Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

Ms. Anderson writes: “So it makes no sense to call economies that have [state provision of public goods, regulation of various markets, social ‘insurance,’ etc.] "mixed," as opposed to advanced variants of democratic capitalism.”

It does to the extent that mere title or ‘ownership,’ per se, is only peripherally and largely semantically the issue. The real issue is control. To the extent government provides goods and regulates markets it controls that portion of the economy, usually with sub-optimal results. (Note that one of the reasons the U.S. system of centralized banking, the Federal Reserve, works as well as it more or less does is that it is largely independent of the government.)

My “hidden agenda” radar always pings whenever the left recommends a change in terminology, but I agree with Ms Anderson’s third reason. I’m no fan of the IMF or World Bank. I would far prefer that nation-states get out of the development business, hasten that international free trade that she thinks is right around the corner and let capital (and even labor) flow freely. Underdeveloped nations would still have to begin their developing economies largely on labor intensive and natural resource enterprise and would not be able to afford the comparative luxuries of social benefits at first which developed nations have come only recently to expect, but they would stand a far better chance of succeeding if they could trade what they can produce in free markets.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jan 9, 2005 1:15:26 PM

Posted by: Mona

Elizabeth offers yet another provocative post and says: What I'm suggesting is that the kinds of departures from laissez-faire that it made sense to call "mixed," in the sense of borrowing elements from socialism/communism--things like centralized planning and state ownership of major industries--have either largely been eliminated or, like trade barriers, are on their way out, and none-too-soon. The five that remain I support, but that's not the point of this post, and I won't argue that here. My point is rather that these five should be seen as developments internal to the dynamics of democratic capitalism itself, rather than borrowings from fundamentally alien economic systems.

I would largely agree that it no longer makes sense to interpret post-Cold War economic debate in terms of socialism v. free markets. Socialism lost, quite definitively, and nearly everyone now sees that.

But socialism,i.e., the govt appropriation of the means of production or extensive command and control of same, is not the only way to muck up free markets and to thereby diminish or destroy their benefits; the new threat is coming from those whom Virginia Postrel denominates as "stasists," whom she contrasts with "dynamists" (the good guys). This dichotomy does not imply, and in fact has eroded, the political alliances that held during the Cold War; many on the right are fiercely anti-dynamist, and so, unfortunately are many on the left. (Alliances by such as Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader are comprehensible only in light of the stasist v. dynamist debate. Ditto for the explosion of socially liberal bloggers all over the Internet who are technophiles and who adore markets, and who ardently demand that govt keep its hands off of e-commerce and e-everything, save for such as child porn.)

As Elizabeth accurately perceives, new alliances should form, and to a good degree they are. She's quite right.

Postrel makes the case better than I could, so I'll quote from her 1999 address to the Mont Pelerin Society and link to the rest:

We are not experiencing "creeping socialism." That is not the challenge we face. If you are used to fighting socialism, and have developed your arguments, tactics, and alliances accordingly, it's tempting to define any form of redistribution or regulation as creeping socialism and therefore to declare the expansion of any and all government programs to be socialism. But that sweeping definition leads to political and economic confusion: It destroys the ability to detect threats early, to form alliances and perceive enemies, and to hone arguments.

Stasists object to markets because the decentralized evolution of market processes creates not just change but change of a particular sort. By serving the diverse desires of individuals and by rewarding the innovators who find popular improvements, markets constantly upset unitary notions of what the future should be like. Markets don't build a bridge to the future--a path from point A to point B across a scary abyss; they continually add nodes and pathways in a web of many different futures. Market processes make it impossible to make society as a whole adhere to a static ideal--whether that ideal is a traditional way of life, the status quo, or a planner's notion of the one best future.

Go here for the rest: (sorry, not sure how some of y'all are inserting hyperlinks): http://reason.com/9911/fe.vp.after.shtml

Posted by: Mona | Jan 9, 2005 1:28:56 PM

Posted by: Jim Hu

Mona,

use <a href="URL">link text</a> Like this.

Moderators may want to move this to the Housekeeping threads.

Posted by: Jim Hu | Jan 9, 2005 2:02:48 PM

Posted by: Mona

Thank you, Jim Hu! My ego is sufficiently intact to admit frustrating ignorance, so leaving that up may aid those fearful of exposing themselves. ;)

Posted by: Mona | Jan 9, 2005 2:36:50 PM

Posted by: frankly0

Postrel's remarks about "socialism" seem to miss the point about how modern "democratic capitalism" (to use Elizabeth Anderson's term here) really focuses its efforts.

