Saturday, November 22, 2008

Not dead yet

Naturally, the latest economic collapse is proof that the free market must be regulated, that the lack of regulation was the cause of collapse, and that, anyway, libertarianism is dead. Writes Jacob Weisberg of Slate:

We have narrowly avoided a global depression and are mercifully pointed toward merely the worst recession in a long while. This is thanks to a global economic meltdown made possible by libertarian ideas. I don't have much patience with the notion that trying to figure out how we got into this mess is somehow unacceptably vicious and pointless—Sarah Palin's view of global warming. As with any failure, inquest is central to improvement. And any competent forensic work has to put the libertarian theory of self-regulating financial markets at the scene of the crime.

Ignoring the fact that we have not avoided a global depression, having merely postponed it, I have no idea what libertarian ideas he's talking about. This isn't a matter of pragmatically ditching Bush and the Republicans now that the economy has gone sour; that alliance had been jettisoned long ago, back when it became clear that Bush's “compassionate conservatism” was hard to distinguish from big government liberalism. What Weisberg means, I think, is that the market was unregulated, and still managed to get all screwed up anyway. The basic flaw with this analysis is that it is untrue. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for instance, were regulated by 200 government bureaucrats; these dutifully looked the other way instead of doing their job.

There is another rather large flaw in his attempts to pin the meltdown on libertarians—as if a group with such insignificant power and influence could ever do such a thing. Libertarians, or at least the Austrian economists among us, believe firmly that fiat currency, liable to inflation at the whim of a central bank, undermines the market: indeed, Ludwig von Mises blames this inflation for generating the business cycle. When Weisberg writes that: “the libertarian apologetics fall wildly short of providing any convincing explanation for what went wrong” he is completely mistaken. Libertarians have such a theory, which is more than can be said, say, of the neo-Keynesians. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has been inflating the currency—though they hide this fact, at least partially, by calculating the CPI in a dishonest fashion—which would seem to serve to vindicate von Mises. At the very least, it is patently absurd to argue that a crisis anticipated by a fair number of libertarians undermines their very existence.

The basic flaw behind all of this clamoring for more regulation is that it fails to understand the relationship between Big Business and Government. Most people seem to believe that the relationship is a fundamentally antagonistic one; but it is not so. As Patrick Denseen writes in the November 17th issue of The American Conservative:

The mortgage crisis has highlighted the tight bonds between a large central government and large centers of financial power... At least now we have seen the end of the idea that there is some fundamental antipathy between big government and big business.

Weisberg has apparently drawn a different conclusion from recent events. It's difficult to see why. The nepotism of the Bush administration was so extensive and flagrant that it is hard to see how anyone could have missed the obvious lesson: Government may chose to reward its minions in the private sector and vice versa. As Cheney was hooking up his pals at Haliburton with the spoils of our Iraqi misadventure, was it really surprising that other areas of the bureaucracy were likewise engaged in allowing their cronies to benefit from the hands who held the reigns of power?

The reasons I support the free market are twofold. First, a generally unregulated market respects property rights. Regulation undermines these rights, primarily, by telling me what I can and cannot do with my property, and secondarily, by taxing me to provide for those who violate my rights. The larger the bureaucracy, the more frequent and obtrusive will be the violations. Second, prices must be either dictated by central planners, or allowed to fluctuate as per the invisible hand of the market. The folly of central planning was demonstrated by the Soviet Union, even as the central planners of the Socialists in Washington decide who to bailout and who to let fail, and what stipulations the former must endure.

Libertarianism will continue to make sense as long as humans remain fallible. If men were omniscient angels, we could trust them to plan the way the entire economy worked. But absent these elusive attributes, it is wise to keep power from concentrating too greatly in too few hands.

7 comments:

troutsky said...

