In the comments below I made an assertion to the effect that conservatives are more likely to notionally reject the authority of science, which is one reason that I sometimes focus on right-wing Denialism. On the Left the main analog I experience are feminists and racial minorities who reject science’s authority due to its white male character. On some issues, such as the contention that population level differences between races and sexes are not trivial, the Left is more rejectionist than the Right. But, aside from feminists and racial minorities who reject science as a valid paradigm, my personal experience with Leftists is that they can often be moved into positions which are less rejectionist leveraging the fact that in theory they accept the power and witness of the scientific methodology. The main problem with Creationists, and the reason I simply refuse to engage with them, is that they reject the primacy of the scientific methodology on principle,* so that there is simply no leverage for me to work with (though to be fair, pointing out that St. Augustine noted that much of scripture was allegorical in nature is the sort of leverage which can be used with Creationists on a one-to-one basis).
But I decided to double check my intuition here by looking at the GSS in terms of attitudes toward science. First, if you are curious about “moderates,” they’re less intelligent than those at the political extremes. That should make their results more intelligible. In any case, I am tempted to walk back down from the assertion I made in the comments below, as a wider sampling of variables shows that the reality is more complex, and I am now skeptical that my model captures enough nuance to salvage it.
* I am aware that many avowed Creationists claim to be “scientific.” Scientific arguments are not the real core of their Creationist commitments. They know that, you know that, but for cultural & legalistic reasons they need to retain the transparent farce that their Creationism is rooted in a scientific basis.
Ivan Karamazov:
It would be hard to to be “wronger” than you’ve expressed. As a matter of fact, it could be powerfully maintained that most of “what’s wrong” with economic science and partiularly with economic policy as practiced in all the leading nations of the world (and as taught in all the leading educational institutions) is precisely that it subscribes to the same view as do you with respect to the application of the ‘scientific method.”
The processes that result in economic output or one or another behavior of people that we call “economic” follow no known laws in which we are aware of the uniform (and quantifiable) relationship between phenomena as is characteristic of what may observed of relationships in the natural sciences, in which (at least presumptively) we know “cause” and “effect” and are able to measure various magnitudes of both. There is no question that this method is efficacious in those areas; and it is just such efficaciousness that suggests to many so strongly that similar method be applied to the ssolution of economic problems.
The difficulties (impossibilities, actually) are twofold. First, we do not know any “causes” that can be described in terms amenable to the natural sciences (and even were we to identify some cause, we’d have no appropriate way to measure it.) The same is true for “effect.” The very general “cause” characteristic of economic activity is the desire on someone’s part to achieve a result. The natural scientist is at a loss when faced with the fact that I pay you $1 for a piece of sheet music for “Moonlight Sonata” and have no interest whatever in a nearly indistinguishable piece of paper for “All Shook Up.” Or even for the fact that I have just as little interest in owning a second copy of the one I already paid for, even at much lower price.
Nw, it is to be noted here that the overwhelming body of practicing “economists,” in their roles as officials and advisors to political leaders, do maintain a pretense that they and the formulas they use are products of “scientific” research using the “scientific method.” I recognize that I and the school of thought I follow–the “Austrian”–are distinct and marginal in relation to the main body of economic thought. On the other hand, you (and all of us) bear constant witness to the effectiveness of the mainstream.
My brand follows a different method. Our starting point is that men “act,” i.e., they use “means” to achieve “ends”, that they attempt purposively to substitute a state of affairs in the future different (and preferable to the acting agent) from that which would likely prevail in the absence of their interference. The entire process is one of deduction built upon deduction, each one examinable for logical flaw.
If you are in any way interested, I’d recommend Henry Hazlitt’s ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON.” The best work is Mises’ HUMAN ACTION (but, at about 900 pages of prose pretty dense in some places, it’s not what anyone would call “light reading”).
gene berman Civilization itself is the visible result of economic progress, intensification, and integration.
LOL
More than anything else economic progress and (current) civilization are the result of a stupendous increase of energy expenditures in the daily economy and trade.
This is about to nosedive in short order and petty disagreements about leftism/rightism, liberalism/conservatism and even theism/atheism are going to be pretty insignificant (though not ineffectual, but for the worse) in the oncoming mayhem.
It is also seem quite ludicrous that after your OWN depiction of the dire state of the USA and the world you still cling to a conservative attitude [which] implies adherence to what’s been found “safe” or at least successful in the past.
Wishful thinking, nostalgia?
Our present is already light years away from “the past” and the near future likely even more so.
Willy nilly there is no going back to the “good old days”, conservatism is a silly response to the leftists challenges.
Kevembuangga:
Apparently you don’t read too closely. I am only “conservative” in that I oppose collectivism, particularly as applied to economic activity.
And, I emphasize yet again, that most of those who’d be called conservatives in today’s political (and intellectual) life are merely conservative in comparison (and have a somewhat different agenda of activities they’d collectivize if victorious). In actual point of fact, I’m as “radical” in what I’d suggest as the best course of action as anybody of whom I’m aware. But, except for a blog comment here and there, I’m almost as quiescent and inactive as it’s possible to be.