How is, say, governmental support of such infrastructure as roads and education really intended as a hit on the "dynamism" of the larger market economy? How does environmental and labor regulation really do so? How does Social Security and Medicare, or would comprehensive public health?

One might argue that in each of these cases, some aspect of the market economy -- education or health care, for instance -- is being controlled, but those aspects are being controlled precisely because they have demonstrated, while being uncontrolled, that they failed to provide some minimal level of service to all members of our society.

Where, in all this, is there any attempt to prevent the emergence of very rich people or corporations, or to rein in their "dynamic" behavior? Was Bill Gates in any important way hampered by environmental regulation or labor regulation or Social Security or Medicare? Was Warren Buffet? Where's the lack of "dynamism", outside of those very areas where the market has demonstrably failed to provide an adequate solution for many of our citizens?

Postrel seems committed, as do many libertarians, to overgeneralization, because that is probably the only way they can make out an emotionally appealing argument. It sounds great to laud, in general, the dynamic wonders of the market, and it seems terrible to be against those wonders. But what Postrel can't do is defend adequately are the very specific problems that democratic capitalistic countries mean to address in their programs. She can't do so because those problems are the precise locations of the limitations of a market economy.

Posted by: frankly0 | Jan 9, 2005 3:08:40 PM

Posted by: Micha Ghertner

How does Anderson come off equating radical socialism and radical capitalism as tried and failed ideologies? By linking to some sarcastic nonsense posted by Brad DeLong a few months ago? Is this what constitutes a serious argument in Anderson's eyes?

Her last post excluded radical capitalists from the debate by calling us "bomb-throwing anarchists." In her current post, she has switched gears: no longer arguing for the state on moral grounds by defending the legitimacy of taxation, she now claims that the state is necessary to provide faux public goods likes education and health care, to centralize banking, and to regulate markets in lots of other ways. Of course, she ignores the huge amount of economic literature to the contrary - from Friedman, Becker, Stigler and others of the Chicago School, to Buchanan, Tullock, and others of the Public Choice "Virginia School," to Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Kirzner, and others from the Austrian School, to various other economists who don't fit neatly into any of the above mentioned categories. None of these departures from laissez-faire are settled issues, and a significant number of contemporary economists disagree with Anderson's claims of necessity and desirability.

Whether she wants to call the system we currently live under a "mixed economy" or something else, fine. But she should be clear that the system she supports is certainly a departure from laissez faire capitalism and the free market. Perhaps she thinks those departures are necessary, desirable, and morally justified. But they remain departures nonetheless.

Lastly, it is certainly true that we don't have strong empirical support for how an advanced society would fare under a system of radical capitalism. That is unfortunate, but it is certainly better to have a lack of strong empirical support for one's preferred system than a heap of strong empirical evidence against, as we do for planned economies of all shapes and sizes.

Anthony de Jasay put it well in Justice and Its Surroundings, writing:

Throughout its history, humanity has permanently displayed a physical condition classified in ordinary language as "illness" or "disease." There has always been what Hume would call a "constant conjunction" between human life and illness.

The Hobbesian hypothesis that illness is a necessary condition of the human species has strong empirical support. It has never been falsified.

Throughout its history, humanity has permanently displayed a social condition classified in ordinary language as "the state" or "government." There has always been what Hume would have called a "constant conjunction" between human society and government.

The Hobbesian hypothesis that government is a necessary condition of social life has strong empirical support. It has never been falsified.

Arguments in favour of the prevention or eradication of disease are evidently misguided, and may be dangerous. They are often put forward by naive persons with little understanding of reality.

Arguments in favour of fostering society's capacity to evolve anarchic orders and live with less or no government are evidently misguided, and may be dangerous. They are often put forward by naive persons with little or no understanding of reality.

To reject radical political positions simply because they are radical, unpopular, or lack sufficient empirical support is to reject liberal democracy, abolition of slavery, and equal rights for women. After all, liberal democracy, abolition of slavery, and equal rights for women were all considered radical utopian daydreams at one point in history, as were many other progressive political visions which we now accept as commonplace and desirable.

