If Capitalism Is the Disease, What Is the Cure?

Last week, Jacob Sullum blogged a New York Times' op-ed by "contrarian sociologist" Mike Males. In his fun piece, Males noted vast increases in anti-social behavior among middle-aged people and concluded that, pace media hysteria about kids, "what experts label 'adolescent risk taking' is really baby boomer risk taking."

Now Michelle Shinghal notes the letters in response to Males, especially this gem:

I suspect that many of these badly behaving adults come from the lower and middle economic classes.

Given this era of unprecedented wealth for an exclusive few; the decline of real wages; astronomical higher-education costs; health care and housing woes; the obsolescence and theft of pensions; not to mention mergers, layoffs and outsourcing, it's no surprise that adults increasingly turn to alcohol, crime, drugs and risky sex to escape their woes.

Mr. Males has laid out the human costs of American capitalism. The remedy? Electing politicians whose ideas will create positive social and economic change for all, not for the few.

It's time we take care of the families on Main Street, not just Wall Street.

More here.

Comments

Art | September 25, 2007, 9:18am | #

Social justice and equal outcomes for all!!!

Fluffy | September 25, 2007, 9:18am | #

Poverty and job insecurity not only causes recreational drug use and casual sex, it also causes rock climbing, parasailing, the eating of greasy foods, and all those fat middle-aged guys who ride around on Harleys on the weekend.

joe | September 25, 2007, 9:19am | #

As goober-iffic as the language is, the writer raises an interesting theory: does the greater dynammism/churning of the contemporary economy compared to the 1950s-1980s impose a higher overall social cost in terms of stress and insecurity?

This is question distinct from the question of whether it creates greater overall wealth and the benefits that accrue from that.

Dan T | September 25, 2007, 9:22am | #

The letter seems reasonable enough to me - what's most interesting about it is that Nick posts it without comment, as if it's understood that even the most obvious and uncontroversial criticism of American economics is barely worth more than an eye-roll.

Taktix® | September 25, 2007, 9:22am | #

it's no surprise that adults increasingly turn to alcohol, crime, drugs and risky sex to escape their woes.

Funny, as these are the root causes when talking about drugs.

But when attacking capitalism, these are merely sad, unfortunate byproducts of the evil rich.

It's time we take care of the families on Main Street, not just Wall Street.

What? Those of us who live on Avenues get nothing?

Episiarch | September 25, 2007, 9:23am | #

does the greater dynammism/churning of the contemporary economy compared to the 1950s-1980s impose a higher overall social cost in terms of stress and insecurity?

Probably, for some--but that's always the case. Those who are more adaptive with change will usually thrive or at least do fine in a more dynamic environment, while those who are resistant or who want things to be secure will not do well. C'est la vie.

There are many of us who like the greater dynamicism/churning.

Michael Pack | September 25, 2007, 9:23am | #

Joe,why do you pretend to be a deep thinker when in fact your a socialist?People have a much greater chance to prosper now than ever before.

J sub D | September 25, 2007, 9:28am | #

As goober-iffic as the language is, the writer raises an interesting theory: does the greater dynammism/churning of the contemporary economy compared to the 1950s-1980s impose a higher overall social cost in terms of stress and insecurity?

As soon as someone defines "social costs" I'll attempt to answer the question. The past, rose colored glasses, etc. etc, etc.

mitch | September 25, 2007, 9:30am | #

"I suspect that many of these badly behaving adults come from the lower and middle economic classes."

I suspect that the majority of all adults come from the lower and middle economic classes.

joe | September 25, 2007, 9:31am | #

Episiarch,

My question was about greater "overall" cost.

Are you saying it is an unmitigated good if more people are "not doing well?"

Pig Mannix | September 25, 2007, 9:33am | #

As goober-iffic as the language is, the writer raises an interesting theory: does the greater dynammism/churning of the contemporary economy compared to the 1950s-1980s impose a higher overall social cost in terms of stress and insecurity?

I'm not sure I'd call it a "social cost". You could just as easily argue we behave badly just because we can now afford the luxury of doing so, whereas in the past, sans the welfare state safety-net, irresponsible behavior led to swift and drastic consequences.

joe | September 25, 2007, 9:33am | #

J sub D,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cost

Michael Pack,

Congratulations on not pretending. Your strategy of replacing thought with labels must save a great deal of effort.

joe | September 25, 2007, 9:34am | #

Pig Mannix,

Are you saying there is more of a welfare state, and more economic security for middle- and working-class people now than in the decades after World War 2?

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 9:35am | #

wait...what?

J ssub D | September 25, 2007, 9:35am | #

I suspect that the majority of all adults come from the lower and middle economic classes.

Oh, like sbout 90%? That brought a smile to my face, Mitch.

Warren | September 25, 2007, 9:36am | #

Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home.

Dan T | September 25, 2007, 9:37am | #

I'm not sure I'd call it a "social cost". You could just as easily argue we behave badly just because we can now afford the luxury of doing so, whereas in the past, sans the welfare state safety-net, irresponsible behavior led to swift and drastic consequences.

They should call this the "My seat belt caused me to intentionally crash my car" theory.

Episiarch | September 25, 2007, 9:37am | #

joe, I don't know how you would quantify "overall costs". I have a feeling different people would have completely different opinions on that.

My point was that dynamic situations favor certain types of people, and that this has always been, and will be.

joe | September 25, 2007, 9:38am | #

On the bright side, at least half of them are above average.

*checks math*

Oh, yeah. At least.

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 9:38am | #

not intentionally Dan, but admit it. If cars had no safety devices what-so-ever, would you even risk getting in one?

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 9:40am | #

I agree with joe. The choice of words was indeed gooberific.

Let's see if I can play this game. If I understand the rules, you take a study you've only read a synopsis of, you don't pay attention to any of the data, and you force it into some point you want to make about the unfairness of modern American life. Bonus points if you include the terms 'human costs' or 'unfettered'.

How about: "I bet the majority of these adults behaving badly are Mexican. We are seeing the human costs of unfettered American borders." I don't know if borders can be unfettered, but that sounds damned compelling.

"I bet the majority of these adults behaving badly are former hippies. We are seeing the human costs of unfettered drug use by smelly Democrats, or communists, or whatever."

SP | September 25, 2007, 9:40am | #

Forget social costs, greater dynamism creates individual costs in the form of stress and insecurity. Plenty of individuals spend a lot of time worrying about the future in this economy and that is a real burden to bear.

