Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Misdiagnosing Our Health
The March issue of The Atlantic has a heartening--especially for the venue--defense, in a fine Hayekian style (without ever mentioning Hayek, or any of the other libertarian thinkers who have been saying the same things for decades), of American capitalist freedom and a lament for how little most Americans seem to understand or appreciate it. The piece, "Capitalism: The Movie" by Clive Crook, is hooked to some of the usual (correct) observations about how the output of most of our big-deal pop culture storytelling is casually and consistently anti-capitalism as it is practiced in the U.S. of A.
Only the first two paragraphs of Crook's piece are available for free online to nonsubscribers. But some summational excerpts for you:
The point is not that...movies or the culture more generally, argue that capitalism is evil. Just the opposite: it is that they so often merely assume, innocently and expecting to arouse no skepticism, that capitalism is evil.
......
It is astonishing that in an economy of America's size--to say nothing of the world economy as a whole--a limitless variety of goods and services is continuously offered at prices people are willing to pay, without persistent gluts or shortages, entirely without central direction. That the system also calls forth an endless flow of innovation and improvement is a miracle.....And it gets better, because this infinitely complicated, decentralized system has an obvious affinity with personal liberty, in a way that a centrally directed system never could. Market exchange, after all, is voluntary; under central planning, you are told what to do--or else.
This popular unease with capitalism is important and regrettable, Crook says, because
the mood of discomfort and suspicion is a pity in itself, to the extent that it is unwarranted. Also, it fosters a demand for, or tolerance of, frivolous or wasteful interventions by government.
He goes on to blame economists mucked up in specialization unable to sell or explain the larger story of economics: the glorious and complicated and life-giving spontaneous orders that arise from free exchange. And he blames businessmen for talking free markets out of one side of their mouth while calling for subsidies and import protection from the other.
I similarly argued in this Washington Post book review that popular misunderstanding and disdain for free markets is an important dog that didn't bark in Gregg Easterbrook's musings on why increased wealth hasn't led to universal glee.
Windypundit|2.14.06 @ 12:06PM|#
...he blames businessmen for talking free markets out of one
side of their mouth while calling for subsidies and import
protection from the other.
Oh yeah. One of the Great Economic Lies is that business and
industry are synonymous with the Free Market. Captains of industry
and leftist radicals both tell that lie but for different
reasons.
|2.14.06 @ 12:08PM|#
I similarly argued in this Washington Post book review that
popular misunderstaning and disdain for free markets is an
important dog that didn't bark in Gregg Easterbrook's musings on
why increased wealth hasn't led to universal glee.
No, increased wealth alone won't lead to universal glee
(not that there is such a thing), but I'd like to see how happy a
modern, sophisticated, Gregg Easterbrook would be if he gave up his
posh, well-paid, pundit income for a life of ascetic poverty. He'd
be bawling for his cappichino maker and his 401K in 30 minutes or
less.
On a personal, rather than an "universal" level, more wealth would
make me VERY, VERY happy. Not because I could purchase all manner
of frivolous luxery, but so I wouldn't have to be dependent on
anyone, nor would I have to worry (as I so often do) when times get
hard. I could pay off my debts, expand on my level of education,
save and invest for my retirement, etc.
So don't lecture me about how "money can't buy happiness." I'm dirt
poor right now, and frankly, it sucks donkey dick.
|2.14.06 @ 12:21PM|#
I'm not sure what your saying. A picture would help me understand that better Akira!
|2.14.06 @ 12:24PM|#
I'm not sure what your saying. A picture would help me understand that better Akira!
|2.14.06 @ 12:24PM|#
"entirely without central direction"
That seems to be an unanalyzed (and clearly false) assertion.
|2.14.06 @ 12:25PM|#
"He goes on to blame economists mucked up in specialization
unable to sell or explain the larger story of economics"
That's the bloody truth. We need more Bastiat's and Hazlitt's and
less applied mathemeticians.
|2.14.06 @ 12:26PM|#
"He goes on to blame economists mucked up in specialization
unable to sell or explain the larger story of economics"
That's the bloody truth. We need more Bastiat's and Hazlitt's and
less applied mathemeticians.
|2.14.06 @ 12:29PM|#
On a personal, rather than an "universal" level, more wealth
would make me VERY, VERY happy
Lotteries provide nice case studies of what happens to happiness
with instant wealth. Anecdotally, it doesn't seem to be true that
people become much happier, but I have to say I think I'd be an
exception, so I won't tell someone else that they wouldn't
be...
|2.14.06 @ 12:42PM|#
Lotteries provide nice case studies of what happens to
happiness with instant wealth. Anecdotally, it doesn't seem to be
true that people become much happier, but I have to say I think I'd
be an exception, so I won't tell someone else that they wouldn't
be...
