RR Phantom
Location : Wasted Space
Job/hobbies : Cayman Islands Actuary
 |  Subject: Idiot: Inconvenient Truth about Conservative Economics  Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:40 pm | |
| A recent NPR Throughline podcast summarizes Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek’s thought, and includes an account of his 1947 meeting with other like-minded thinkers in Switzerland at Mont Pelerin. Hayek began the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) with the 39 economists, historians and sociologists who met there, and they eventually became influential–of 76 economic advisers on Ronald Reagan‘s 1980 campaign staff, 22 were MPS members. It’s also worth noting that MPS is full of climate change deniers, and membership includes right-wing petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch. If the wealth of multi-billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch were held by a single individual, he would be the wealthiest on the planet.
The historical context may have influenced some of MPS’ more extreme positions. After all, Hayek and his MPS colleagues were concerned about the rise of Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. So perhaps even their exaggerated libertarian, freewheeling, free market economic prescriptions are more understandable in that context, acting as a protest against a troubling authoritarian trend. Nevertheless, the MPS economists were, and are, not at all on the left side of the political spectrum–and Throughline certainly does not align with NPR’s supposedly liberal editorial policy with this relatively uncritical presentation.
- Quote :
- Conservative economists and philosophers have been successful beyond the dreams of avarice at least partly because they are willing to disseminate lies in service to their principles.
Central to MPS and Hayek’s thought is their advocacy for markets relatively free of state influence and regulation. “When you go down to the store and buy [a] pencil, you are, in effect, trading a few minutes of your time for a few seconds of the time of all those thousands of people [who made the pencil]….That’s the miracle of the price system. Everybody has benefited. There’s been no central direction.” The quote is from Milton Friedman, but the reverence for “free,” unregulated markets is a sentiment shared by Hayek and MPS generally.
In fact, conservative economists like the Hayek’s fellow Austrians and Milton Friedman’s Monetarists have been devoted to “free” markets with a quasi-religious fervor, and they are positively giddy that consumers can command a huge crowd of pencil producers for a trivial amount of money. Throughline’s reporting does say Hayek himself advocated a more nuanced view rather than a completely unregulated free market, after all, Hayek insisted on a pension to replace his Austrian state pension before he would move to the U.S.
Apparently a Readers’ Digest version of Hayek’s most famous work, The Road to Serfdom, is what guided many subsequent followers to advocate nuance-less dispensing with state regulation, or even most of the state itself. Grover Norquist, a part of the Koch’s network of political influencers, famously said he wanted to reduce government until it’s small enough to “drown in a bathtub.” In their view, states and regulation simply interfere with the “magic” of the market.
Still, a few inconvenient truths contradict Friedman’s assertion that “there’s no central direction,”even in that pencil transaction. Among other things, some central direction makes sure the pencil is not coated with poisonous lead paint. Market regulations also makes sure the money used for that purchase isn’t counterfeit, and the state provides enough security so thieves generally do not rob the buyer or seller as the purchase occurs. There are certainly more examples of central direction, but poisonous paint, counterfeit money and security are not immediately obvious, so “free” marketers can continue to believe these assertions without questioning the premise as long as they don’t look too closely at what’s really going on.
And don’t get me wrong, the U.S.’ “central direction” is anything but perfect. Scientists knew since the 1920s that lead in paint was toxic to humans, but one had to wait until 1978 for the Carter administration to sue and to get manufacturers to get the lead out. Those who suffered from the paint manufacturers’ negligence sued for compensation, and they won their suit, at least initially. However, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the multi-million-dollar judgment against the paint manufacturers.
.https://www.laprogressive.com/conservative-economics/
Under the current system, it's inevitable that almost every product receives some statist input. A true free market wouldn't take 50 years solve a leaded paint problem. |
|