Acknowledging a downside to a dynamic economy doesn't make one a socialist. Nor does it mean that we should attempt to curb it. Maybe it just means that the best arrangement we can hope for isn't a perfect arrangment.

joe | September 25, 2007, 9:40am | #

And my point, Episiarch, is to ask whether the benefits that accrue to your "certain types of people" should be weighed against the harms that accrue to other "types of people," or whether we should just not consider that harm to be a bad thing. Because they've got it coming, or something?

toxic | September 25, 2007, 9:40am | #

Or, alternately, not having to worry about food and housing gives people time to do fun things like get fucked up, fuck, and fuck shit up.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 9:42am | #

"does the greater dynammism/churning of the contemporary economy compared to the 1950s-1980s impose a higher overall social cost in terms of stress and insecurity?"

I suspect it does to a certain extent, but that meshes nicely with the idea that you can be infantilized by your government.

SugarFree | September 25, 2007, 9:43am | #

joe,

That question wasn't quite loaded enough, would you like another crack at it?

Episiarch | September 25, 2007, 9:43am | #

gives people time to do fun things like get fucked up, fuck, and fuck shit up.

The three "F"s, as guaranteed in the Constitution.

JW | September 25, 2007, 9:47am | #

it's no surprise that adults increasingly turn to alcohol, crime, drugs and risky sex to escape their woes.

And to think people you used to turn to the movies to escape their woes, long before self-destruction was fashionable.

I could have sworn that actions have consequences, not the other way around.

joe | September 25, 2007, 9:49am | #

No, SurgarFree, I'll stand pat.

When the smelling salts kick in, maybe you can rise from your couch and venture an answer.

Lamar | September 25, 2007, 9:56am | #

"The remedy? Electing politicians whose ideas will create positive social and economic change for all, not for the few."

This is a correct statement. Of course, being the NY Times, the implication is that we need politicians to regulate biz or welfareate the people, but the comment itself can be read to mean politicians should not engage in asymmetrical bailouts, subsidize inefficient industries or funnel public funds into private hands (see, i.e., Rich DeVos in Orlando).

So if I close my left eye and refuse to see the implication of the letter writer, I can actually sign on to the statement itself.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 9:59am | #

The benefits of dynamism are eventually enjoyed by everyone, and they are sufficiently dramatic that there isn't much actual weighing to do. You'd certainly not do anything to harm the dynamic system as an offset to the mouse on the other end of the teeter-totter.

People have angst because they have time to have angst.

Fluffy | September 25, 2007, 10:00am | #

Dan -

No, what's being mocked in this post is the claim that people engage in expensive and self-indulgent pursuits because they're poor.

Joe -

I think the reason Episarch wants the precise costs you're talking about defined is because when you talk about it on the level of individual economic action, basically the "security" complaint boils down to a desire to freeze the rest of society to avoid the necessity of change oneself.

"Your economic system makes it impossible for my kids to eat!" is a complaint that one is at least obligated to try to engage. "You economic system makes me have to find a new job every so often, and I don't wanna!" is less so.

J ssub D | September 25, 2007, 10:00am | #

Social costs, are in the eyes of the beholder. Almost any change can be descibed so it's social costs outweigh the benefits and vice versa.

I know that risky, self destructive behavior is defined as bad. I question that assumption here.

SugarFree | September 25, 2007, 10:02am | #

Oh, I see, I'm on a couch because I'm commenting! on the Internet! There must not be a mirror in your whole fucking house, joe.

I don't think that the benefits / harm question shouldn't be "weighed" (however you will find fit to define that), but your question is asinine and leading as always. "Weigh" it all you want. Doing something about it (i.e. stripping "benefits" from some to correct the "harm" to other) is what I have a problem with.

Of course, if economics isn't viewed as a zero sum game... nope, better not even try to go there.

Fluffy | September 25, 2007, 10:04am | #

Dan -

On the subject of seat belts leading people to crash their car, it is well known and acknowledged by sports historians that the gradual improvement of safety equipment has led to more reckless play.

Players hit harder in football with modern equipment than they did in the 20's. Hockey players hit high with the stick more after the use of helmets became universal. Baseball batters stay in the box more on inside pitching now that they can wear selective body armor on their arms and legs. Etc.

This is not an unknown or irrational phenomena.

JW | September 25, 2007, 10:16am | #

does the greater dynammism/churning of the contemporary economy compared to the 1950s-1980s impose a higher overall social cost in terms of stress and insecurity?

It's a bit silly to try and compare cultural and economic differences between time periods that little to do with one another. Should we ask whether or not the 1920's are "better" than the 1990's? That depends on who you ask.

I try and tell my kids about a world without the Internet, DVD players, MP3 players, cable TV, satellite radio, video games, email, IM, cheap big-screen TVs and they just look at me as if I'm nuts.

Yep, it's like walking to school, in the snow, uphill both ways, with only a candle to light the way.

But heck, I'll bite with my own loaded answer: is unparalleled wealth, choice and opportunity worth what some change-averse people might call "social upheaval?"

Absafrigintively.

Episiarch | September 25, 2007, 10:19am | #

joe, some people do better in dynamic situations. Life is a dynamic situation, no matter how much you try to "equalize" it. Some people will always do better than others. You can't weigh harms and benefits; that's like asking someone to weigh the benefits of being pretty smart against being a little dumb. One would think it is better to be smarter. But exactly how do we quantify that? And what, exactly, do you want to do about it?

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 10:21am | #

This is probably my favorite part:
The remedy? Electing politicians whose ideas will create positive social and economic change for all, not for the few.

HA! She didn't even try to avoid "politicians" for maybe "respresentatives" or "leaders." The politicians will fix this! Just vote for the party that cares about social and economic justice!

Isn't economic change what she's complaining about in the first place?

Pig Mannix | September 25, 2007, 10:28am | #

Are you saying there is more of a welfare state, and more economic security for middle- and working-class people now than in the decades after World War 2?

More of a welfare state, but possibly less economic security in terms of jobs, etc. But you have to consider that the demographic being discussed was born immediately after WWII; although circumstances may have changed, they retain the attitudes and behavior developed from the time they came of age.

And there's obviously a lot more to it than just the welfare state. Technology and medical advances played a role as well.

thoreau | September 25, 2007, 10:30am | #

joe-

I get the point of your question, but even risk can be priced. So I suspect that greater total wealth is still the measure that matters.

Then again, maybe the marginal utility of additional wealth is lower if some of it is just compensating for risk.

