in true need, and only to people who are in true need, wouldn't be that big of a drain on the economy.Garth | September 18, 2007, 11:24am | #
Ummm... Lurkin Merkin. You do realize that prof McClosky has a "y" chromosome, yes? She used to be "Donald".....Not that there is anything wrong with that.
x,y | September 18, 2007, 11:30am | #
Mike,And just how would we tell who's truly in need? And who makes that decision?
lurkin merkin | September 18, 2007, 11:34am | #
Yes, Garth. It was supposed to be a joke.Mike Laursen | September 18, 2007, 11:35am | #
And just how would we tell who's truly in need? And who makes that decision?Some imperfect process. Like I said, it's a compromise I'd be willing to accept, not libertopia.
joe | September 18, 2007, 11:43am | #
x,y,I was talking about politics. Particular feelings about the wisdom of left, right, or center politics aren't really the point. Both sides were geared up for a fight to the death, certain that their perfect, gleaming edifice was the only way to stave off disaster, and they were wrong. We muddled through with some duct tape and bailing wire.
joe | September 18, 2007, 11:57am | #
Also, x,y,If the United States averages 3.3% economic growth per year, there will never be a Social Security deficit, or anything even close, from now unto the infinite time horizon.
Since the end of the Civil War - a period of 140 years, one that includes several depressions including the Great Depression - the American economy has grown at 3.4% per year.
The sky is not falling.
| September 18, 2007, 11:58am | #
Unfortunately that body of work also includes slandering Michael Bailey.Looks more like Michael Bailey slandered Deirdre McCloskey.
So I second Viking Moose.
What's cuter, a fluffy little kitten or Dennis Kucinich? Read the article to find out!
JasonL | September 18, 2007, 1:25pm | #
joe is right in at least one sense. The Road to Serfdom slippery slope argument is on the ropes. The mechanisms described by the book are all in place, but the idea that weakened private property necessarily leads to socialism appears not to be the case.There is a boundary placed on modern welfare states. Namely, the life of the golden goose. You can't kill the productive off. You can't even make them uncomfortable enough that they lessen production too much. You just let the welfare state grow with the economy. The argument now is about how much growth is required to provide x amount of transfers without causing a net loss, or how much in the way of transfers can you afford if you want to look at it that way.
Joe, the faster the economy grows the faster wages and therefore SS benefits will grow.
Eric the .5b | September 18, 2007, 2:59pm | #
joe is right in at least one sense. The Road to Serfdom slippery slope argument is on the ropes. The mechanisms described by the book are all in place, but the idea that weakened private property necessarily leads to socialism appears not to be the case.No offense, but every time I read something like this, I wonder if the other person and I read the same book. I remember Hayek going into why "overlaying a liberal welfare state on a fundamentally capitalist system" was an utterly different thing from socialism and completely not what he was talking about.
joe | September 18, 2007, 3:44pm | #
Jason L, I've been using the Golden Goose analogy on my anti-capitalist friends for some time now.That's it, exactly. Capitalism isn't BAD. It's GOOD - it produces wealth, and does a fine job distributing it, for the most part.
It's just not completely sufficient, all by itself. We can work on that, but we can't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Eric the .5b,
Like Mill, Hayek gets dragged into all sorts of absolutist, market-fundie arguments he never actually endorsed.
JasonL | September 18, 2007, 4:00pm | #
Halfbee:I'll have to re read, but I seem to recall an argument about a progression from weakened property to no property and from no property to tyranny. I may have just been hearing that argument too often in the echo chamber though.
Too, and I've never been clear on how Hayek felt about this, there is the problem of the size of the overlaid welfare state. At some margin, it is difficult to see what a 'fundamentally capitalist system' is.
emme | September 18, 2007, 4:13pm | #
"Looks more like Michael Bailey slandered Deirdre McCloskey."Read the case study by Professor Dregger. McCloskey is a total bitch.
http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf
Jaap Weel | September 18, 2007, 9:31pm | #
Re: the slippery slope...Hayek was not a historicist, and in fact was in violent agreement with Popper that social science trying to make a priori prophetic predictions about the long run course of history amounts to pretentious piffle. If you read any of his writing as a prophetic prediction that all welfare states will go to hell over time, you misread him.
What he did say is that any welfare state, if it is to achieve total equality of opportunity, needs to become totalitarian. He wouldn't have spent so much time writing if he hadn't thought that it was feasible to convince people to scale down their expectations of total equality and appreciate the benefits of spontaneous order. The welfare state may be a slope, but it's not quite so slippery that you can never climb back up.
Besides, Hayek also repeatedly wrote that modest "safety net" programs (I imagine he was thinking of something like the Swiss system) could be compatible with a free society.
Eric the .5b | September 19, 2007, 2:18pm | #
I'll have to do the same thing (it's been at least five years since I read it), but his concern as I recall it wasn't property, but the scope of government action in the economy and the attempt of governments to manage economies. He was pointing out the naked emperor of command economies and socialism, and how their failings lead to increasingly greater failed government management and instability.
I'll have to re read, but I seem to recall an argument about a progression from weakened property to no property and from no property to tyranny. I may have just been hearing that argument too often in the echo chamber though.
He really only touched upon the issue of "how much welfare state is safe?", but I thought that touch was rather relevant. He was specifically refuting the claim that the postwar Scandinavian countries were examples of socialist success. He argued that no, those countries weren't very socialist at all - they had minimal government control of production and such, just an extensive welfare state atop a liberal, free market society. He contrasted them with postwar England, which still had extensive nationalization of industries and services; England was far more genuinely socialist.
So by his logic (and pretty well borne out by history), welfare states, even big European ones, don't seem to pose the same qualitative threat as actual socialist systems.
Eric the .5b | September 19, 2007, 2:27pm | #
Besides, Hayek also repeatedly wrote that modest "safety net" programs (I imagine he was thinking of something like the Swiss system) could be compatible with a free society.Free-market economists tend to accept the need for government safety-net functionality in some form. I'm not sure I buy that need myself, but I'd really happily settle for things like negative income tax. "Remove any and all government safety net" is somewhere around "Get rid of that 'in God we trust' motto" in terms of importance on my agenda. It's miles below "Get rid of the current entitlement system", and that's below things like "Prevent nationalization of medicine", which is a hop or three below "Undo the Bush policies of the last six years".
Jaap Weel | September 19, 2007, 9:09pm | #
@Eric:Take the case of somebody who loses their job after 11 months because labor contracts of more than a year receive dismissal protection in their country. Or of an elderly immigrant who doesn't speak the language very well and can only really contribute $5 per hour to the revenue of any firm, but the minimum wage is $7.
These people might take freedom of contract over handouts any day, but any system that deprives them of both at the same time is cruel.
Eric the .5b | September 20, 2007, 6:22pm | #
I'd have to agree, Jaap.Good article, although I'm not sure McCloskey defends her view that language and rhetoric play such important roles in the economy.