Most of the knowledge that men seek to acquire is in the realm of “applied science,” i.e., is sought for the express purpose of aiding in understanding reality and processes in order to to learn at just which point and with which means we might interfere successfully, i.e., achieve a future more in accord with our desire. But the seeker must also be aware that, in many cases, understanding of process is or may be insufficient; means don’t suggest themselves automatically. Further (and in many cases) appropriate means are beyond the capability of one who might recognize them as suitable to attain the altered state sought. For instance, I do not believe that most people “on the left,” other than a small core of semi-psychopaths, actually desire the society in which they live to be one of all-round regimentation and totalitarianism. Rather, they have become persuaded that the goal of the “maximum of happiness for all” requires, as precondition, that all enjoy a somewhat equal standard of living and various rearrangements in social relations (as between people of differing races, national origins, sexes, and sexual orientations) to which they apply the phrase “social justice,” though, it is admitted, even by themselves when frank, that the means to be pursued toward the goal shall involve “despotic inroads” and “breaking some eggs,” which, to their thinking, will lead ultimately to the better society envisioned. To the prospect of the actual violence which may be required in the interim period before Utopia be attained, the same people point (quite rightly, in their view) at present and past tension and incidence of violence. “It can’t be worse than what we’ve already got,” “We’d have only the best people in charge,” and
“You have to keep the goal in mind,” are the types of statements made. Those very same folks, differing only in understanding that their goal is actually impossible of realization, would quite abandon their plans for the interim and, instead, seek other means for melioration of specific conditions they deplore.
It just so happens that I know (or at least think strongly that I know) the major changes that would be required in our social relations, in our governance, and, most particularly, in our monetary system, to bring about the conditions under which society (and not only in our own nation) might evade the catastrophic events I envision as near-certainty and go on to steadily-increasing civilizational progress. They’re “radical” but not terribly extensive: I could write them down on a couple of sheets of paper; their adoption would require a change (other than erasure) of only a couple hundred of the many words in the U.S. Constitution and a concomitant jettisoning of present law codes.
To be continued.
Please do, Gene. As an old man myself, I find it increasingly difficult to find an elder to respect. You qualify, and I revel in the sagacity of your comments. They deserve an even wider audience, and if you have the slightest interest in a blog of your own, let me know. I would love to set one up for you. ◄Dave►
Dave:
I’m sorry–so far, I’ve decided against doing that. The plain fact is that I see any such project as trying to have my ideas adopted generally via the normal methods as destined to certain failure. Not only that, but I’m am averse to publicity, controversy, etc.
An even further reason is that, despite my complete confidence in the correctness of the economic truths I perceive (and which are entirely in line with the “Austrian School,” whose analysis guides my thought) I cannot know in advance if the major changes I’d suggest would or could actually be successful in bringing about the world-embracing changes I believe necessary. My only effort thus far is that, in places such as this, where ideas are exchanged among people who are able to and who actually do think, I have tried to introduce some idea of the “why” of the inappropriateness of the “scientific method” in considering problems in the area of human action. And further, to introduce some of those people, especially the smart ones engaged in the natural sciences, to some real understanding of why such respected methods are entirely misguided in such an area of economics, I’ve suggested certain reading.
I’ve been doing this, more or less desultorily, for several years. At this point, I cannot name or be certain of even a single person whom I’ve convinced to read several of the books I believe important; at least, none to whom I’ve ever made such suggestion has ever acknowledged having been influenced to the point of following up on the suggestion.
That’s not much to show for the effort, is it? But actually, it’s even worse. At one point, I suggested to one very bright person with an avowed and demonstrated keen interest and extremely wide reading in cultural history, that a particular passage–of, at most, two pages–in
an economics treatise (Mises’ HUMAN ACTION) explained fully and satisfactorily what Gibbon’s DECLINE OF ROME fails to do in three ponderous volumes (which I’d read twice-through about 50 years ago, in a vain attempt to understand such a momentous change). I’d made the suggestion in an e-mail but never heard a word to indicate that he’d paid the slightest attention or, if he had and yet disagreed, what fault he might have found in the analysis presented. Nor is the matter one that could be dismissed as unimportant–of no consequence for the understanding of current conditions; for those for whom the present and the emerging world are “front-and-center,” the analysis of Rome’s trouble has direct bearing on our own and, though not suggestive of specific remedy, yet reinforces the idea that a remedy is of paramount importance. I’d rather spend more time fishing–and intend to do so.
I have a few more remarks pertinent to your comment but they are also what I would write in the continuation to the above post; so, I’ll leave them for somewhat later.
Understood, Gene. I have given up on any hope of preventing the inevitable demise of our country also. I expect us to break up in an avalanche of secessionist movements. Your advice could be quite useful to those trying to put together a workable government for some of the pieces.
I have not read “Human Action,” but I read “The Theory of Money and Credit” by Von Mises about 30 years ago. I presume your prescription would reverse the travesties of 1913, the most fateful year in our history. ◄Dave►
Dave:
If you’ve done THEORY OF MONEY AND CREDIT, you can handle HUMAN ACTION, though it’s much longer (but then, it’s entirely more comprehensive, involving far more of the underlying epistemological questions) and also takes the trouble to combat all of the major intellectual objections.
But Mises made (what I consider) one error in prescribing reconstruction
of a viable economic system based on “sound money” (and free banking).
Essentially (other than the provision of private-sector banking to replace the gov’t.-controlled banks and Fed) he advocated a return to the classical gold standard. What I see (and what I cannot understand why he did not) is that such arrangement is exactly what was “in place” prior to the establishment of the Fed in 1913. And that was a corruptible system—merely a “way station” on the path to where we are now. I do not doubt that such a new regime might work for some time but cannot see how the same forces which led a previous society to “give,” inch by inch, to more all-’round authoritarian control of money and credit would not lead in similar direction by generally similar steps.
In my view, an entirely new basis is necessary: one in which government would have no authority whatsoever over money or credit and would even be severely limited in ability to incur debt and that only under the most dire of impending circumstances. Gov’t. could still mint specie and print paper money but the abolition of all “legal tender” laws and a
reverse-tender law requiring gov’t. alone to honor their own paper would provide “perfect protection” against inflationary designs. There–I slipped up and gave away part of my program.