Something to think about.

joe | September 25, 2007, 10:33am | #

As expected, reverse logic is all I'm getting.

Because "politics politics policy," it cannot be the case that the social costs of more turbulent economic conditions are worth thinking about.

SugarFree,

Oh, I see, I'm on a couch because I'm commenting! on the Internet!

That whooshing sensation on your scalp? Don't worry about it.

P Brooks | September 25, 2007, 10:34am | #

How many people have rowed from Miami to Havana on a plank lashed to an inner tube, in order to find a better, happier, life? There's not much dynamism in the Cuban economy, and hasn't been, since the late fifties; it must be a better place to live than this shithole.

Syloson of Samos | September 25, 2007, 10:34am | #

Episiarch,

Just as an aside I would note that some dynamic situations are better than others of course. In other words, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was a pretty dynamic situation.

joe | September 25, 2007, 10:35am | #

JasonL,

When you write, The benefits of dynamism are eventually enjoyed by everyone are you using "everyone" to refer to people in the aggregate, or are you making the statement that each individual will eventually be better off for these conditions? That there will be no losers, only winners? Because the latter sounds like a free lunch.

de stijl | September 25, 2007, 10:38am | #

I declare shenanigans!

Nick Gillespie posted about and mocked a letter to the editor?

What, stealing candy from babies was getting too tough for you?

joe | September 25, 2007, 10:40am | #

Fluffy,

basically the "security" complaint boils down to a desire to freeze the rest of society to avoid the necessity of change oneself.

Setting aside the Lysenkonism in this statement - X can't be true because it would suggest Y about politics - I don't think your assumption is true.

The dynamism of capitalism functions better in certain social and political circumstances, and if there is too much harm being imposed on a significant segment of the population, it will cause the economy to function less productively.

I like the phrase "rought and tumble of capitalism" to describe its dynamism. It brings to mind a bunch of kids wrestling in the basement. If there are matts laid down theh concrete floor, they will be able to "rought and tumble" more, not less.

Lamar | September 25, 2007, 10:41am | #

"If Capitalism Is the Disease, What Is the Cure?"

More cowbell?

dhex | September 25, 2007, 10:42am | #

when haven't people turned to alcohol and risky sex?

the real tragedy here is a complete lack of understanding of "the responsible abuse of pleasure."

Episiarch | September 25, 2007, 10:42am | #

Just as an aside I would note that some dynamic situations are better than others of course. In other words, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was a pretty dynamic situation.

Absolutely. All I said is that some people do better than others in dynamic situations. These tend to be the successful people. Dynamic can often mean dangerous, especially in the past, and those who could survive obviously did better than those who didn't.

JBinMO | September 25, 2007, 10:43am | #

"adults increasingly turn to alcohol, crime, drugs and risky sex"

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

joe | September 25, 2007, 10:45am | #

JW,

No one is questioning that the wealth is a good thing. The question is, is it the only consequence?

A smart investor diversifies his holdings because he's not just trying to maximize his gains, but also to minimize his losses. A smart investor doesn't just look at the potential reward from an investment, but the size of the potential loss and the likelihood of that loss.

Asking, what do you want to do about it is premature. 1) We haven't even established that "it" exists, and 2) that question you're asking is completely irrelevant to the questions of whether "it" exists and how large "it" is.

That's what I'm talking about with "backwards logic" and "Lysenkonism."

Dan T | September 25, 2007, 10:47am | #

All I said is that some people do better than others in dynamic situations. These tend to be the successful people.

In a similar manner, players born on third base are much more likely to score than the guy swinging the bat at home plate.

Syloson of Samos | September 25, 2007, 10:49am | #

Episiarch,

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just note that certain dynamic situations can be quite harmful to a great number of people.

joe | September 25, 2007, 10:50am | #

P Brooks,

I'll see your Cuba and raise the incredibly dynamic Weimar Germany.

Actually, no I won't, because that isn't remotely the game I'm playing.

So, to sum up, Nazi Nazi Commie Commie Klansman.

Poop.

Syloson of Samos | September 25, 2007, 10:50am | #

Episiarch,

Which gets us into thorny issues like whether the industrial revolution as it played out was the best way to go about such things, etc.

joe | September 25, 2007, 10:52am | #

I just note that certain dynamic situations can be quite harmful to a great number of people.

And I'll follow up by noting that this statement can be true, even if some aggregate measure of goodness or happiness is high.

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 10:54am | #

joe -
The answer is "no," "we" should not try to measure and compensate for the "harm" done to some under a dynamic economy. You or I could attempt to help these people, but how exactly are you going to measure harm? Short or long term?

Example:
Not a dynamic economy:
A 50 year old gentleman owns a coffee shop in downtown Smalltown. It is the only coffee shop because the common council has decided that they want more retail downtown and they don't need anymore coffee shops. The 50 year old man makes a good living doing this.
A dynamic economy:
The common council lifts the moratorium on new eateries and another 2 coffee shops open. They have qualities that allow them to stay open even though the common council had previously said that they had enough coffee shops downtown. Now 3 coffee shops are operating, serving all the townspeople and providing them choice between cheapness, atmosphere, and speed. The 50 year old isn't making as much as he used to and may have to work harder/more years before he can retire.
1. Is he a loser of a dynamic economy?
2. Should "we" try to compensate him?
3. Is this sufficient reason for the moratorium to have never been lifted?
4. What if 5 years down the road he was actually making more money than before because he had incentive to make a better coffee shop and figured out ways to lure more customers? If we hadn't lifted the moratorium, he would have been worse off in the long run, but better off in the short run. How do we judge this impact at the time the decision is made?

Episiarch | September 25, 2007, 10:55am | #

Pleae don't mistake me for saying "dynamic always good". I think that dynamicism in our current economy is good. I think that 5-Year-Plans are bad. But remember that most dangerous dynamicism comes from war or totalitarian governments.

BakedPenguin | September 25, 2007, 10:57am | #

In a similar manner, players born on third base are much more likely to score than the guy swinging the bat at home plate.

Dan, Did you go to college? Did you ever meet any rich kids? Because many of the ones I met were pretty f'd-up. Your materialist reductionism is BS.

Can a more turbulent economy create problems for people? Yes, of course. People who base their entire self-worth around their jobs are going to be crushed if they should somehow lose that job. My question is why public policy has to revolve around them.

JBinMO | September 25, 2007, 10:58am | #

"Yep, it's like walking to school, in the snow, uphill both ways, with only a candle to light the way."