Think about how crazy democracy must have seemed to people living under a monarchy, or how outlandish abolition was to those living with such a “peculiar” institution as slavery, or how absurd feminism would appear to a person born into an anachronistic patriarchy. If blogs had existed back then, I’m sure a majority of bloggers would have ridiculed those who advocated such radical proposals. This should give pause to those who believe that our current society is not in need of radical change, gradually achieved.

Posted by: Micha Ghertner | Jan 9, 2005 3:09:43 PM

Posted by: John T

Elizabeth, I too find myself getting a little nervous when liberals start the labels have to be changed or don't matter talk. For the most part they are fairly well used and understood. You say the right is represented by laissez-faire and anarcho-capitalists. I think not. There are plenty of coservatives who accept some of the policies you mention,perhaps to a lesser degree depending on the issue. For example,having heard all the con arguments it is still beyond me why we can't do more to encourage school choice. As to the mixed economy it's a reality. Public utilities,subsidies[remember ethanol] the glories of the FDA,the very spending and placement of state and federal tax dollars creates a "mix" that can't be ignored. And I could make the list longer. The developing countries,some of whom have been developing rather slowly for fifty years or so, could use a little more free enterprise[did you use that phrase Elizabeth?]. As to Nozick using Locke,why not. Doesn't everbody. The point being that Locke is something like Nietzsche. Everybody reaches in and grabs what they want,or what they think they understand. You may want to read ,unless you already have,Wilmoore Kendall's work on Locke. An eye opener. Regards

Posted by: John T | Jan 9, 2005 3:23:00 PM

Posted by: Micha Ghertner

frankly0,

One might argue that in each of these cases, some aspect of the market economy -- education or health care, for instance -- is being controlled, but those aspects are being controlled precisely because they have demonstrated, while being uncontrolled, that they failed to provide some minimal level of service to all members of our society.

This is an argument for the public provision of charity to help pay for health care and education. It is most certainly not an argument for the state monopolizing or heavily regulating the entire health care or schooling industries.

Where, in all this, is there any attempt to prevent the emergence of very rich people or corporations, or to rein in their "dynamic" behavior?

Why would we want there to be an attempt to prevent the emergence of very rich people? That's precisely what Postrel is arguing against - against statism, stability and control and in favor of dynamism, change, and progress - in short, creative destruction.

It's not often I find reason to quote anything Ayn Rand had to say, but when I read statements like yours, her words are spot on:

Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.

Posted by: Micha Ghertner | Jan 9, 2005 3:23:07 PM

Posted by: frankly0

Micha,

Just a quick answer to this point:

Why would we want there to be an attempt to prevent the emergence of very rich people? That's precisely what Postrel is arguing against...

You misunderstand me here. My point is that Postrel, and other libertarians, are basically arguing that we need to be on the guard against the new "socialism" and "statism", which amounts to the view that we need to regulate the dynamism of capitalism and redistribute incomes.

I'm pointing out something pretty obvious, namely that democratic capitalistic countries such as the United States do NOT have as a goal anything that would prevent the emergence of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet. Yet this would seem to be the implication of Postrel's remarks.

Isn't the existence of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet pretty good evidence that the dynamism of capitalism is very robust in the US? Again, how has our support for public education and Social Security and Medicare, etc., stood in their way?

Posted by: frankly0 | Jan 9, 2005 3:41:06 PM

Posted by: Rob Kar

Wittgenstein once said that "the philosopher's disease is a one-sided diet of examples"--by which he meant to refer to the common practice of beginning with one or two paradigmatic intuitions about phenomena like meaning, or the right, and then building whole theories around them, without proper sensitivity to how our pre-theoretical intuitions change in a host of other cases. This impulse--he thought--was in all of us, and it can influence our attempts to understand political and economic legitimacy as well. Wittgenstein thought this made for bad philosophy. But what Liz Anderson's post further suggests, I think, is that when theories like this are built and used in part to define one method of social and economic organization in opposition to a dominant competitor, it can become that much more difficult to see real and important opportunities. We begin to define ourselves in accordance with distorted characterizations of our practices, and we begin to see deviations from the distortions as breaches of faith. Our lives are thus left distorted, much as the rebellious youth who has defined herself only in opposition to her upbringing is left with a caricature of a self rather than a highly individuated self.