A very common position on the right is pro-technology but anti-science. Glenn Reynolds and other techno-libertarians are enthusiastic about all kinds of technology, but are also AGW denialists, and generally hostile to science and scientists.
Questioning Al Gore & IPCC and their AGW models does not imply being hostile to science. Quite a few scientists have expressed their doubts of GoreTech (including Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson). Crichton’s State of Fear also outlined a number of important counterarguments to AGW, one being the reliability of temperature data (for that matter, Big Al, however well-intentioned, barely managed a C at Haw-vahd and unlikely knows margin of error from his Occi. stipend).
That said, I agree some rightists–usually the dixie biblethumping sort–are hostile to science, including evolution; yet there are liberal creationists as well (like Obama’s peoples).
But, John, why on earth focus on the opinion of one particular and not extremely influential non-expert as if to characterize (negatively) an enormous population holding a different opinion, among whom may be counted not only qualified and respected scientists but at least a reasonable number expert in “climate science” and closely-related disciplines (Lomborg, f’rinstance)?
I don’t want to characterize the pro-AGW as trying to promote hysteria or some sort of lifeboat-choice politics but the very plain fact is that many of them, in expressing their views, dismiss those of their opponents either as the result of cognitive or educational deficits (in the case of laymen) or as corrupt, malign, and perfidious conspirators
in the employ of “interests” of one kind or another.
Moreover, relatively little attention is paid to the economic inroads (and their consequences) of the array of technical and regulatory “fixes” proposed One thing that must be recognized as a truism is that market participants, at any given instant, behave in just such manner as provides the maximum from the minimum, the least waste of whatever is most valued. Any alternate behavior undertaken to reduce one or another negative externality must be paid for in reduced productivity as compared with the previous instant (otherwise it would already be the favored alternate).
Your “side” wants to justify such costs against problematic benefits in the future. But, whether you might wish to recognize it or not, there are heavy costs to be borne in the very present by those very least able to afford them. You and I may voluntarily choose to dispense with one or another frippery of the modern, materially comfortable lifestyle–not much skin off our nose. But there are others who merit consideration and get damn little, especially from the many different types of restrictionists on the left (and I don’t mean of the Bell Curve) who represent themselves as interested in the plight of those less fortunate. There are those whose very existence is marginal (and I do not mean the term figuratively). Even under the best system ever known, there are some (millions, actually, at any given time) whose very lives are compromised by any appreciable rise in prices (or restriction of productivity). At some point, some (or all) of these will die, along with their children. Most are nearly invisible and inaudible; they’ll go without much fuss. But they have neighbores, relatives, and related countrymen who are less likely to countenance their own peaceful demise–not while they still have some resources and the ability, courage, and desperation to use them violently, either against those they see in the position of enjoying what’s denied to them or merely of others even weaker than themselves. whom they may profitably despoil.
At the very heart of an understanding of economics is planning for a longer-term and improved future; such must always involve an increase in production in the short term from which the necessary capital improvements for the long term may be financed. Other than magic, have you any suggestions?
‘Waste’ is heavily dependent upon perception.
At present, our formerly-healthy ecosphere would seem to be a fantastic example of a ‘commons’ in the traditional economic sense. It is clearly in the immediate and transitory interest of anyone who might be abusing that commons to refuse to acknowledge the damage such harm could do, and so avoid having to pay to prevent or repair it.
In the long-term, of course, such behavior is against everyone’s interests. But people do not think in the long-term.
That’s true, Caledonian, and I could add to that description that we all recognize certain, though differing, instances and are nearly unanimous in insisting that, even when bordering on microscopic, they “all add up” to something worthy of opposition.
And, regarding “commons,” you might say that an ability of each to remain unaware of the effects on others (or even one’s self at some future time) with regard to those commons is, most certainly, a “default
setting” for the human race. Everybody’s entitled to a “pass” on the first go-round and, sometimes, quite a few beyond, mostly depending on the strength of the resources that can be mustered by the infringers or the outraged. Be of good cheer, though: once upon a time, everything was a common. Progress progresses.
gene berman
An even further reason is that, despite my complete confidence in the correctness of the economic truths I perceive (and which are entirely in line with the “Austrian School,” whose analysis guides my thought) I cannot know in advance if the major changes I’d suggest would or could actually be successful in bringing about the world-embracing changes I believe necessary.
Indeed, what’s the point trying to build some kind of right wing “mirror image” of the leftists hubris about shaping up a better world?
No matter the goals this is NEVER successful, what actually happens is always different from the intended results.
This comes from a fatal flaw in the Western Mind which is directly inherited from the Greeks cultural biases compounded with the scholastic demiurgic view of the world as God’s creation.
In trying to implement “man’s creation” instead you are surreptitiously infected by the very ideas you are wrestling.
The Chinese way is much more subtle, follow the flow but warp the meaningful details.
You couldn’t be wronger if you tried, K. I’m an entrepreneur, not an intellectual. I think I got something that everyone will want when they see it, except that there are many who will be vigorously opposed: namely all those whose wealth and incomes are derived mainly parasitically (chiefly governments, everywhere). That’s why I’m not more forthcoming. Not much to do with “Greek cultural biases” or views of the world’s creation; more like a better mousetrap, sliced bread, or bottled beer. Surely, you have no objection to bottled beer?
Vegas is the Austrian-school aka laissez-faire econ. in action: for that matter, the lending crisis was as well (arguably)–tho’ the blame is bipartisan (Clinton agreed to de-reg for one). That’s not to suggest some collectivist alternative: even Keynes argued for various regulations (including price controls, on occasion), and govt. intervention when necessary.