They gave you a candle?!

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 11:01am | #

"When you write, The benefits of dynamism are eventually enjoyed by everyone are you using "everyone" to refer to people in the aggregate, or are you making the statement that each individual will eventually be better off for these conditions? That there will be no losers, only winners? Because the latter sounds like a free lunch."

joe: There are limits to how well the winners/losers model really works. My point is that losers aren't permanent losers and the output of dynamic capitalism steadily becomes cheaper and pervasive. While I can't guarantee absolutely that no single person will ever be permanently made worse off, if such cases exist, I literally can't imagine what they are. You could almost make the argument with computing power alone. Anyone looking to engage the economy at all has an easier time of it because of cheap computing power. Even a homeless guy on the street who goes to soup kitchens and halfway houses benefits over his previous state because those institutions function more efficiently. If you are feeling green, imagine trying to run a complex business on all paper these days. Not only would you run into scale problems, you would consume galactic quantities of natural resources.

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:03am | #

Reinmoose,

If I stipulate that I don't think the solution is less dynamism - as I already did - could you pretty please stop sticking your fingers in your ears?

I rarely meet such determination not to know things. If your political philosophy was all you crack it up to be, you wouldn't be afraid of facts. If you were so certain that the benefits of a more dynamic capitalism so significantly outweighed the costs, you wouldn't be afraid to measure them.

As for your example, I wouldn't support such a moratorium, period, for exactly the reason that it would undermine the benefits of a competetive capitalist system - the greater choice available to customers, the better match of supply and demand, the pressure on suppliers to improve their offerings, and the likely presence of more businesses overall.

Fluffy | September 25, 2007, 11:03am | #

Joe -

I can see your point about the mats. I think that unintended consequences would make it not turn out the way you think it would, particularly over time, but it's an interesting metaphor.

Here's my issue with applying that thinking to "the social costs of dynamism".

I assume - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that you're talking about the self-reported "stress" of economic actors. If we have a situation where employment is high and total compensation continues to increase over time, the "stress" downside is that people suffer anxiety while changing jobs, suffer anxiety about the possibility that they might have to change jobs in the future, and/or suffer anxiety when they are pushed into self-employment [or commissioned or temporary employment] instead of big-company employment.

But if you isolate the actual source of the stress here and consider it at a fundamental level, it does in fact pretty much boil down to a fear of change and a resentment at the prospect that an effort might be needed to deal with change.

When thinking about that as a social cost, I think we're entitled to question whether we want to acknowledge this fear and resentment as a universal cost and not as a character-based cost. An actor in the system is more likely to experience this "cost" if they possess character traits that lead them to feel entitled to demand a halt to change. If I don't approve of those character traits, shouldn't I take this cost less seriously?

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:08am | #

JasonL,

One such example would be a manufacturing town whose economic base had been so deeply eroded that the lack disinvestment itself causes the region to become unattractive for further investment. The people there are not lazier of stupider or less fit in Episiarch's Darwinian sense; they're just left in a much less amiable environment.

Everyone: I don't need the benefits of dynamism and extra economic growth explained to me. Thanks. That's really not the question. You can stop now.

JW | September 25, 2007, 11:12am | #

No one is questioning that the wealth is a good thing. The question is, is it the only consequence?

Who said that it was? You haven't really identified the "downside," yet the upside is fairly obvious. Stress and insecurity? What's that? Who's is it? What would have been the "losers'" situation otherwise?

A smart investor diversifies his holdings because he's not just trying to maximize his gains, but also to minimize his losses. A smart investor doesn't just look at the potential reward from an investment, but the size of the potential loss and the likelihood of that loss.

No kidding. Is this the part where I point out that a massive and complex economy isn't a mutual fund to be mananged?

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:12am | #

Fluffy,

You could describe the "stress" on the people upended from Boston's West End by Urban Renewal as "fear of change," too. Nonetheless, their mortality rates skyrocketed.

Fear of change, when the change you're fearing is as fundamental as "how will I feed my kids?" and "where will I live?" and "will I be safe?" is a powerful force. Even if that was the only consequence of a more dynamic economy, it's not one to dismiss lightly.

And just in case, noting that one change was wrought by the government and another by the market is not a rebuttal to this point.

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 11:12am | #

joe -
let me try this again, but hopefully this time I'll get an answer and not some arrogant insult.

How do you measure "harm?"
And can it be done? And do we consider short term "harm" sufficient to attempt to provide a wrestling mat for them? Can long term "benefits" of short term "harm" be measured?

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:16am | #

JW,

You're falling into the trap of assuming that the ease of measuring a variable makes it more real of significant.

No kidding. Is this the part where I point out that a massive and complex economy isn't a mutual fund to be mananged?

No, this is the part where I roll my eyes at your deliberate obtuseness to how metaphors are used to explain principles.

BakedPenguin | September 25, 2007, 11:20am | #

Even if [fear of job loss / income] was the only consequence of a more dynamic economy, it's not one to dismiss lightly.

So, joe, is this where you state that you want a government solution to this, we say we want a private solution, and we move on to another thread?

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 11:21am | #

oh, and FYI
I didn't think you'd be in favor of the moratorium. The object of the example was, in fact, not to somehow show you that such measures are not good for the economy. Rather it was an attempt to illustrate a possible scenerio that could come out of increasing the dynamicism of the economy, and to raise questions about how to measure the effects of it.
Seriously, chill out.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 11:21am | #

"One such example would be a manufacturing town whose economic base had been so deeply eroded that the lack disinvestment itself causes the region to become unattractive for further investment. The people there are not lazier of stupider or less fit in Episiarch's Darwinian sense; they're just left in a much less amiable environment."

I prefer to leave merit out of the equation on both sides. We can argue about the outcomes of voluntary exchanges approximating an abstract idea of merit separately.

People left in a less attractive area aren't stagnant. They invest in their area or they move. Pittsburgh would be a fine example of the former while Wyoming would be an example of the latter. Whether they make a go of it or not in their home town, after some period of time the value added on the consumption side swamps the equation.

People in Detroit may be worse off relative to other market participants than they were 50 years ago, but I'd raise an eyebrow at the suggestion that they are worse off now than they were then in terms of living standards.