In popular discourse about politics during the Cold War, both sides often latched onto simple cases around which to build their rhetoric. Laissez-faire economists often began with a picture of private property as a bundle of absolute rights to use, exclude others from use and to transfer, and a picture of contract as a realm of pure private orderings of our relations through reciprocal promise-makings by which we reveal our rational preferences. Thus the picture of the wholly unregulated market as a well-oiled engine for the production of social welfare and efficient states of the world--a picture backed up by clear moral intuitions about the sanctity of possession and promise. (Thus also the ideal of pure procedural justice.) Socialists, on the other hand, often began with equally vivid moral intuitions relating to fairness, equality, solidarity, and public-spiritedness. Around these intuitions they built theories banishing institutions like private property and allowing for centralized regulation and distribution of goods and services.

Fortunately, our practices have always been more nuanced than these caricatures would suggest. A detailed study of property law shows numerous deviations from the so-called paradigm of private property, in cases like those of adverse possession, zoning, nuance laws, takings, easements and public roads and highways. A detailed study of contract reveals numerous analogous deviations, in doctrines like those of voidness for public policy, unconscionability, duress, inacapacity, denials of specific performance for unfairness, and the like. While some of these aspects of our practices have been less pronounced during the height of laissez-faire ideology, there have always been deviations like these. And quite often they arise not from any ideology, but from judges facing concrete cases in which their intuitions (sometimes surprisingly!) flout any pre-existing ideological stance they may have had.

Our practices have, in other words, often been richer than our rhetoric, and they reveal commitments to principles that are not fully captured by laissez-faire economics. We no longer need to caricature ourselves to distinguish ourselves from communist regimes, and, hence, a better understanding of how ingredients of fairness pervade and perfect capitalist democracies and markets should--in my view--be thought of as part of the development and acknowledgment of our distintive heritage. I thus believe Liz Anderson is right: it's time to shed our old (and seriously tired) opposition point, time to free ourselves from its remaining grip. We should recognize that a commitment to fairness, in some guise, is not a betrayal of our system but an underappreciated ingredient that has been there all along, helping the system to flourish. And as we shed the contrary caricature and attempt to understand better how capitalist democractices work, we should thus ask without blinkers: how exactly do utility and fairness come together, both through markets and through regulation, in ways that are characteristic of flourishing capitalist democracies? In what ways might these practices be improved along both or either axes? And, yes, I believe that for those on the left, this will involve acknowledging the value of markets as well, rather than aiming to define the left in stark opposition to them.

Rob Kar
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

Posted by: Rob Kar | Jan 9, 2005 3:45:45 PM

Posted by: Mona

Micha gets it right: This is an argument for the public provision of charity to help pay for health care and education. It is most certainly not an argument for the state monopolizing or heavily regulating the entire health care or schooling industries.

As is so often the case, franklyO and others seem ignorant regarding what it is that many libertarians actually argue, and unfamiliar with what their "best authorities" have offered. Hayek does not reject all govt expenditure on education or health care. But he waxes long and persuasively on the need to prevent the state from controlling and monopolizing, either de jure or de facto, most of the services for which it pays. (Like most libertarians, Hayek endorses a state monopoly on force, domestic or military.)

Dynamists oppose much regulation, either actual or proposed, and that is where they run up against Ms. Anderson or frankly0, who seem oblivious to the fact that that which the state pays for it too often ends up controlling and strangling. This is why Hayek (with some reservations) and Friedman prefer vouchers over a large public school system. They do not reject that we lack on interest in ensuring some degree of educational attainment among the citizenry, but they seek to minimize the regulatory harm resulting when one takes the King's coin. Hayek lived before the term was coined, but he was a dynamist, and did not oppose all government provision of funds for services of the sort Ms. Anderson or franklyo extol. (Hopefully others can address the health care matter, because I have to go live real life for much of the rest of the day. Certainly dynamist libertarians tend to be dubious of the "benefits" of the FDA.)

And like you, I seldom make recourse to Ayn Rand. But your use of her in reply to the tired claim that the state should be about preventing the existence of "very rich people" is apposite. Bill Gates got very rich, and here we all are having this fun, and the better for it.

Posted by: Mona | Jan 9, 2005 3:53:53 PM

Posted by: Jim Hu

frankly0

Postrel seems committed, as do many libertarians, to overgeneralization, because that is probably the only way they can make out an emotionally appealing argument. It sounds great to laud, in general, the dynamic wonders of the market, and it seems terrible to be against those wonders. But what Postrel can't do is defend adequately are the very specific problems that democratic capitalistic countries mean to address in their programs. She can't do so because those problems are the precise locations of the limitations of a market economy

She wrote a whole book, the Future and its Enemies about how creative solutions to problems arise through entrepreneurial activity, and how this is often met with regulatory responses that are there more to protect the vested interests of the status quo than to address the failures of capitalism.