That's because lottery winners tend to be uneducated trailer park
trash who are somehow capable of blowing through a couple of
million dollars in less than a month, only to end up back at square
one.
I would submit that if you gave that lotto money to someone with
more intelligence (not to mention, class), there is a good chance
they'll use it wisely.
|2.14.06 @ 12:49PM|#
Windypundit: You hit the nail on the head. I don't think movies are necessarily anti-capitalist; they are typically anti--big evil corporations oppressing the little guy. It all depends upon how you define "capitalism".
|2.14.06 @ 12:53PM|#
My kids have to learn about the various cultures that make up the US and how to express their feelings in school, yet any knowledge of captialism is learned behind the woodshed, or (even worse) at daddy's knee.
kgsam|2.14.06 @ 12:54PM|#
Perhaps people are unhappy because they have the feeling that they are benefitting from an evil system.
VM|2.14.06 @ 12:56PM|#
Native: good thing they didn't learn capitalism in catholic
school. :)
akira: good call. cheers.
einstein:
still waiting to hear why math is bad... oh. like sigmund fraud and
karl jung and the myers-briggs bullshit where you make shit up,
don't test it, but run with it. good. gooooooooooood.
sounds like someone got his wee willie weenie stuck in the noam
chomsky doll as it deflated ("AGF" returned it when it was still
soiled).
no sweaty pillow fight for you.
|2.14.06 @ 1:03PM|#
VM - They ARE in catholic school, hence no business
education.
They have great penmanship and can sure write stories, though!
|2.14.06 @ 1:18PM|#
thoreau, I was curious about whether anonymity was a possibility
if I won the Florida lottery. It's not--your
identity has to be made available upon request. However, if the
dollar amount were low enough, not many people would bother to ask
for your name. Other than stock brokers and realtors, of
course.
My advice to you, therefore, assuming the state(s) you play in take
a similar approach, is to only win $10-15 million. Then legally
change your name to thoreau. And pay me a small 10% gratuity for my
legal advice :)
|2.14.06 @ 1:27PM|#
I hit the lottery in a figurative manner when I married a woman
with a multi-million dollar trust fund. I can't say it has made me
any happier.
Life is pretty much exactly the same, except I live in a somewhat
larger house with a bigger yard, and I drive a nicer car. I spend
more money on travel, but I actually enjoyed the dirt cheap travel
better (camping is more fun than staying in a $250 a night
resort).
What has managed to make me infinitely more happy is having kids
and marrying the woman of my dreams. The money, honestly, didn't
make much difference.
Then again, it's not like I was poor before-hand, just normal
middle-class....
Tim Cavanaugh|2.14.06 @ 1:36PM|#
I'd like to see how happy a modern, sophisticated, Gregg
Easterbrook would be if he gave up his posh, well-paid, pundit
income for a life of ascetic poverty. He'd be bawling for his
cappichino maker and his 401K in 30 minutes or less.
Easterbrook has pre-empted you on the hypocrisy-detection front.
He's pretty straightforward in his belief that people poorer than
himself should stay that way, that Mexicans shouldn't be able to
buy SUVs, and that he's above the irresponsible behavior he's
describing. And that The Jews are responsible for Kill
Bill.
I would submit that if you gave that lotto money to someone
with more intelligence (not to mention, class), there is a good
chance they'll use it wisely.
Don't take it personally, but I despise people who say they want to
get rich so they can avoid needless luxuries and use their money
wisely. I want to get rich so I can BUILD A FUCKING DIRIGIBLE AND
FLY AROUND DROPPING BALLOONS FILLED WITH BUTTERSCOTCH PUDDING ON
PEOPLE! Who's to say an economy of people like me, each pursuing
his own bliss, won't produce a rational economic result in the
aggregate?
|2.14.06 @ 1:40PM|#
Tim, I'm with you.