Fluffy | September 25, 2007, 11:21am | #

Looking at my post I realize I haven't really gone much farther in my explanation than I did in my original post, so I'm going to take another crack at it:

I've been self-employed for pretty much my entire adult life. When writing about or thinking about self-employment, most modern commentators tend to describe it as some uniquely risky endeavour, and talk about self-employed people as economic actors who have deliberately gone in search of greater risk. I consider this evaluation false and misleading.

At the most basic economic level, everyone outside of feudal situations is self-employed. Some self-employed people are only selling one product: their labor. But we should not let the administrative machinery that we have developed to facilitate economic exchange blind us to the fact that no market system ever qualitatively changes from the basic "bazaar" model. We have a tendency to view the employer/employee relationship through a lens that misleads many into thinking that it is somehow different than other exchanges taking place in the market, and it's not. Only the left-over baggage of the social relationships of the feudal era and the somewhat unique experience of workers in oligopolistic industries at one stage of western economic development makes it appear to be so.

The false way we look at the employer/employee relationship impacts this discussion and similar discussions in a profound way, because of the way it reinforces the notion that it is possible for people to avoid risk, or to choose the amount of risk they're willing to assume, by picking the type of economic actor they want to be.

The reason I am resistant to accepting Joe's analysis of "social costs" is that I don't accept that there's a level of "low risk" that non-entrepreneurs are entitled to and which can be measured as a "cost" if it is not achieved. Everyone is in a complete state of economic risk at all times. Not all of these risks are within their control. The belief that you are not at risk is at best a temporary illusion and historical accident, and of artificial administrative categories in how we have previously talked about risk. We cannot expect to design our economic system in a way that will allow such an illusion to be maintained.

JW | September 25, 2007, 11:23am | #

You're falling into the trap of assuming that the ease of measuring a variable makes it more real of significant.

No, I'm asking you what exactly the downside is that should be avoided somehow. So far, all we have is a lot of nebulous fluff. You haven't measured anything.

No, this is the part where I roll my eyes at your deliberate obtuseness to how metaphors are used to explain principles.

Funny how eye-rolling moments coincide. You use a way-too-generalized metaphor to inaccurately describe something and get all testy when someone doesn't buy it.

You keep asking over-broad questions with undefined variables and then keep complaining that you aren't getting the answer that you want. Maybe you aren't asking the right question?

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:24am | #

Reinmoose,

How do you measure "harm?"

You could measure harm by the number of people who see their incomes reduced.

You could measure it by doing a survey of people's stress levels and seeing if it is increasing.

You could measure it by looking at the number of cities, towns, or metropolitan areas whose job base is declining.

And do we consider short term "harm" sufficient to attempt to provide a wrestling mat for them?

That seems like a question that would have to be answered in the specific case, not the general. In general, the only answer would be "maybe, sometimes."

Can long term "benefits" of short term "harm" be measured? I don't think this is a useful question. It assumes that the benefits - such as more overall economic growth - are the consequence OF the harm, rather than their both being consequences of dynamism. It's like treating a football player's greater muscle mass as a consequence of the muscle he tore lifting weights.

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:30am | #

Ha, typing the answer I was supposedly avoiding, even as you accused me of being unable to do so. I love it when that happens.

Fluffy,

I wouldn't want to reduce the risk - the risk is inherent in the dynamism. That would be akin to making the kids in the basement stop wrestling, or to take it easy.

I would want to do exactly the opposite - create a situation where people are more free to take risks and go out on their own, because they harm they might suffer are not so serious, and where people/regions that do suffer harms from failure can more easily bounce back from them and get back in the game.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 11:34am | #

Regarding the mats on the floor analogy joe suggests toward the top:

This is one of those arguments you used to see Hugh Hewitt and Yglesias make with some regularity. They may still, but I haven't been reading either much recently.

The problem is that the mats you throw down aren't neutral in their effects. They are subsidies to broad categories of behaviors and their nature is to insulate market participants from accurate information.

This sounds like a remote academic concern in the face of a guy who lost his job, but it really matters to him quite a bit. Should he retrain himself or just hang on with what he has left? The answer has much to do with the thickness of the mat. His whole life could change in an irrational way because retraining yourself is hard. Is he better off? It isn't clear to me that he is, and it is clear to me that if you aggregate that distortion we are all a bit worse off than we should be.

I don't think you can rig the system to have no losers on a temporary basis, and still get remotely the same benefits. The US economy is the innovative engine of the world, and that is not an accident.

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:38am | #

BakedPenguin,

So, joe, is this where you state that you want a government solution to this, we say we want a private solution, and we move on to another thread?

I don't think it is, because there seems to be at least a plurality of comments who see these additional harms as a feature, not a bug; which partially overlaps with a plurality who deny that they exist at all.

Syloson of Samos | September 25, 2007, 11:38am | #

Episiarch,

Not suggesting that you are. I just thought it worthy to point out. But the conversation has now moved on.

doubled | September 25, 2007, 11:40am | #

Joe said : "And my point, Episiarch, is to ask whether the benefits that accrue to your "certain types of people" should be weighed against the harms that accrue to other "types of people," or whether we should just not consider that harm to be a bad thing. Because they've got it coming, or something?"

But, what if making everyone the same, by stifling investment or innovation, or mandating huge wealth transfers causes the intelligent/successful stress? Would that not harm them? Why would you say it is ok to harm those most able to create a better society?

In the old days to consider oneself worse off and because of someone else's success would have been called envy. Is that not considered bad form anymore?

Cal | September 25, 2007, 11:45am | #

joe, you're being a cunt today. Oh wait, how is this different than any other day?

SugarFree | September 25, 2007, 11:46am | #

I don't think it is, because there seems to be at least a plurality of comments who see these additional harms as a feature, not a bug; which partially overlaps with a plurality who deny that they exist at all.

If we could just get past this pesky false consciousness, we'd all see the light, wouldn't we.

Is the removal of benefit a harm? Of course it is. Stop this posturing about caring about harm in the abstract. If the right people are harmed (i.e. successful people) then you don't give a shit.

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 11:48am | #

Thank you.
I don't think the last one is a useless question.
JasonL seems to be locked-on to what I was trying to get at.
It's not clear to me what the aggrigate effect of either "mat" or "no mat" is, but padding has effects on behavior. Is that always positive behavior, and how do we measure the long-term effects of it? That's all I was trying to say.

robc | September 25, 2007, 11:54am | #

joe,

You could measure harm by the number of people who see their incomes reduced.


I see this as possibly the fundamental problem. It depends on how you look at things and this relates to Fluffy's "Everyone is self-employed" concept.