That said, it’s rather debatable whether economics ranks as a Science as physics is science: it’s more akin to sociology with high-powered stats. The law of supply-demand may apply in a warehouse–rarely in a macro situation. One of the great myths of the right may be having Americans believe Econ. 101 is a well-defined science. Galbraith had some interesting thoughts along these lines. While too liberal for many a frat boy, JKG avoided the romantic errors of marxists and multiculturalists.
Only to the extent that the casinos do not have to coerce their patrons into spending their money on that which entertains them, which is what the vast majority of tourists are doing there.
I think e-bay is a better model of laissez faire economics. A good or service is worth precisely what a voluntary consumer is willing to pay for it; no more, no less. The profit made by the seller is nobody’s business but his own, as long as there is free competition in the marketplace. High profit margins invite competitors; efficiency and value discourage them.
Government intervention always disrupts a free market and makes fools out of consumers, in the guise of trying to “protect” them. Without government, caveat emptor would cause buyers to check out sellers themselves, rather than just assuming that the government will prevent a business from ripping them off. In any case, the last person I want deciding what I can buy, from whom, or what I should pay for it, is a bureaucrat. ◄Dave►
Without government, caveat emptor would cause buyers to check out sellers themselves, rather than just assuming that the government will prevent a business from ripping them off.
So like, according to that pure libertarian vision, the govt. should eliminate safety and healthy standards as well as environmental standards, and allow businesses to sell anything–say old and/or tainted meat–since it’s the consumer’s responsibility to know via caveat emptor. A sucker born every minute. Even e-bay has rules to prevent consumers from being ripped off –still scams and frauds a big problem. Boomtown libertarianism hardly superior to socialism….(as thousands of recently unemployed technical and professional people suggests as well too). Really, ebay seems fairly monopoly-like: create a massive online flea market (Miss Whitman, proprietor), eliminate the competition (start-up cap. probably due to her inheritance, and family/college connections, etc.) and then charge hefty fees to all the schmucks who trade there. Yes, some people do rake in some shekels: Miss Whitman and her execs have lined their pockets…
How on earth did our forefathers ever manage to survive without the FDA and OSHA? Think. How long would a butcher who sold tainted meat survive in business? I am continually amazed at the number of clueless consumers who pitch up at my business wanting to sign up their kids, without the slightest interest in checking our references or asking even rudimentary questions about our program. When asked, they allude to the fact that Social Services licenses and regulates us, so it must be a safe place for their child. Yet, SS could care less what our education program is, and only inspects our facility semi-annually. These days the typical dumbed-down buyer isn’t even aware of what they should be aware of. It is pitiful.
I have never heard of anyone ever being forced to do business with e-bay. Anyone objecting to Ms. Whitman’s profitable endeavors are free to not contribute to them. Your anti-capitalist mindset is evident. You Progressives sometimes amuse me. It is as if 10,000 years of human history counts for naught, now that your generation has arrived on the scene to explain to us how we ought to organize our society and live our lives. ◄Dave►
How long would a butcher who sold tainted meat survive in business?
One butcher among many will not, a large nearly monopolistic meat provider will, unless Big Bad Government steps in.
We aren’t anymore at the “tribal scale”, are we?
Surely, you have no objection to bottled beer?
Certainly not but you probably are a bit optimistic about the proper level of regulations which ensure fair trade.
You also assume a very simplistic view of human life, nice commodities are only part of the story.
Do you think that Islamists would be content with your best trade environment?
If not what is missing?
Where does this comes from?
K:
You’ve posed questions of a very general nature, probably irrelevant or of minimal relevance for the improvements I envision. But, then, since I hadn’t “spelled out” anything definitive, I can’t load you with any deliberate design to obfuscate. But, in posing your objections, you’ve raised a couple points of contention that I think are, separately, worthy of some degree of clarification.
The first is the term “fair trade,” which has at least three definitions, at least two of which are technically restrictive, i.e., they are partisan slogans. The oldest is an enforceable pricing scheme dominating retail trade to 1948 or so, in which manufacturers could decree, via contract, prices to which resellers were bound. Second is an everyman’s concept of exchange being “fair,” in that sale involved no misrepresentation of product characteristics, exaggeration of benefits, monopoly pricing, future legal entanglements, etc. Last is a reworking of the first but with a board or approving organization to consider a retail item’s compliance with a set of standards (which, when met, permitted the use of an identifying logo) directed toward the “fairness” of conditions in which (usually foreign) workers toiled; the purpose was to permit the consumer to distinguish between products on the basis of employment conditions. To which of these had you reference?
I don’t think that I’ve assumed anything whatever–simplistic or otherwise–about human life. Man does not live by bread alone, I’m quite prepared to concede; he might not only want a spot o’ gravy in which to dip it but some peace and quiet in which to enjoy. Where do I go wrong?
What have I said that makes you think so?
Islamists! Aye, there’s the rub. Now, if you’re referring to Muslims in general, I expect wholehearted approval, whether with dancing in the street or not, I’m blank. But, if you’re talking folks committed to one or another form of aggrssive and violent jihad and the reduction of the infidel to subservience or death, no, I’ve got no miracles nor airborne
psychotherapeutic agents in the package. But then, nothing’s perfect, eh?
But, again, I’ve got to use the bottled beer simile, so you can see that I’ve not got some head-in-the-sand, pie-in-the-sky misapprehension of the human race. This is ‘way better than bottled beer because Muslims
aren’t supposed to drink beer, bottled or not (and they wouldn’t go for a Jaegermeister Standard, either, I don’t think).