I always wondered why people like Bill Gates throw cash away on all
sorts of charities and yet don't set out to build a pyramidal tomb
for themselves twice as big as the great pyramid. You know,
osmehting that will last for the next 10,000 years.
Or carve their face onto the moon or something.
MP|2.14.06 @ 1:40PM|#
I hit the lottery in a figurative manner when I married a
woman with a multi-million dollar trust fund. I can't say it has
made me any happier.
I am oozing envy out of every pore. Why? My dream life is
simple...I don't want to have to work without losing my current
lifestyle. If I had found a sugar mama, I know what I'd be doing
right now, and it would be sitting here in the office.
Dan T.|2.14.06 @ 1:44PM|#
Capitalism seems great to Americans because it's easy to forget that much of our stuff is made by child slave labor overseas.
Wild Pegasus|2.14.06 @ 1:44PM|#
In the anarchy, if you dropped a balloon with butterscotch
pudding on me, I'd blow you out of the sky with my backyard rocket
launcher.
ObTopic:
"You know they say money can't buy happiness. Give me 50 bucks and
watch me smile." - Bobby "The Brain" Heenan
- Josh
|2.14.06 @ 2:00PM|#
curiosly/drf:
If economists ever want to reach the public at large and convince
them of the superiority of the free-market over coercive government
to solve society's problems they need to lay off the applied math
published in your average econ journal. I've got nothing against
math in general, but if economists ever want to be truly relevent
they need to speak in a language that the public is capable of
understanding. (Of course most economists are not libertarians and
are fine with their mathematical models, but I was thinking
specificly about libertrian-oriented economists.)
|2.14.06 @ 2:19PM|#
MP - the flaw in your theory is that rich chicks (or any chick
for that matter) don't respect guys who don't work. So, it doesn't
matter that I have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of
my life - I still have to go to work every day.
The only comfort is that I really couldn't care less if I get
fired, so I don't work very hard.
What's really strange is that, just like in Office Space, my career
has really taken off now that I don't care what anyone thinks and I
stopped working so hard.
Mike|2.14.06 @ 2:31PM|#
the glorious and complicated and life-giving spontaneous
orders that arise from free exchange.
It actually has nothing to do with economists being unable to shout
the good news across the land. The "problem" with the free market
is the inevitability of there being losers. Yes, the vast majority
win, but that's a dog bites man story. The man bites dog story is
what gets the play: the people, no matter how few, who lose.
Until capitalists learn that 100 "look at that iPod you're
holding!" stories don't balance out even one "homeless child
freezes to death" story, the free market is going to be the bad guy
in the plot.
Dan T.|2.14.06 @ 2:34PM|#
Yes, the vast majority win
Are you sure? It seems to me for every Sam Walton there are
thousands of Wal-Mart cashiers.
For every Phil Knight there are thousands of Asian children making
shoes for $1 a day.
|2.14.06 @ 2:36PM|#
The "problem" with the free market is the inevitability of
there being losers.
I don't know, that seems to be the "problem" with reality is that
there are inevitably losers. It's certainly not unique to the free
market.
Tim Cavanaugh|2.14.06 @ 2:40PM|#
For a poor family, things can only get better.
Tell that to a poor person who's ever gotten sick, been in an
accident, or accidentally shot somebody while hunting quail.
|2.14.06 @ 2:45PM|#
quasibill -
i think a lot of the problem you describe stems from the way econ
is taught in schools. at least as an undergrad, you spend most of
your time in class solving specific questions based on a model that
is handed to you by the professor. e.g., given certain assumptions
about demand, solve for the deadweight loss associated with a tax
on some good. really, this is the easy part. what they should be
teaching is how to come up with those certain assumptions.
math is really secondary to the goal of economics, but the way it
is taught in colleges often makes it seem primary.
|2.14.06 @ 3:05PM|#
Quasibill, there is a school of economics that does just that,
the Austrian School.
Two of their most comprehensive books are free online:
Cato Institute founder Murray Rothbard's "Man Economy & State":
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
and his teacher Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action":
http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp
|2.14.06 @ 3:21PM|#
I think Dan T. took a wrong turn at Albuquerque on his way to the Marx-Lenin chat room...
|2.14.06 @ 3:24PM|#
Tim, if I ever get "stupid rich", I'm building a Roman villa.
Out of marble. On a hill. And my girlfriend and I will walk around
in togas speaking Latin. And we'll host chariot races ala Ben
Hur.