I could argue that no ones income is being reduced because everyone's income is expected to be zero, until they actually work on a day and earn it. Thus, income can only go up. "Losing" your job doesnt cost you income, you never had it to begin with.

In some ways, there are parallels to the baseline budgeting arguments of the 90s.

robc | September 25, 2007, 11:59am | #

On the mat analogy, I would bring up the acrobat analogy also:

Many (most?) acrobats prefer not to practice with nets because they think it is more dangerous/leads to bad habits. So, assuming they are correct, a safety net (in the literal sense) can actually cause more harm than good.

joe | September 25, 2007, 11:59am | #

JasonL,

That was a great comment.

I agree strongly with the statement "it depends on the thickness of the matts." That's what makes me a liberal and not a socialist, I guess. I believe in market discipline and its positive effects; I just happen to be concerned with its negative effects as well.

But you bring up "retrain himself." By, what, starting his own community college to retrain himself for jobs he doesn't realize exist?

I would count the funding of community colleges, and assistance to dislocated workers seeking to attend such colleges, to be a useful "matt."

joe | September 25, 2007, 12:01pm | #

I must be pwning, becasue the lesser lights are swearing at me.

joe | September 25, 2007, 12:03pm | #

Reinmoose,

Does my answer to Jason L get at what you were asking?

robc,

That strikes me as purely semantic.

If you lose your job, you've suffered harm. How can that be self-evident?

robc | September 25, 2007, 12:03pm | #

I must be pwning, becasue the lesser lights are swearing at me.

Nope. Of course, I dont think you are being overly cunty today either.

JW | September 25, 2007, 12:05pm | #

Ha, typing the answer I was supposedly avoiding, even as you accused me of being unable to do so. I love it when that happens.

Even the examples you provide are too open to interpretation.

Reduced incomes: over what time period? Is this a temporary offset due to technological shifts, where certain jobs are lost while others are created? Do these people who lost jobs in this instance retrain and take higher paying jobs 2 years later? If so, where is the overall harm?

Stress levels? Good luck on that. "Good day sir. Are you stressed and can you tell the audience why?" Lot's of forthright answers there. If you're really lucky, you'll get some honest and accurate ones too.

Cities losing job bases? Do we measure cities gaining too? If there is a net gain, can we argue there is no harm?

It all depends on how you are measuring what. Any measure can be manipulated and interpreted to mean whatever you want, as long as you look at it the "right" way.

robc | September 25, 2007, 12:10pm | #

joe

That strikes me as purely semantic.

Somewhat yes, but semantics affect/show our biases.

If you lose your job, you've suffered harm. How can that be self-evident?

I disagree. If I invoice you for work Ive already done and you dont pay me, Ive suffered harm. If you tell me not to do anymore work, but pay me for what I have already done, I have suffered no harm.

I think it comes down to the self-employed view. I am self-employed, when I get a client, I know that in most cases, it is for only for a few days to a year or two, and I dont always know in advance which it will be. If non-self-employed people thought of there jobs in the same way, you would see the lack of harm.

Harm requires a negative condition. Not having a job is a null condition, but it isnt negative. It is only negative relative to what you THOUGHT you were going to receive, but thats just due to faulty thinking.

GILMORE | September 25, 2007, 12:10pm | #

oh, quit baitin joe

That tripe from Shinghal is exactly the kind of BS that comes from having a conclusion in mind before you even consider the subject. I swear, liberal arts programs in the 80s and 90s probably produced more expensive idiots than any other system that could possibly have been developed. And I went to schools that were run by ex-SDS hippies, who had me reading Zinn and Chomsky at 16, debating class race and gender incessantly. Thank god I had the will to consider ideas outside the range of opinion they presented as viable. We live in the richest country in the world, with incredible opportunity for advancement, and we have the educated classes clamoring for shutting it down posthaste in the name of 'social justice'. If only they knew that in practice this becomes social engineering... where all the things they think they endorse are sold cheap for nominal welfare. It makes me want to puke

Middleman | September 25, 2007, 12:22pm | #

The initial premise of this thing disturbs me. I'm middle-aged, and I'm behaving better than ever (which is saying something because I never behaved very badly anyway) Where are all these lust-crazed, drunken 50 year old VIsigoths? And how can I join them?

joe | September 25, 2007, 12:25pm | #

JW,

One the lost jobs, I would count the job losses as harms, and the job gains as benefits. The existence of gains does not rule out the existence of harms. The implications of this vary based on the conditions. In Massachusetts, with a highly-diversified, highly-dynamic economic base, constant churning is a fact of life, and brings about the broad-based gains you're talking about. In Ohio, the situation is different. While the same postive-churning is happening on a national level, the growth in service industry jobs in California doesn't do a whole lotta good for a line worker in Cleveland who's never used the internet - even if the former outweighs the latter. You ask about "overall harm" - I'm not suggesting that there is overall harm. I'm talking about there being specific harm, which can be both widespread and severe, even in a situation of a net aggregate benefit.

On the stress, there you, confusing the difficulty of measuring a variable with its significance. It's tougher to put a number on that than on GDP growth. So?

Cities losing job bases? Do we measure cities gaining too? We measure them both, and recognize a harm, and a benefit.

If there is a net gain, can we argue there is no harm? No, we can argue that there is no NET harm, and an aggregate benefit. Not the same thing as "no harm" at all.

robc,

If you tell me not to do anymore work, but pay me for what I have already done, I have suffered no harm. And in the situation most relevant to the question at hand - the churning brought about by the "creative destruction" of a more-dynamic economy, if you had a job that you and family relied upon to pay the rent, and you lose it, you have suffered harm. And no, noting that it is bad that you can't pay next month's rent is not "faulty thinking." It's reality.

GILMORE, please puke in private.

JW | September 25, 2007, 12:27pm | #

middleman--Over here

uncle sam | September 25, 2007, 12:28pm | #

It seems that a lot of people believe that government imposes no cost on themselves.

miche | September 25, 2007, 12:29pm | #

That tripe from Shinghal...

Just making sure you don't think I penned that LTE. I was busy doing drugs (to manage my stress level) and thought it was funny. Since my addled mind wasn't up to the task of blogging, I sent it Reason's way. ;o)

Gilbert Martin | September 25, 2007, 12:33pm | #

"Harm requires a negative condition. Not having a job is a null condition, but it isnt negative. It is only negative relative to what you THOUGHT you were going to receive, but thats just due to faulty thinking."