I trust you’ll get back with clarification (or something).
Dave:
“How on earth did our forefathers ever manage to survive without the FDA and OSHA?”
Well, not all of them did. Many died from the tainted meat, bad drugs and employer negligence (or gross negligence.) That’s why we have the FDA and OSHA.
Dave, do you think that the government has any role in the free market? Specifically, do you think the government has a role in preventing counterfeiting or prosecuting check fraud between private parties??
@Kevembuangga
People don’t buy their meat from a “large nearly monopolistic meat provider,” they buy them from a local retailer. That retailer has a strong market incentive to choose a reputable supplier. Besides, which do you think a large meat packer fears more, the FDA or a negative news story?
Private enterprise, in the form of private testing labs and trade association “seals of approval” etc. are infinitely more effective at assuring quality than any bureaucracy. It is pretty easy for big business to buy off politicians to keep the governmental regulations on their industries to a minimum standard. It is competition and the need to maintain a positive reputation in the marketplace that really regulates their quality. ◄Dave►
@Grant Canyon
Isn’t it interesting that the same folks who use the word “choice” the most often, are the ones who most wish to deny freemen choice in the marketplace or education? The same people who get apoplectic over the idea of initiating a preventative war against a real existential threat to our very civilization, are the ones who spend so much effort to regulate every facet of our lives to prevent the slightest risk to life, limb, or health; whatever the cost and even if a freeman might wish to choose to take such a risk in pursuit of his own notion of happiness.
No, Grant, if government is involved, the market isn’t free is it? Your specific examples are not about free markets. The Constitution charges Congress with the responsibility to coin and regulate the value of money (which they abdicated to private bankers – why are Progressives cool with that?), so yes they have a role in preventing counterfeiting. Check fraud is a crime of course, and local governments are empowered to prosecute fraud; but I don’t see it as a Federal issue. ◄Dave►
@Dave,
Perhaps, but the fact that people were really dying and really getting sick because they could not trust the marketplace to insure the safety of the drugs, food and their workplaces was the casue of the institution of OSHA and FDA. Whether that was the correct response or whether they’ve been properly run, of course, are separate issues. (And for the record, I have not noted my position on this subject, so your apparent jumping to conclusion is a bit premature.)
“No, Grant, if government is involved, the market isn’t free is it? Your specific examples are not about free markets.”
Here I disagree. First, whether an action is constitutional or not is irrelevant to the question. The FDA and OSHA, which you apparently disagree with, are both constitutional. Second, my question was not limited to merely federal government, but government in general. (Or do you think that local interference with the free market is okay?? I pegged you as a free market absolutist, so perhaps I am wrong to start this discussion with you.)
The reason that I ask is this: if it is an impermissable (unwise, or improper…) for the government to get involved in the market to insure that sellers are selling untainted meat, should it not also be impermissble for the government to get involved in the market to insure that buyers are not using “untainted money”?? And if it is proper for the government to prosecute fraud, would not the sale of tainted meat be, per se, fraud, justifying government intervention??
(I ask these questions not to argue, but because I am genuinely interested in the underlying principles.)
Grant Canyon:
Though you’ve addressed your criticisms/questions to Dave, I’d like to jump in and furnish some expansion/explanation/elaboration on a few, whether or not they coincide with Dave’s responses: where they have, I’ve saved him the time and trouble; and, where not, he can express himself.
For my part, I admit to the moral miasma called pragmatism, though I recognize the multitude of sins that such appellation covers. But pragmatism does not condone the crude Marx-derived “get-out-of-jail-free
card” summed up in their own interpretation of the words “the ends justify the means.” Read the words over to yourself a few times. Truer (nor more moral) have rarely been spoken! It is a sad commentary on various human tendencies toward partisanship and the tendency to seek justification for the unjustifiable that a perfectly tautological phrase, i.e., a truism, has been transformed into a catch-all excuse for the transparently inexcusable. I should add that Marx and his modern-day followers do not deserve all the blame; the thought itself or some similar expression has provided justification for malefactors of every sort since time immemorial. Marx & Co. only gave it a veneer of respectability and gave it an honored place in their plans.
Here, I’m going to bring in an article of economic and social science first enunciated by Von Mises in the 1920s. At first blush, it may not sound like much nor even very revolutionary an idea. It is the very type idea that could occur independently to me, to you, to the “man on the street” and be almost as quickly forgotten in the press of everyday living. Yet it is fundamental to any understanding of society and the role played by authority (gov’t.). The eminent achievement of Mises was in tracing the further consequences, step-by-step, of the underlying
consequences, in considering authoritarian intervention with any aspect of market function. The structure of prices as they appear on the market at any instant is a summation: all goods offered at that price “clear” (find buyers) willing to pay that price. That simply means that the introduction of any “new” market datum, whether new production, new demand, whether of that commodity or any other, rearranges what we’ve called the price structure of the market. Though it is possible to construct an intervention such as a restriction very narrowly and it is, in fact, usually so constructed (the interferers, usually legislators, are rarely intent on actually “wrecking” either the general market or even that particular market (except in the cases of general prohibition, with which I’m not here particularly concerned to treat).