But money will never change me.
Peter K.|2.14.06 @ 3:52PM|#
Like Tim, I probably wouldn't do responsible things with my new-found wealth. First I'd lease a rocket from Russia and check out outerspace as that one rich dude recently did. Next, at my compound, I'd erect a ridiculously humungus rotating statue of myself, modeled on the one Khazakstan's post-Soviet dictator has.
VM|2.14.06 @ 4:48PM|#
m:
the thing about econ is that there is a ton of room for
mathematics. there are massive methodological problems with the
austrians, especially in their "rejection" of mathematics. most of
it sounds like these people were too smart to pay attention or
study hard, and they whine off into the sunset.
just because the populace and the press don't understand math and
probablitiy/statistics doesn't mean the disciplines are bad. you
have a bad choice of medium, that's one thing, but it doesn't
suggest that quantitative tools are broad brush bad. nor does it
suggest when the populace and press misunderstand the report that
you can immediately finger who was being obtuse. as with
press/populace "understanding" of medical studies (viz. 2003
hypertension study), the press and populace are the ones who are
missing the boat, however.
i'm working with someone right now on fleshing out some of the
methodologies (inclusion of game theory) with austrian econ. i'm
just a peripheral, small player here, but i'm helping. lots of the
traditional, naive proponents of austrian econ do what many of the
austrians do - look at neoclassical economics as it stood in the
50s.
it is not a question of synthesizing micro and macro into one
discipline. they (contemporary austrians) have had massive problems
with that, including resorting to ad hoc hypotheses. there is room
for micro and macro.
it has a lot to add to contemporary economics, but it is far too
lacking to replace. it's like your friendly neighborhood
chriopractor - maybe has some good techniques, but those who
advocate replacing all medicine with chiropractice are fucking
quacks. austrian is an alternative/supplemental school at best,
right now. its importance lies in its contributions that it can
make (and this is where i'm actually assisting)
a study of arbitrage would dovetail nicely in the austrians'
rejection of equilibrium. however, it can be explained by
arbritrage, and many other components of the austrians cannot
explain other observed happenings. (and there's a ton of ad hoc
explanation about this, too).
related to this are contributions austrians make to consumer choice
under uncertainty - rejecting "perfect information" is a good
thing. however, it's dropped after the basic theory is understood.
"perfect competition" is also dropped - instead you draw endless
fucking edgeworth boxes and talk about cornhole... cournot and
bertrand... argh!!!
the usual clif clavin'esque complaints about mathematics are valid
for the small group that tries to bombard with math. I have yet to
come across such a person or a paper. i've heard about 'em, but
never seen 'em. actually, the worst group are the dogmatic few who
use ad hoc hypotheses and misdirections and hair splitting. the
most recent example was from an austrian. and he, unfortunately,
was just as bad as the euro-social-weenie that spoke last
semester.
often, people are "frightened" of math and run from there. you need
intermediate level math to do advanced economics. it is a
shorthand. it is a tool of analysis. just as econometrics is a tool
of analysis. nobody credible claims it's The Answer. However, my
critique of the austrians is that they claim to have "the Answer"
in a Jungian sense.
one thing with econ is that people rush to ask "is X a Keynesian?"
and many here on this board then "get worried". the thing is, what
most here understand as "supply side" is a mere smoke screen for
policies that can be better explained by the keynesian multiplier.
Bush's plans are basic demand stimulation. N.G. Mankiw is a
"keynesian". and the laffer curve, although it exists, doesn't
explain a damn thing about any stimulus from any econ policy we've
seen.
nor is t(max) = t(optimal), by the way, but that's how naive laffer
curve denizens try to go about it. we're on the ascending side of
the curve. all explanations that try to show that economic policy
"prove" the laffer curve have to show it, and surprise, none of
them do. they're using the words together, but they're not showing
a damn thing. one reason could be that they're talking the supply
side game, but are playing short term stimulus of keynes. the
current administration and the NRO types are big into this right
now.
instead of worrying about the mathematics, i'd suggest that we join
forces and push to get better rigor in the principles level courses
(with most undergrad econ, you're not gonna get into calculus and
linear until later on, but you can get a strong foundation before
then).
austrian econ offers quite a lot, not as much as Mises et al would
like to suggest, as many of their criticisms are no longer
relevant, but there is good room for them. they need to relax a
bit, 86 the "this is how it is" lingo (like freud and jung), and
hop aboard.