Posted by: Jim Hu | Jan 9, 2005 3:58:36 PM

Posted by: frankly0

And like you, I seldom make recourse to Ayn Rand. But your use of her in reply to the tired claim that the state should be about preventing the existence of "very rich people" is apposite. Bill Gates got very rich, and here we all are having this fun, and the better for it.

Talk about myths -- who, on the left, outside of some true moonbats, have ANY difficulty with existence of a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet? Indeed, they are very much applauded by most people on the left in virtue of their remarkable achievements. That they themselves appear to think they are, if anything, undertaxed (certainly Buffet says so, and Bill Gates Sr says so) only adds to the admiration.

Posted by: frankly0 | Jan 9, 2005 4:04:34 PM

Posted by: frankly0

Jim Hu,

My remarks about Postrel were based on the passage that had been quoted. Certainly there her basic argument against "socialism" -- which, presumably, includes essentially all aspects of democratic capitalism that deviate from libertarian economies -- is that it is meant to restrict the "dynamism" of capitalism, and redistribute incomes. My point is that this is a vast overgeneralization, and that point stands. The real goal of democratic capitalism is to provide regulation and support in very specific areas, related to what is perceived as the public good. Not all these programs and legislation are necessarily optimal, and may require trial and error or even elimination to get right, but the intent here is falsely portrayed by Postrel.

Again, exhibits A and B here are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, roundly admired by virtually everyone I know on the left.

Posted by: frankly0 | Jan 9, 2005 4:15:06 PM

Posted by: John T

FranklyO, I missed the applause of Bill Gates when he was taken to court by the Dept, of Justice case argued by Mr Boies. From which gallery did it emanate? As long as he pays lip service to the recieved verities and offers to assist Bill Clinton in his charitable endeavors he's alright but he must watch his step. As for Warren Buffet isn't he the guy who just out of the box as arnold's financial advisor called for a tax increase? We can guess why he's applauded in certain circles. Do they deliver newspapers in your neighberhood? Big business is incessantly lambasted at whatever opportunity Big Media can expoit. Mona and Micha, you should have recourse to Ayn Rand more often.

Posted by: John T | Jan 9, 2005 4:38:55 PM

Posted by: Don Herzog

I strongly oppose bashing business and businessmen. But if I were going to single out a "persecuted minority," in Rand's phrase, it sure wouldn't be businessmen. Not now, and, putting it mildly, not in 1962, when Rand first published this view.

Posted by: Don Herzog | Jan 9, 2005 4:49:18 PM

Posted by: frankly0

FranklyO, I missed the applause of Bill Gates when he was taken to court by the Dept, of Justice case argued by Mr Boies.

That issue had to do with whether or not Microsoft was a monopoly, and required some regulation because of it. My understanding is that even most "supply-side" economists admit that monopolies DO sometimes exist, and DO require special regulation when they do.

They may or may not agree that Microsoft is a monopoly, and may or may not agree about just how it should be regulated if it is.

One can greatly admire Bill Gates achievements and still think the Microsoft is a monopoly that needs regulation. That would certainly express my point of view, in any case.

Posted by: frankly0 | Jan 9, 2005 5:01:05 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

Hmmmmmm... Could it be Mr. Herzog provided that link so we'd remember that Alan Greenspan was an early Randite?

Nah, couldn't be.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jan 9, 2005 6:11:22 PM

Posted by: Don Herzog

No, it couldn't be, because we all knew that already.

Posted by: Don Herzog | Jan 9, 2005 6:12:36 PM

Posted by: Steven Horwitz

Elizabeth Anderson writes:

We still have barriers to trade, to be sure, but the long-run trends here are definitely in the direction of reduction, even in the stubborn area of archaic agricultural subsidies, which should certainly be eliminated. (Here right and left ought to enjoy real common ground. The (libertarian) right hates them because they involve departures from free-market principles. Some parts of the left (e.g., NGO's such as Oxfam), including myself, hate them because they impoverish poor countries that could improve their economies if they were free to export their agricultural products, textiles, and cheap manufactures to rich countries without barriers.