That's the most pertinent thing posted in this whole thread.

The leftist's pronouncements of "harm" are predicated on their presumptions of of all sorts of "collective" responsibilites and affirmative rights and obligations - none of which are true.

JW | September 25, 2007, 12:34pm | #

joe--Who is arguing that there is no "harm"? I know I'm not. Anyone else? Are you going for that BA in Empathy now?

That only goes back to my point of definition and measurement. Try hard enough and you can show anything you want to show. Of course, nothing says it's a valid measurement.

On the stress, there you, confusing the difficulty of measuring a variable with its significance. It's tougher to put a number on that than on GDP growth. So?

No, I said *accurately* measure it. Don't try and apply Heisenberg to sociology just to gussy it up and make it look like real science.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 12:53pm | #

"But you bring up "retrain himself." By, what, starting his own community college to retrain himself for jobs he doesn't realize exist?"

I start with the assumption that adults are responsible for their own job training. There are technical schools and trade schools all over the place in my part of the country. I had assumed it were a national phenomenon. Many career changes for people with basic skill sets can be handled on the job.

Regarding the mats again, one highly distortionary effect that bothers me is the sincere belief by market participants that they are not responsible for saving anything. Stop and think just a moment how remarkable it is that the entire nation functions on an assumption that I don't have to save for my own retirement and I don't have to save for my own healthcare. You can hardly in the same breath curse the market for creating bad debt situations while you simultaneously say that no one should have to pay for their own healthcare or retirement.

My personal preference, as it has evolved over time, is a crappy uncomfortable mat. I don't believe retirement in dignity is a smart guarantee. I believe a crappy retirement that barely keeps you alive is a much better guarantee. The incentives still line up right.

joe | September 25, 2007, 12:56pm | #

JW,

Who is arguing that there is no harm?

UM, robc. Gilbert Martin. You, when you repeatedly assert that a condition of net-benefit means there is no harm. Episiarch, when he describes the difficulties visited on "those who do not adapt" as a a feature, not a bug. Fluffy, when he describes concern about economic dislocation as merely feelings about the need to improve one's self.

JW | September 25, 2007, 12:58pm | #

You ask about "overall harm" - I'm not suggesting that there is overall harm. I'm talking about there being specific harm, which can be both widespread and severe, even in a situation of a net aggregate benefit.

This is just your attempt to control the definition, as you do with debate: framing the terms so it works to your benefit.

Change happens. Somep people benefit, some don't. Some don't benefit right away, but do over a short period of time. Some people benefit right away and then lose ground as markets change again.

Why are you treating this as if it something new and notable?

doubled | September 25, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Joe keeps stating that a job lost is a harm. No argument here. My question is : what system (we were talking effects of capitalism on this thread) has the feature of NO job losses ever? Any system would have to be completely totalatarian in it's execution to be such , and would cost huge amounts of money (tax payer of course) to keep non-profitable jobs secure.

Reinmoose | September 25, 2007, 1:01pm | #

JasonL -
I was thinking about that just the other day. Somehow the idea of personal savings for times when they may not have sufficient income to compensate for their costs has just fizzled away for many. I know people who make more than I do but have zero savings or negative savings (no savings + credit card debt) because they spend their money poorly. Does that mean that they need more money? No. Because they will never save any of it.
This does not rule out that there are people who legitimately live paycheck to paycheck and have few options otherwise. But that population is a lot smaller than many would have you believe.

JW | September 25, 2007, 1:03pm | #

Who is arguing that there is no harm?

UM, robc. Gilbert Martin. You, when you repeatedly assert that a condition of net-benefit means there is no harm.

You're framing the terms how you want, and then bitching about others when they don't buy into your definition or immediately understand that is how *you* are defining "harm."

Some people are harmed on an individual basis when there is technological or cultural change. Well, no shit Sherlock.

robc | September 25, 2007, 1:03pm | #

joe,

I never said there was no harm, in fact I defined some harm that I know exists. In th 7 years I have been self-employed, I have had a number of clients harm me by not paying (or not paying in a timely manner).

As a person who is normally picky about other people reading what they write exactly, your reading skills suck.

robc | September 25, 2007, 1:06pm | #

joe,

And no, noting that it is bad that you can't pay next month's rent is not "faulty thinking." It's reality.

Its bad. Its reality. Its not harm. Not being able to afford a good or service that you would like to purchase is not being harmed, no matter how important said good or service is.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 1:08pm | #

I happen to work in a position where I'm very familiar with every conceivable explanation someone has about why they can't save anything. I have never, read never seen a case where 'I can save nothing,' is actually true. As I suggested above, take that same person and imagine that they actually know for a fact they will be eating generic branded cat food in their old age if they didn't save anything.

What they know is that such things don't happen. Ditto healthcare. I was absolutely floored by opposition to HSAs, for example. Of course people don't want to do it. That's the POINT.

Gilbert Martin | September 25, 2007, 1:15pm | #

"Is this the part where I point out that a massive and complex economy isn't a mutual fund to be mananged?"

Indeed.

joe's attempt to compare the nation to a mutual fund is absurd.

Mutual fund have specific investment stategies and the managers follow those stragegies for the benefit of the specific individuals who have voluntarily chosen to put their money on the line by investing in the fund. Each investor gets a proportional percentage of the return (or loss) commensurate with the amount of his individual investment.

That is nothing like politicians trying to "manage" the economy, which amounts to nothing more than trying to buy the votes of their targeted constituencey groups by giving them some sort of handout of somebody else's money. That's why we have lots of people who pay no income taxes getting all sorts of government handouts.

joe | September 25, 2007, 1:18pm | #

This is just your attempt to control the definition, as you do with debate: framing the terms so it works to your benefit.

No, I am making an actual point. You just don't have a very good comeback.

robc,

Here: Harm requires a negative condition. Not having a job is a null condition, but it isnt negative. It is only negative relative to what you THOUGHT you were going to receive, but thats just due to faulty thinking.

That is denial that there is harm. If you didn't mean to make that point, then proof your own posts. Don't whine at me for accurately restating what you wrote.

JasonL,

Now you are just arguing that the harm is not worth worrying about.

joe | September 25, 2007, 1:20pm | #

Gilbert Martin,

Also, mutual funds are smaller than the American economy.

That is also not the relevant point of comparison.

Hint: the point I was making had something to do with how one incorporates risk/harm and reward/benefit into one's thinking.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 1:22pm | #

"Now you are just arguing that the harm is not worth worrying about."