(many books and discussions about the gold standard are also naive
in this way - i have yet to read anything credible that really
suggests going back on gold)
cheers,
VM
|2.14.06 @ 5:39PM|#
Since I spend most of my time talking and socializing with
people who would identify as liberal progressive, and find it hard
to embrace capitalism, and think libertarians are right-wingers, I
get to hear their concerns about capitalism all the time. Here are
my impressions on why capitalism is defamed:
- Government interference is habitally ignored and industry is
habitually blamed. Example: anybody read the first chapter of Fast
Food Nation? It talks about how the government subsidized the
roads, and then Firestone et al bought up all the rails and
destroyed them. Never mind whether that last part is an accurate
reflection of events. The point is that it was the government's
interference that got them much more than a foot in the door. But
my feeling is that nobody really thinks much about that part when
they read it, at least not after they read the rest.
- I make a moral claim for capitalism - that it works best for
everyone overall. But I am making a tradeoff. I'm trading the
welfare of today for more of it tomorrow. I argue that by not
attempting to alleviate pain collectively now, we will foster the
evolution of better mechanisms in the future. And this is surely
true, and more or less fair, since someone should not in general be
forced to support someone else. But it IS a tradeoff worth
considering, is it not?
- We exercise our prerogatives in the real world, where our trading
partners are sometimes in collusion with corrupt governments and
their customers and competitors are less well-connected, and less
free and educated than ourselves. When we strike deals with these
partners, we may be part of the problem.
- Perhaps to state the obvious, capitalism doesn't hide its
unpleasantness. When people fail, they fail, it sucks, the market
doesn't claim that they're going to be all fine and dandy because
of some bureaucrat's largesse.
|2.14.06 @ 6:27PM|#
Perhaps money can't buy happiness. But it can sure make your miserable, lonely existence a lot more comfortable.
|2.14.06 @ 6:34PM|#
VM, I think you significantly misrepresent the characteristics
that diffrentiate the Austrian school from other schools of
Economics.
The fundamental axiom that drives the Austrian school is the
"Subjective Theory of Value". This axiom posits that value exists
only in the mind of someone evaluating an object, and that every
individual has an their own valuation of objects.
This leads to a rejection of aggregation of values such as when
computing the GDP, since to add the values of various items and
services, one has to settle on some unique conversion factor. Since
each person has their own matrix of conversion factors, the values
that one picks will be by necessity inaccurate.
(An example: I value 10 apples as being equal in value to 2 cups of
sugar and four lbs of butter. My neighbor values 10 apples as being
equal to 3 cups of sugar and 3 lbs of butter. If my neighbor and I
are the sole producers in a little economy, and we produce 15
apples 15 cups of sugar and 60 lbs of butter, what is the GDP of
our little economy? The Austrians argue that any calculation will
be flawed and thus of very limited utility)
The Austrians do not reject the use of mathematics (this is a
common misconception), but rather the usefulness of econometrics as
a predictive art.
Again, let us perform a thought exercise. I come up with a theory
that caqn be used to definitely predict the demand for commercial
passenger aircraft for a year in the future. My theory is so good
that any person plugging in the effects of regulations and prices
for all major suppliers can arrive at the number of units sold in
the next 12 months accurate to within 4 days and 1 unit.
Being a wolly-headed academic I publish my theory, and it proves
remarkably predictive and everyone starts to use it.
Now, let us assume that due to some changing condition, there will
be a surge in demand, and my theory predicts it. Now how do all the
varous players in the economy act?
The aircraft makers may try to maximize their profits by announcing
price increases. The airlines will attempt to adjust their demand
so that they need fewer aircraft delivered or raise their prices to
allow them to pay for their additional costs. Bus manufacturers,
railroads and the cruise ship industry will attempt to siphon of
passengers affected by the reduced service and rising costs.
In essence all the actors in the economy will attempt to turn the
prediction to their own profit, and through their actions negate
the prediction. This leads the Austrian school to consider
ecnometrics to be a tool for analysing the past, of some use for
making qualitative predictions about the future, but pretty
worthless for making quantitative predictions about the
future.
Now let me turn to gold or "gold-buggery". VM, I fear you have been
snared into the common trap of thinking the status-quo is
natural.