A case, well examined by many, concerns attempts to make housing “more affordable” and is, in most cases, undertaken at the behest of organizations claiming to represent renters unfairly subject to demands for rent-increases on the part of capricious and rapacious property-owners. The rent-restriction “works” in the sense that higher rentals become illegal; upon passage, all those who might have let given premises at an even higher figure can no longer let their money “talk” for them: some other method must be found on which to allocate the available units among all those desirous. Tenancy at the controlled price itself becomes a salable (though illegal) “good.” (My daughter shared a penthouse in NYC with an elderly widow. The owners “condominiumized” and sold the other apartments in the building as tenants moved out. For years, the owners offered the lady increasing bonus payments if she’d find other quarters but even the $2.5 million offered didn’t interest her–she liked it there and had no need of the money. Happy ending: she fell in love with an even wealthier widower and moved to his place. But that’s extraneous.) The mere fact of the controls constitutes at least a partial “freeze” on the production of additional units that would be subject to control. Property-owners’ returns on their investments are likewise frozen and costs increased at least by the cost of preparing petitions for allowance of increases they seek. But the effect on mid-to-lower-level housing is devastating. Since increase is impermissible, the quickest and surest route to maintenance of ROI (or its increase) is a deliberate policy of reduced maintenance of the property itself; everytthing not absolutely required to comply with the law is neglected. And, in the face of tenant complaints about such neglect, more and more facets of the property’s characteristics become subjects of law (and the concomitant enforcement and openings for corruption). This is the recipe for spread of “slum” conditions almost anywhere such control has been legislated.
But, it doesn’t stop there, ny any means. Those who are in the business of developing new housing units in the controlled area are influenced beyond what ordinary business consideration would dictate. Frequently, they are subjected to demands to produce units other than those which are their choice concern: you want to produce X units in the “A” price class?–we’ll approve it if you also produce Y units in the “F” price class. Enuff–you get the idea.
Another example is the practice of quite a few states of the US to support their own, in-state dairy farmers (it’s for the children, of course) by waging war on out-of-state dairies located in those areas possessing greater COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGEs for the production of milk: minimum prices below which milk may not be sold are declared, thus eliminating the advantage of the out-of-staters (lower price). So, farms whose existence cannot be justified economically are kept in business for years (and their farm families assigned favored positions doing work they’d “rather” do instead of whatever the vast number of consumers would prefer).
The point is that in many cases (most, actually), the interference produces effects (unforeseen or not) considered negatively by the interferers themselves. At each such juncture, legislators are confronted with a tripartite choice (and do, in fact, choose from the three in various proportions as circumstances dictate): 1.) do nothing (endure the negative consequences as the best solution to the original problem); 2.) repeal the original interference because the negative consequences outweigh the positive; and, 3.) pass yet another round of interferences designed to counteract the negative consequences. All choices are rationalized: they make one or another kind of “sense.” But the less-well-known-and-understood choices (1 and 3, preceding) have untold and underappreciated ramifications: they may require control of pricing in other commodities related to the production in question; they may require control of the form of the business entities engaged in the controlled activity (requiring local offices in order that the entity not escape interference on constitutional “interstate commerce” grounds—and, many, many, more—most of which are beyond my own competence to enumerate or describe.
The upshot, the general “takeaway” point is that society, our society, is always on a path with absolute freedom at one end and absolute totalitarianism at the other. Each step toward totalitarianism is most likely to face those on the path, very shortly, with another choice leading further in that direction: this is the general idea to be gleaned from Hayek’s THE ROAD TO SERFDOM: his “road” is the path I just described. If you want particulars, read the book. I haven’t because I already understand the process and its inescapability: you’re either headed in one direction or the other. (And, by the way, Mises used the description of the process, “way back in the 1920s, to point to the inadvisability (and the unbelievablity) of any such representations as a “third way” or middle road.” And it bears mentioning that, at almost the very same time, the same guy said that, one day (though allowing for the passage of time), the USSR would “collapse like a house of cards, simply cease to exist,” not because of totalitarianism but simply because of the lack of any means for rational “economic calculation.” As we see the government become involved with automobile manufacturing, insurance, lending via stock-holding of financial institutions, and further control of home-ownership lending, it looks like our direction on the “path,” already well-established, is accelerating.
@gene berman
Funny thing about a road… I spent all of my long life on or near a road connecting Maine and Florida, and I’ve never been to either one. Because you can always stop. Or take an exit. Or turn around.
Grant:
If you’re likening that road (US 1 in bygone days and now I-95) to the
path I described, the metaphor is inappropriate; except, perhaps, for climate and topographical differences, any point along the road may be considered “perfect” or “most desirable”; on the road I’ve posited, there’s ALWAYS a tendency (provided by politics) to move in one direction or another and nobody can elect the direction not dictated by the current majority without negative consequences.
Grant:
Did you know that there’s a famous American who was credited by a foreign government with saving the lives of at least 10,000 of their citizens per year (long before he became famous)?
Did you know that there was another famous American who was credited with the personal saving of 77 lives at the risk of his own (long before he became famous)?
The first was Herbert Hoover, who later became famous as the originator of the idea of “relief efforts,” which he devised (and orchestrated) to assist those without food and shelter in the aftermath of WW I. Only later had he anything whatever to do with politics. He was a mining engineer contracted by the Chinese to help modernize and improve their methods.
The second was Ronald Reagan–at home in Illinois, as a lifeguard on a local lakefront beach, before he’d ever gone out to California.
Just thought I’d ask.
@Grant Canyon
Only if you are the sovereign driver, Gene. Get on a bus, whose driver has agreed to follow the “will of the people,” and you may end up needing a jacket or sunglasses you hadn’t planned on when you started the trip.
Back to your questions: I am not an anarchist. When I lament “government,” I am usually referring to the Federal government. I could care less what rules and statutes the fools in NYC, SF, or LA choose to bedevil themselves with, I can and do avoid such infernal places. It is when they work toward getting Congress to pass imprudent statutes to interfere in my life out here in flyover country that I get riled up.