You lost me a bit. Which harm am I arguing isn't worth worrying about?

doubled | September 25, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Come on Joe , give me an example of an economy in the real world that has NO job loss ever. Give it a try, I'll wait.

joe | September 25, 2007, 1:25pm | #

JasonL,

The harm done to displaced workers is not worth worrying about, because they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I'm glad you support government funding of community colleges. That would be one example of the matts I'm talking about.

joe | September 25, 2007, 1:25pm | #

doubled,

I won't, because that has nothing to do with anything I've written.

doubled | September 25, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Then what you have written has nothing to do with this post , which is denouncing capitalism because of the 'harm'(drug use , alcoholism, stressed out etc..) it causes , as if there are a multitude of other systems we could employ that avoid the 'harm' that so concerns you.

Gilbert Martin | September 25, 2007, 1:31pm | #

"Hint: the point I was making had something to do with how one incorporates risk/harm and reward/benefit into one's thinking."

You have no point.

Mutual funds are run for the specific benefit of those who invest in them. The risk/reward calculations of the fund manager are designed to benefit those specific investors - not a bunch of unrelated parties and free riders as is the case when politicians try to "mitigate" the "harm" done by capitalism by giving their targeted constituency groups a handout of other people's money. Those handouts are mere transfer payments. No benefit is provided to the transferor - only to transferee.

doubled | September 25, 2007, 1:32pm | #

In other words , do socialist societies have no job loss, no stressed out people , no alcoholism ,no drug use? Color me extremely skeptical.

joe | September 25, 2007, 1:43pm | #

doubled,

I've actually written quite a bit about how to go about addressing the problems raised without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Did you miss all of that?

joe | September 25, 2007, 1:44pm | #

If you say so, Gil.

I mean, if you couldn't follow my reasoning, then there couldn't be any.

JasonL | September 25, 2007, 1:44pm | #

"The harm done to displaced workers is not worth worrying about, because they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

Eh, I didn't quite say that. Speaking purely about re-education, I don't see much of a gap because there are substantial numbers of trade schools (most private, some not) and many other types of new jobs with on the job training.

I'm not being 100% bootstrappy here. I don't think someone should starve to death while looking for work or changing their education.

JW | September 25, 2007, 1:58pm | #

joe--I've lost count. How many angels are dancing at this point?

Hint: the point I was making had something to do with how one incorporates risk/harm and reward/benefit into one's thinking.

I think that's been made fairly obvious by now: the bulk of us here are considering harm on an aggregate or gross basis. You are the only one here who is making the argument that harm has to be measured on an atomic basis.

And then yammering on and on that we don't believe there is "harm."

And who is this "matt" you keep talking about?

robc | September 25, 2007, 2:00pm | #

joe,

Don't whine at me for accurately restating what you wrote.

Nice edit there joe, lets see what I REALLY wrote, not what you quoted:

I disagree. If I invoice you for work Ive already done and you dont pay me, Ive suffered harm. If you tell me not to do anymore work, but pay me for what I have already done, I have suffered no harm.

I think it comes down to the self-employed view. I am self-employed, when I get a client, I know that in most cases, it is for only for a few days to a year or two, and I dont always know in advance which it will be. If non-self-employed people thought of there jobs in the same way, you would see the lack of harm.

Harm requires a negative condition. Not having a job is a null condition, but it isnt negative. It is only negative relative to what you THOUGHT you were going to receive, but thats just due to faulty thinking.

You only quotes paragraph 3. As you can see, from the bolded part of paragraph 1 of the same post, I did say that there was harm. Next time you want to "accurately restate" what I wrote, dont leave out the key sentence.

Gilbert Martin | September 25, 2007, 2:01pm | #

"I mean, if you couldn't follow my reasoning, then there couldn't be any."

No I simply didn't fall for your faulty logic.

"Harm" and "benefit" depends on one's own individual circumstance and point of view. Neither you nor anyone else have been appointed the judge of it.


The investors in a mutual fund are all in it together and anything that benefits one investor benefits the rest of them each according to his proportional investment.

The individuals in this country are not analagous to investors, are not all in it together and there is no collective economic purpose. And the taxpayers being charged for handouts to other are not making an "investment" and are not getting any return on their money. It is simply a handout of their money to someone else.

joe | September 25, 2007, 3:06pm | #

And also, Gil, a mutual fund sends you a quarterly statment, while the American economy does no such thing.

That, also, is not the relevant point of comparison.

Gilbert Martin | September 25, 2007, 3:15pm | #

"That, also, is not the relevant point of comparison."

Nor is there any other that you are capable of proving.

Apostate Jew | September 25, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Who peed in Joe's Cheerios?

It's been a while since I've seen these pages. Nice to see that Joes is more bitchy than ever.

Brandybuck | September 25, 2007, 3:52pm | #

The best defense against capitalism is the free market!

Gilbert Martin | September 25, 2007, 4:27pm | #

The economy isn't "managed" by any person or government entity.

No person or government entity is capable of "managing" the economy.

Rick Barton | September 25, 2007, 4:50pm | #

The best defense against capitalism is the free market!

I define them as the same, or the free market as a subset of capitalism. Capitalism is the economic aspect of individual liberty.

From each as they choose. To each as they are chosen.

Rick Barton | September 25, 2007, 4:53pm | #

No person or government entity is capable of "managing" the economy.

The government tries with poor and unfair results.

P Brooks | September 25, 2007, 4:59pm | #

Redress my grievance- subsidize me!

Gilbert Martin | September 25, 2007, 5:07pm | #

"The government tries with poor and unfair results."

There are those with the conceit that they are capable of managing the economy.

None of them have ever been proven to be correct.

prolefeed | September 25, 2007, 6:05pm | #

I'll see your Cuba and raise the incredibly dynamic Weimar Germany.

Actually, no I won't, because that isn't remotely the game I'm playing.

So, to sum up, Nazi Nazi Commie Commie Klansman.

Poop.

joe, how old are you? Seriously. Because that is the sort of statement my 13 year old has outgrown.

I propose a modified Turing machine -- I challenge anyone to prove that joe is actually an adult, rather than a precious statist child with a voracious need for attention, based on comments like the above.

joshua corning | September 25, 2007, 11:25pm | #

The letter seems reasonable enough to me - what's most interesting about it is that Nick posts it without comment, as if it's understood that even the most obvious and uncontroversial criticism of American economics is barely worth more than an eye-roll.

evidence