Money is a comoddity used for indirect exchange. For example, let
us say I am an egg farmer, and I want to buy a blanket. If the
blanket-maker is allergic to eggs, or does not like them, I cannot
get a blanket from him in exchange for my eggs. On the other hand,
perhaps he likes potatoes, so I trade my eggs for potatoes and the
potatoes for the blanket. In a free market, as thousands or
millions of people make millions or billions of exchanges, various
comodities will be used for indirect exchange. Just in this
century, we have had wheat, gold, silver, cigarettes, green pieces
of paper and even stale loaves of bread used in this manner.
While making these trades gradually people will begin to prefer
some commodity over others as having the most universal appeal. In
the late 19th century, the commodity happened to be gold, but it
could have easily but for an accident of history been platinum,
glass beads, or uranium. The choice of commodity is not important,
the fact that it was arrived at as a result of people exercising
voluntary choice is what matters.
The demise of the gold standard was not due to a failure of the
standard itself. Rather, various governments during and after World
War I sought to purchase items or services for which they did not
have the means to pay. So they created the means to pay by first
printing receipts for gold that they did not posess, and when the
receipts began to lose value relative to other
commodities(inflation), and the attempts of people to convert these
receipts into gold threatened to bankrupt them, they arbitrarily
redefined money to be whatever they said it was, often forbade or
severely limited people's ability to own gold and forced people to
use the tokens they had decreed in all their trading. This allowed
them tocontinue to create more tokens out of thin air and enjoy the
term benefits of spending them.
To me, it is not the gold standard (or platinum standard or
cigarette standard) that requires defending, but rather the current
system of cetnral banks printing paper currencies that are unbacked
by any commodity. So far I have not heard any convincing argument
in their favour.
Personally, I strongly urge anyone interested in advocacy for
free-markets to read Rothbard's work. At a minimum, you will be
entertained.
|2.14.06 @ 7:43PM|#
VM/drf:
My main point is that economists do not do enough writing aimed at
the common man (hence my reference to both Hazlitt and Bastiat.)
Most of what they write is read by other economists and ignored, to
everyone's detriment, by the rest of the population.
Also,I never said all math was useless. I do believe that there is
too much emphasis on model building and not addressing fundamental
questions in economics. But even if economists' mathematical models
are correct and I am wrong, what good do they do if no one outside
of academic economists is familiar with them?
|2.14.06 @ 8:00PM|#
While I agree with Crook, I don't really care for terms like
"astonishing" and "miracle".
The fact that the market provides more variety at lower cost, with
more innovation is no more a miracle than a rock falling to the
ground when you drop it.
|2.15.06 @ 9:54AM|#
No one has brought up the fact that people seem to instinctively
dislike meritocracies, and a real free market would be the perfect
meritocracy. People still love what are essentially anti-Capitalist
myths - Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Christianity etc. In all of
these world views success is granted by "grace". You are chosen by
God, or by birthright (which amounts to the same thing). If you're
not chosen by God - if you're an Orc or a Philistine - than the
hell with you. I think these kinds of stories make it much easier
for people to face up to their own failures. What would you rather
tell yourself - 1) I don't work hard enough and can't compete with
people who are better at innovation and organization than I am or
2) I wasn't born a King of Gondor so why should I be expected to do
anything? As people have pointed out, a true meritocracy is very
hard on the losers. At least in feudalism if you were a peasant you
could curse God for making you be born into peasantry, it wasn't
your fault.
Another problem with free markets is that people are clannish -
when given a choice they will instinctively favor their family
members, their neighbors, even people of the same ethnic
background. The genius of the free market is that it erases the
efficiencies this nepotism creates, but on the other hand elites
will always fight this tooth and nail and will recreate "crony
capitalism" to a greater or lesser degree creating an inherent
contradiction. The free market is constantly destroying inefficient
family businesses, but most Americans are very sentimental and view
this as a "bad thing."
|2.15.06 @ 10:03AM|#
"a real free market would be the perfect meritocracy."
I don't think I buy that. There are plenty of things that are
supremely valuable that the free market doesn't automatically
reward, and plenty of things that have nearly zero value that get
rewarded handsomely. Think Mother Theresa (or perhaps a clinic
doctor in Africa) and Paris Hilton, respectively.
The beauty of a truly free market lies not so much in the good that
it provides (which it certainly does) but in the evil that it
avoids.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245