Selling tainted meat might be a fraud, depending on intent, whether it was warranted as otherwise, and a refusal to offer a remedy to the hapless buyer; but the fact that such fraud might occur, is no justification to place onerous regulations, which always increase the price to the consumer, on every butcher in the country just to try to prevent this rare occurrence. Of course, tainted meat still occasionally gets sold… and the big operators quietly agree to pay a fine for their negligence, are almost never prosecuted, and carry on with business as usual without the average clueless consumer being the wiser.
Would you eschew the opportunity to buy a sugar cured ham or side of bacon from a local farmer that a friend vouched for, at a significant discount, because his smokehouse hadn’t been approved by the FDA? Most wouldn’t. Why take that perfectly valid rational choice away from consumers? Must we always be treated like children, just because some people don’t want to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives? ◄Dave►
@◄Dave►
Opps… I meant: Only if you are the sovereign driver, Grant. ◄Dave►
@Gene Berman:
I recall your mention of Mises’ short analysis of Rome’s fall as against the whole of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall in a GNXP thread about AE from 01/2008. It was very instructive. Having gone back to read that section (“Observations on the Causes of the Decline of Ancient Civilization” from H.A., Ch 30) just now, I’m unsure as to its validity as an analogy for our civilization (the American, not the Western whole). I see more and more interconnectedness with the growth of urban centers (80% urban pop. in US). Not 10% of these people would go back to the countryside to sustain themselves. They would instead agree to wage war on whomever it took to get their necessities and stuff. They’d likely wage it on each other.
Excuse the hyperbole, but that’s what you get in the Macro arena. Though after today’s speech on the coming economic recovery intimated by Obama, this one statement by Mises does seem apropos:
“The Roman Empire crumbled to dust because it lacked the spirit of liberalism and free enterprise. The policy of interventionism and its political corollary, the Fuhrer principle, decomposed the mighty empire as they will by necessity always disintegrate and destroy any social entity.”
The Austrians such as Von Mises would have America revert to a monarchy. They were sort of Randians who knew a bit of econ. and statistics…
Hyena Con:
Yes. I mention it whenever I feel it appropos and especially to those I think have the slightest prospect of reading more of Mises than just that passage, like what’s called a “teaser.”
But I did not want to suggest that the scenario offered by Rome’s decline was a script to be reenacted in modern times. In some respects, Rome was, with regard to its relatively primitive development (compared to our own) in more advantageous position. A considered view is that the fall was a process, rather than an event and the civilization was resilient quite on account of its primitivism: the degree to which specialization of function and interdependence had not yet progressed further than actual at the time. As you note, there were many who still had some option on where to go and what to do. Nor even can it be said that a complete monetary collapse had occurred. Despite continual debasement, there still existed coin of some appreciable and usable “money” content and the idea of paper money and note issue were elements still far in the future.
To my way of thinking (and I do not here want to claim any “scientific”
validity nor that my particular perception is specifically or necessarily
Misesian) the critical portentious elements are: 1.) population size; 2.) degree of function-specialization, especially with respect to the maintenance of life; 3.) degree of monetary interrelatedness. To these I would add some degree of influence related to the state of “speediness” critically relevant in the distribution of the most life-dependent goods and information concerning them. You could say, very simply, that “the better off we are, the worse it will be” but that is not a factual representation but more on the order of “the bigger they are, the harder they fall.”
Civilization and complexity of production are virtually the same thing. Productive relations cannot become less complex without also becoming less civilized; the critical element in determining degree of change is time: whether nutritive requirements are adjusted downward over a generation by trends in fertility, by killing large numbers seeking (or defending) food or its sources, simply throught the starvation of those suddenly “supernumerary,” or the likeliest scenario, a combination of the foregoing.
In Rome, the most advance and developed urban center, anyone could walk into a food-producing sector in relatively short order. But how many days’ food is contained within the confines of most of the worlds’ urban centers? In a monetary collapse (and I here want to point out that, over the entire world, there isn’t a single “convertible” currency, nothing likely to be accepted as worthy of exchange (except specie in private holdings), who will bring in new food supplies, or pay the truckers, or the police, or the people manning oil refineries (or the rigs themselves)? Bear in mind that news of any kind can be disseminated worldwide within hours—or even minutes. The mind boggles, as the expression goes.
In no wise did I wish to point to specific difficulties of the present as either symptoms or portents except to say, that in an unsustainable monetary system (as I believe ours–and the worlds’–to be), every crisis and everything that occurs (other than natural disaster) to reduce productivity and progress is related to the inadequacy and fault of the system itself. Nor can particular blame be attached, as partisans are programmed to do: “Bush did this.” “No, it goes back to Clinton.” Obama said he was going to…” No one can figure any of it out, least of all anyone who hadn’t seen it coming.
Nor is there, in my view, any prospective “cure.” A return to convertibility and some sort of “standard” might provide a degree of stability. But the inadequacy of such a regime is precisely that it’s subject to authoritarian control: it can be set aside in the future just as has been done in the past.
I have been saying for some time that if one has not reread Atlas Shrugged as an adult in the past few years, it is worth doing just to notice how prophetic she was. This morning in the WSJ, Stephen Moore has a column entitled, ” ‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years” ◄Dave►
Miss Rand’s Nietzsche-lite does entertain, tho’ some of us find RandSpeak a bit, je ne sais quoi, odorous. Perhaps if WSJ or Rand.com supplied RandRespirators…
Rand is an excellent example of Yang virtue. And, as an over-sharpened knife quickly dulls, as an example of Yang excess as well.
