Ideology and Rationality

In an article in the Review of Political Economy on Marx and Schumpeter, there is an interesting mention of Schumpeter's idea of why rational arguments do not dissuade people from socialism.

It reads:

Political attack cannot be met by reason. Reasoned argument may tear the rational garb of attack but it cannot reach the extra-rational impulse that drives it. In any case, in political matters, the masses are generally incapable of seeing where their true interest lies. They see only monopolistic practices, high profits and social inequality. To see the case for capitalism, they would need to see further than the short run, and that requires powers of analysis that are quite beyond them.

In a footnote, the author explains that Schumpeter believes that the rational thinking of most people extends only to everyday concerns and not to broader social and political issues (public choice literature would say that this is because their vote doesn't count anyway, and Bryan Caplan would add that they get comfort at little to no cost believing what they do.)

I think there is some truth to all of this, but why is there such a strong political contingent for socialism, despite so much evidence that it reduces freedom for all and makes every income level in society worse off economically? There is a simple answer.

Consider the following. Imagine that a certain person, lets call him Daniel, is faced with irrefutable logic showing that the socialist society produces an economy in which the income curve is strictly lower than the income curve in a free market society (and one can imagine the same for the 'freedom curve' too). So, the poorest person in the free market society is still richer than the poorest person in the socialist society. The two curves may not differ in relative income either, and in the socialist society, there may even be some at zero income (famine levels).



Faced with this rational argument that free markets are better for everyone, one might think that the rational response to this would be "then they must be better for me, so I should be for free markets!" Perhaps this would be the rational response if he were behind a veil, but he is not. It would also perhaps be a rational response if the way to become wealthy in the two societies was the same--but it is not. In a socialist economy, one gets ahead through politics, schmoozing with the elites, and getting handouts for people in exchange for bribes and power. In a free market economy, one gets ahead by producing things for the customer.

Daniel knows his own talents, so for Daniel what matters is not the absolute level of income in the society over the whole income curve, but where on the curve in each society he personally will land.



So, if Daniel expects to be at position A in the socialist economy, but position B in the free market economy, he will always prefer socialism. Daniel would expect this if he is good at political maneuvering and not so good at creative solutions to fill the demands and desires of his fellow countrymen. This, in a nutshell, is why there will always be a contingent in favor of socialism: its a tragedy of the commons.

The best we can hope for is that most people will take account of the rational argument, and perhaps spread the values and foster the talents of creative entrepreneurship, over the values and talents of politics and schmoozing. Unfortunately, once the rent-seeking begins, it builds upon itself and rewards those values, making it difficult to reverse the trend.

The Tea Party Protests

I am getting a little annoyed that some people have argued that the Tea Party protests were somehow a corporate funded "astroturf" effort, coordinated by the Republican Party, and that policy wonks rebuttal of that perception is defensive and proves them right. Yes, Republicans and old partisan-oriented groups have jumped on board, but they could not do it without genuine outrage, which is evident in the polls, and they did not organize the 750 protests across the country on tax day.

The people have a message: 84% of Americans are against the current government expansion in the longer term. 44% of Americans are against it even in the short term. The protests were coordinated by different groups in each city--some by Ron Paul groups, some by young conservatives, some by coalitions of different groups. This is no different than the anti-war protests by hodgepodge groups, including partisan ones like Move On, and radical ones, and apolitical ones.

Now, here is a round up of great, and disparate, highlights from the protests.

In NY:

“I think Newt Gingrich is – I think he’s a slime ball,” said Roy Delduco, a self-described Constitutionalist with tattoos up his arm and a shaved head. “I don’t like Republicans. I don’t like liberals either. I don’t like the whole bipartisan system. I think it’s part of the problem.”

Delduco said he wants the Federal Reserve disbanded, the IRS “put in jail” and his taxes lowered. He complained about government spending under both Presidents Obama and Bush.

“We’ve basically bankrupted the dollar, and I’m scared,” he said.