I think Weisberg was referring to Greenspans mea culpa,ie "those of us who have loked to the self interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders equity.. are in a state of shocked disbelief" "Yes I've found a flaw"

You can go through the various contortions , Greenspan is not a libertarian,an Austrian etc or his anlysis of the problem is wrong,but obviously the "libertarian idea" he is talking about is the one that the state CAN be wholly disembedded from the market. Despite the fact it never has been and the flaws in all utopian theory that claim it ever can be, certain individuals cling to this chimeric notion.To do so would destroy what we now call society.

When Wiesberg speaks of "unregulated" he means Glass-Steagall and other such post-depression era Acts but also standards regulating debt to capital holdings and other oversight.No one argues we shouldn't have basic regulatory measures (stop lights)and so the libertarian challenge is to demarcate where the line is drawn.Rather than focusing on cannards like Fannie Mae ask yourself how for-profit rating agencies, Standard and Poor, Moodys etc.can be expected to perform their "regulatory" function?
Those with "such limited influence" like Friedman and Chicago School fundamentalists? C'mon.Reagan Thatcher Greenspan Rubin, et al.

Now try to concieve a democratic process of "central planning" and call it a participatory economy, just like the ideal government, with each expressing his own interests.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

Despite the fact it never has been and the flaws in all utopian theory that claim it ever can be, certain individuals cling to this chimeric notion.To do so would destroy what we now call society.

I don't think libertarianism is Utopian so much as it is a bit impractical given the propensity of men to wield and abuse power over others using the vehicle of the State.

If "society" is truly dependent on Government, then 1) it will be transitory in its existence; and 2) we need to take a good hard look at why we've given so much power to something that didn't exist in anything resembling its current form for most of human history.

Anyway, I can't see society falling apart without, say, the Empire, or Homeland Security, or oodles of bureaucracy in Federal Education, etc. We've existed without them, so there's absolutely no reason to think it's impossible to go back.

Now try to concieve a democratic process of "central planning" and call it a participatory economy, just like the ideal government, with each expressing his own interests.

I thought that's what the libertarians wanted? You "express your own interests" by using your time and money to support certain things, but it becomes difficult to do this when the Government is impinging on one's freedom.

Central planning cannot work; it's impossible for anyone to have all of the information such that they can calculate who should produce what, and at what cost. This is why libertarians believe the market should decide, which is the same as saying that people should be free to chose to buy and do what they will--barring the usual exceptions of course.

Anonymous said...

Hi !.
might , perhaps curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no initial capital needed You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you need
The company incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with offices around the world.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!

I feel good, I started to get real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper partner who uses your money in a right way - that`s it!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://nunocini.100megsfree5.com/rytaqys.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life

Anonymous said...

Hello!
You may probably be very curious to know how one can make real money on investments.
There is no need to invest much at first.
You may begin to get income with a sum that usually goes
for daily food, that's 20-100 dollars.
I have been participating in one company's work for several years,
and I'll be glad to let you know my secrets at my blog.

Please visit my pages and send me private message to get the info.

P.S. I make 1000-2000 per daily now.

[url=http://theblogmoney.com] Online investment blog[/url]

Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of troubles when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in big initial investment.
Now, I feel good, I started take up real money.
It gets down to choose a proper partner who utilizes your money in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, and shares the income with me.

You can ask, if there are such firms? I have to answer the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:
[url=http://theblogmoney.com] Online investment blog[/url]

Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of troubles when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright stupid person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in large starting capital.
Now, I feel good, I begin to get real money.
It's all about how to choose a correct partner who utilizes your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, and shares the income with me.

You may ask, if there are such firms? I have to answer the truth, YES, there are. Please be informed of one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]

Anonymous said...

Good day!

For sure you didn’t here about me yet,
my name is Nikolas.
Generally I’m a venturesome gambler. recently I take a great interest in online-casino and poker.
Not long time ago I started my own blog, where I describe my virtual adventures.
Probably, it will be interesting for you to find out how to win not loose.
Please visit my web site. http://allbestcasino.com I’ll be interested on your opinion..