Sigh. In an entry that begs us to throw out old dichotomies, Liz invokes left-right to typical effect here. I'm a libertarian and I hate agricultural subsidies for exactly the same reason you do! Why draw the distinction between "free-market principles" and "impoverishing poor people?" Isn't it possible that libertarians dislike such subsidies AND like free-market principles BECAUSE the former hurt the poor and the latter help them? I know few libertarians who are committed to libertarian principles *regardless of the consequences*. (In fact, it's always a good thing to ask a libertarian if he/she would stick to his/her principles if it turned out they created poverty and war.) The dichotomy between "free-market principles" and "helping the poor" is a false one to libertarians and your argument is precisely the sort that raises libetarian hackles by implying that we don't care about the poor (or at least they're less important than our "principles.") Why not just say libertarians and the left agree that subsidies are bad for poor countries and be done with it?

Liz also writes:

Even if socialism and communism had never existed, it would have been necessary to invent centralized banking to moderate the effects of capitalism's business cycles.

Now here is an empirical-historical claim that is open to debate. For example:

1. Is it true that market economies lacking central banks were all subject to business cycles inherent to capitalism?

2. Is it possible that in market economies that did have such cycles but no central bank, that the cycles were caused by other forms of government intervention/regulation?

3. Is it true that central banks, and government involvement in money creation more generally, were begun explicitly to solve business cycles, and that no other explanation might be a better one?

I would argue that the answer to these are: no, yes, and no.

I would also argue that there is ample historical evidence to at least make this *an open question* and not the "given" that Liz takes it to be.

Just as one example... the US was subject to business cycles before the creation of the Fed. But in all of those periods, the production of money was significantly regulated by the state and/or federal government in other sorts of ways. One can construct a historical narrative that explains the post-Civil War, pre-Fed panics in the US as unintended consequences of various government regulations (in fact, I've done so in my first book and other papers, not to mention the work of numerous other, better, economists and historians). Similar historical work exists demonstrating the macro stability of central bank-less economies. And there is a whole body of work that explores, theoretically, whether or not an economy without a central bank could avoid recession, depression, inflation, deflation, etc.. As Mona and others have said, the literature is out there.

On the question of the origins of central banks, it would be interesting for the Left to inquire into this issue more deeply. What you might find is that a great deal of banking regulation, including and especially the creation of central banks, is rooted in the need for state revenue, particularly for fighting wars. Where the public was unwilling to lend or be taxed, grabbing the printing press (or more sophisticated versions of the same thing) proved to be an irresistable temptation for warring governments. It's not coincidental that the major changes in the US federal government's role in the banking system line up very very closely with times of war (1811-1816, 1863, 1913-14, 1971 for starters - 1933-34 is an outlier, but the Great Depression was certainly a revenue beast).

The link between central banking and militarization seems to me to be a place where libertarians and the left might have some common cause. But getting there means getting past the simple chalkboard story that capitalism has endemic cycles that all-knowing and public-spirited folks tried to solve with central banks. The historical story is a lot more complicated.

Posted by: Steven Horwitz | Jan 9, 2005 6:19:47 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

My mistake. I'd forgotten that I already knew it and therefore didn't have to remember.

A brief note on Gates and Buffet, while I'm bantering here at half-time. Gates has been a ruthlessly successful businessman since his early success, but that early success depended as much on fabulous stupidity by IBM as it did on his being so clever. In any case, Mona, we'd still have the internet without Gates and probably be enjoying it more if Microsoft hadn't become the market share leader with PC platforms.

Buffet is fascinating because he is so overwhelmingly conventional. His genius lies almost exclusively in patience and fundamental analysis. Moreover, as he would admit, he's never produced anything in his life except profits. I have no idea what his politics are, but if Buffet isn't a rock-ribbed Republican, he certainly is at least rock-ribbed.

As for their views on taxes, suffice it to say that high taxes are one more luxury the rich can afford better than the rest of us.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jan 9, 2005 6:26:03 PM

Posted by: Jonathan Wilde

We still have barriers to trade, to be sure, but the long-run trends here are definitely in the direction of reduction, even in the stubborn area of archaic agricultural subsidies, which should certainly be eliminated. (Here right and left ought to enjoy real common ground. The (libertarian) right hates them because they involve departures from free-market principles. Some parts of the left (e.g., NGO's such as Oxfam), including myself, hate them because they impoverish poor countries that could improve their economies if they were free to export their agricultural products, textiles, and cheap manufactures to rich countries without barriers.