...One young man handed out feathers in homage to the Boston Tea Party; another offered stickers in support of John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

...Raymond Kwai stood alone in the crowd, holding up a sign that said, in all capital letters, “IF I WANTED TO BE A COMMIE, I’D STAY IN CHINA.”

In San Francisco:

"The government is growing too big," Bernstein said in an interview with CBS News after her speech. "And I grew up in socialism and I've seen it. And this is reminding me more and more of what Poland used to be. I was fortunate to see the transfer from socialism to a free market economy in Poland and i'm very sad to see that the opposite is happening here."

...The San Francisco rally was non-partisan: it attracted Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and independents, many of whom appeared to be supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul's 2008 presidential bid

Overall favorite quote: "You can't put lipstick on socialism."

Here is a roundup. Also, check out the coverage by Pajamas Media.

Changing the Terms of the Debate

Basically every pro-intervention policy economic argument goes like this:

(1) The neoclassical model says if we do this, output will be lower but

(2) it is naive and unrealistic to believe the neoclassical model represents reality.

Unfortunately, most of the time the free market defender resorts to something like "yes, but it approximates it close enough."

Until we rid economics of the absurd assumptions of the neoclassical model, we will always be on the defensive, and the arguments will be weak. Just think of the eternally frustrating "trickle down" economics description. Yet, very few public figures can explain Austrian methodology, assumptions and models in the soundbite format of modern policy debate; and the public is already familiar with the neoclassical model, and assumes that any free market advocate believes in perfect competition and the tooth fairy.

It is the dominant role of the neoclassical model and synthesis (and mathematical economics) during the twentieth century that brought us belief in the superiority of planning and the supply side/demand side dichotomy. This reminds me of the socialist/fascist dichotomy: they are both wrong and actually similar not opposites. There is an actual alternative on the opposite end of the spectrum, being ignored.

The terms of the debate need to change. In order not to be on the defensive, we need to loudly declare the actual assumptions and structure of our model, and the reasons why it claims that intervention will lower growth, if it does. This is starting - between Freedom Watch and the Ron Paul revolution, the Austrian name is seeing some light of day again. And, now with the Tea Party protests, the tide is turning in the popular mood. Folk Austrianism is trickling in so to say...hopefully with a better face than "trickle down" economics.

There are several Austrian economists working hard to popularize some of the ideas. Lets keep pushing this forward, not be afraid to call it "Austrian" economics, to distinguish it from the neoclassical synthesis, and make sure to point out the major difference: we don't assume that markets produce zero economic profit and everyone is omniscient. We are realistic. You can't wave your hand and say we're naive and so government has to help. They are naive; they are the ones that beleive government produces zero waste and is omniscient.

Back To The Basics

(Cross-posted at Heritage)

In the New York Times today, David Brooks has a column in which he describes two theories about the financial crisis: “greed” and “stupidity.” The “greed” theory is not what you might be thinking—it is not the simplistic notion that Wall Street is just full of greedy capitalists that swindle the people out of their money. It is a little bit more sophisticated than that, because it involves the government bailing out the banks. They do this, of course, because politicians earn handsome rewards for it. This theory has some merit.

The second theory, “stupidity” is also more sophisticated than it sounds. Wall Street did not know that it was engaged in such risky behavior. The theory as presented blames the complex financial instruments, but one could as easily blame monetary policy, subsidies, bailouts, or policy uncertainty, for creating this ignorance.

Government certainly had a hand in creating this crisis, yet now these same leaders are attempting to blame free markets, and resurrect socialism. Right before our eyes we are seeing the pattern: even as government spending backfires, we cede more control to it, and the love and faith in politicians grows. Even free market economists forget the basics.

Now more than ever, we need to return to the fundamentals. We need to relearn our Adam Smith, our Frederic Bastiat, the roots of liberalism and the morality of freedom. Only if the people understand these basic principles do we have a chance. Then we can see through the politicians, and not let them take our freedom and control our lives.