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.

Universal versus Quantitative

Economic Laws are universal. As Mises explained, contra Caplan, because supply and demand laws - marginal utility, preferring more at a lower price - are universal, it isn't a quantitative matter but a qualitative matter that maximizing output is better achieved with a free market solution. For the given ends (maximizing output), the best means are to allow the free market to work rather than intervene.

However, while this means that markets are better than socialism, does this mean all interventions are bad? Clearly the qualitative result - the end is better achieved with markets than socialism - is true. But how much better? That is the quantitative question. The answer is clear at the system level: a lot better. But, at the intervention level, one must weigh the objectives.

If the objective of a given intervention is only to maximize output, one need not ask the quantitative question: the market will better serve. But, if one has multiple ends: (1) raise the wages of the poorest worker (2) without reducing total output by very much, then the quantitative question surfaces. For, even if the only end is to increase the wages of the poorest worker, there is a time component, and total output will ultimately lead to lower wages in the long run for the poorest worker (if higher output over time leads to higher real wages of the poorest worker, over time).

This is where the Krugmans and Card & Kreugers (and Galbraiths, who dispute the condition) like to fight. Maybe the quantitative aspect isn't large enough to offset the first round effect of the command benefit. When they argue this line, some turn to "natural rights" arguments: it isn't right to command benefits. But an economist must look at the quantitative aspect of the universal truth, and weigh the losses against the benefits. How does total output respond? How does the universal rule of competitive wage setting and profit maximization induce the employer to respond to command wage hikes? How will the benefit accrue - will it at all? To whom will it go?

And hence economics becomes difficult, and dynamic, quantitative and empirical analysis is required. Hat tips to Mises, Caplan and the struggling economists on both sides.