Like Steven Horowitz, I see myself neither on the right nor the left, but I also favor true free trade for the same reasons as you - trade makes just about everyone (not just poor countries) better off. It raises the standard of living and advances civilization. I want those in poor countries to prosper; I want Americans to prosper. I'm not sure why you think libertarians belong on the "right". Many conservative politicians argue for protectionism and corporate welfare.

For the same reasons that I support free trade, I support free banking, federalism, ending tax writeoffs for employer provided healthcare, and complete and total abolition of the public school system. Everyone deserves better, especially the poor.

Posted by: Jonathan Wilde | Jan 9, 2005 7:12:19 PM

Posted by: Glen Raphael

Elizabeth: It's fine for Brad DeLong writing in his own blog (and John and Belle, writing in theirs) to display rational ignorance on anarchocapitalism and dismiss it with a snide remark or two, but you're in a different position here. You are posting to a blog in which the left is allegedly trying to understand and engage non-left positions constructively and you have been posting about how those who advocate private property institutions are being intellectually inconsistent. In such a position, you have a little more responsibility to try to understand opposing arguments before you dismiss them.

Of course, it's an open question whether libertarian or anarchocapitalism really belongs on the right - I got there from the left, myself. So feel free to say "I don't consider them to be on the right". But if you do consider them to be on the right, you might want to make a little more effort. If it takes you less than a minute to think of an objection to what they say, consider that they might have have thought about that objection and have arguments as to why it doesn't apply the way you think it does.

Otherwise, you could just assume your opponents are evil and stupid and not worthy of that consideration. But if you do, you might want to change the name of the blog. I suggest "left2left". :-)

Posted by: Glen Raphael | Jan 9, 2005 8:51:56 PM

Posted by: Glen Raphael

Elizabeth: It's fine for Brad DeLong writing in his own blog (and John and Belle, writing in theirs) to display rational ignorance on anarchocapitalism and dismiss it with a snide remark or two, but you're in a different position here. You are posting to a blog in which the left is allegedly trying to understand and engage non-left positions constructively and you have been posting about how those who advocate private property institutions are being intellectually inconsistent. In such a position, you have a little more responsibility to try to understand opposing arguments before you dismiss them.

Of course, it's an open question whether libertarian or anarchocapitalism really belongs on the right - I got there from the left, myself. So feel free to say "I don't consider them to be on the right". But if you do consider them to be on the right, you might want to make a little more effort. If it takes you less than a minute to think of an objection to what they say, consider that they might have have thought about that objection and have arguments as to why it doesn't apply the way you think it does.

Otherwise, you could just assume your opponents are evil and stupid and not worthy of that consideration. But if you do, you might want to change the name of the blog. I suggest "left2left". :-)

Posted by: Glen Raphael | Jan 9, 2005 8:51:56 PM

Posted by: John T

FranklyO,perhaps you had better define monoply,maybe you can raise John Sherman from the dead to help you. Monoply is what Mother government says it is,case closed. Microsoft was sued because they were bundling products "unfairly" & using market strength to do so. With a couple of beers under your belt I guess that's monopoly. My larger point is that the rich are to a considerable degree detested,and some of them are,I would hazard a guess,businessmen. You might think of that as income tax morality. The higher the return the worse the person. The lower the return pour the cup of human kindness over his flat head,with tax dollars of course. Mr. Herzog,are you paying attention? With or without Ayn Rand this bias goes back at least to the founding of the republic,given impetus by Jackson's crusade against the 2nd Bank of the U.S.,propelled by W J Bryan,T. Roosevelt,the muckrakers etc. ad nauseam. Did I leave out FDR's NRA Blue Eagle. It is a continuous strain in American society and politics and it didn't stop with JFK Mr Herzog. Note Kennedy forcing Big Steel to roll back price increases and calling the executives bastards in the process,about the time Ayn Rand wrote her piece. Just recall the ritualistic declamations against the rich in every political campaign. Who said "envy is the engine of democracy". It may have Revel but i'm not sure. Thanks to anyone who had the patience to wade thru this diatribe and who shows mercy for my having misspelled monopoly twice.

Posted by: John T | Jan 9, 2005 8:55:02 PM

Post a comment