Her unwillingness to compromise her message served her well, but it also led her to refuse the editing of others and make stylistic choices that were probably a bad idea. In several cases she insisted upon characters making speeches that, while arguably good presentations of her points, were not at all plausible within the context of the story’s events – i.e., Francisco’s long monologue at the party.
If only she had tempered her understanding with some Yin…
For that matter, the WSJ writer blaming the lending crisis on supposed “re-distribution” policies has not bothered examining the facts. For one, Clinton, working alongside Gramm/Gingrich GOP, in effect reversed the New Deal policies and banking/speculation regulations (google “Glass-Steagal” act), and gave lenders and finance biz. more freedom. The GOPers complaints about FanMae/FredMac (a Nixon policy as well) are therefore quite misplaced: it was Gramm/GOP who pushed for more freedom for lenders to write loans to iffy borrowers.
True, Dems have not done much: then, neither did GOP controlled congress of pre-2004. Clinton, supposed “liberal” agreed with Gramm-‘s de-reg schemes for most part. While I understand the Randian’s distrust of bureaucracy and sham liberalism to some extent, De-reg was Randian libertarianism, all the way: Ayn Randonomics arguably resulted in the lending crisis.
@Caledonian
Agreed. The soliloquies were monotonous; but only a failure of style. One can get a much better explanation by reading Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, but how many people would have ever read it, even if they could understand it? Atlas shrugged is the best selling book of all time, except for the bible (they are now saying that about Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life, however, so my data may be dated).
In any case, the point I and Moore were making was her stunning prescience. Life continues to imitate art; and the clueless altruists continue to snidely denigrate those of us who subscribe to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, however she chose to present it.◄Dave►
@J.
Oh, please! Laissez Faire Capitalism hasn’t come even close to being tried in the past hundred years, anywhere on Earth. Galt’s Gulch used gold for money, not worthless IOUs printed in green ink. To suggest that tweaking with the parameters of a decidedly Keynesian economic system could somehow render it “Randian” is ludicrous. ◄Dave►
The gold standard’s arguably sedition, according to Founding Father standards. I understand the complaints again monetarism, but there are, theoretically speaking, other ways to approach the issue (say a grain standard–which Abe Lincoln supported at one time). As I said previously, the Randians and Von Mises crew (a bit more subtle than AR) simply want to recreate ancien regime monarchy circa 1600 or so, but won’t cop to it.
Btw, were New Deal controls on speculation and banking “clueless altruism”? Nyet. At the very least, Randians should cop to the fact that libertarianism does not necessarily result in sound economic or social planning. Pure laissez-faire might be good for wealthy Randians, but not the greatest good for greatest number, etc.
@J.
Just so you understand, there are the faulty premises of your arguments, right there. Laissez Faire Capitalism is the antithesis of “economic planning.” Individual Liberty is the antithesis of “social planning.” Altruism is nearly defined by “the greatest good for the greatest number.” I completely reject your premises as having the slightest claim on my life as a rational sovereign individual. None. I am neither a serf or slave, I am a freeman. ◄Dave►
Not about altruism, but about like a stable, ordered society for one. Even assuming pure self-interest as motivation, some people (many in fact) might support various policies and regulations that lead to a certain degree of stability. I am not suggesting pure egalitarianism or marxism: doctors should make more than nurses, teachers more than janitors.
It may be in our best interest, however, to create an economy which will prevent massive unemployment, not to say riots. Indeed, I think that’s Hobbes’ arguments: a somewhat equal distribution of goods and resources leads to stablity (supposedly). Rand’s pop Nietzchean ideas are not much better than anarchism. If that’s your code, fine: but don’t cry when other types of anarchists (like say the mafia) use the same code against you…..
@J.
I am not an anarchist, and nothing in objectivism precludes hiring a sheriff, but I would take the mafia over socialism in a heartbeat. They only take 10% for their protection racket. Your lot is way too expensive. ◄Dave►
“I completely reject your premises as having the slightest claim on my life as a rational sovereign individual.”
Well, rhetorically, you can call yourself “sovereign,” but you really aren’t. You are part of a society, and the society, like it or not (and I’m sure you don’t), does exert power and control over you. (Whether that exercise is wisely exercised, is unjust, or is legitimate is irrelevant. That external control exists.)
@Grant Canyon
Not in my world. You could be free too, if you would allow yourself to be. ◄Dave►
Madison, Jefferson & Co would not have lent their support to the likes of Ayn Rand, or the quasi-monarchistic ideas of Von Mises. Mercantilism does not entail the Randian pirate ship. Capn’ Aynnie, arrggh. Jefferson opposed the early capitalism and finance schemes of Hamilton as well. At the same time, those liberty lovers were not perfect either (some Malthusian considerations might have assisted)
Back to the original question, “Who is more pro-science? The Left or the Right?”. The Left likes to say that the Republicans are anti-science. Being anti-science implies that they want to suppress scientific research. However, this is not the case with the Republicans. They just feel that if you want to develop new science and technology, you should pay for it yourself rather than relying on government grants. In the same vein, I don’t think that the Left is, in general, anti-science either. They believe in using government-funding to develop the stuff they think is important. But they do not seek to suppress privately funded scientific research either.
@kurt9
They don’t just believe in it, they demand it; and denigrate anyone who doesn’t want to spend the public treasure on it. They might not suppress private research; but they will do everything in their power to suppress the results of it, if it does not comport with their worldview. E.g. Bell Curve & AGW, etc. ◄Dave►
“Not in my world. You could be free too, if you would allow yourself to be.”
As I said, rhetorically, you can call yourself “sovereign,” but in reality, you are not. You may believe (and may be able to find some like-minded people who also believe) that the society and government have no power over you, but they do. To ignore or deny it is self-evident error.